Sitting of 26 July 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.
RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; an Amendment made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.
ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Government Grain Silos
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on the use being made of the Government grain silos.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 16th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Pott).
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, which I have studied. Can he say in which of these premises drying facilities will be available?
    Mr. Amory: There are drying facilities in all of them. One of them is a drying depot only, and the other silos have drying facilities.
    Mr. Willey: Will these facilities continue to be available?
    Mr. Amory: The understanding with the tenants was that the silos would be available for grain storage and drying.

    National Farmers' Union (Minister's Letter)
    Mr. Goochasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he included in an official letter addressed to Sir James Turner, the President of the National Farmers' Union, on the subject of future Price Reviews, specific permission to the recipient to disclose its contents to whomsoever he thought fit.
    Mr. Amory: Special Reviews are of concern to farmers throughout the country, and I felt that the N.F.U. should be free to pass on the contents of this letter to all those whom it thought might be concerned.
    Mr. Gooch: Is the Minister aware that this morning the Executive Committee of the Union of Agricultural Workers passed a resolution in the following terms:
    "… we are forced to interpret it"—
    that is, the letter—
    "as an unwarranted intervention on the part of the Minister in the affairs of the Wages Board"?
    Is he further aware that, in writing the letter, he has incensed both farmers and farm workers? Is he aware that the Executive Committee of the National Farmers' Union in Norwich last Saturday passed a resolution protesting against this letter? Did not one farmer at that meeting refer to his letter as sheer blackmail and a virtual repudiation of the Agriculture Act of 1947?
    Mr. Amory: I really would recommend the hon. Member to consult his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who sent the most specific warnings to the Agricultural Wages Board on one occasion, after an application for a wage increase was received, as to the consequences of any possible action by the board on the chances of recoupment at the next Annual Price Review.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister say whether the document he has referred to—of which I am not aware, but which must exist—related to a general February Price Review or a Special Review?
    Mr. Amory: I referred to the consequences upon recoupment at the next Annual Price Review. It said, I think, that the matter of a Special Price Review was a matter for separate consideration.

    Pigs and Bacon (Report)
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take in connection with the marketing of pigs and bacon as a result of the Report of the Reorganisation Commission on Pigs and Bacon.
    Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) on 12th July.
    Mr. Price: Will the Minister bear in mind that the present state of affairs in the pork and bacon market is so uncertain that it would surely be better, in the interests of producers, consumers and taxpayers, to implement something like the recommendations of the Commission in the not too distant future?
    Mr. Amory: I note with interest the hon. Member's view. I think he will agree that the whole question is a most important one, and that I should be right to take some reasonable time for its consideration and discussion with the interests concerned before making up my mind.

    Progeny Testing Stations (Pigs)
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has now been made in the setting up of progeny testing stations for pigs in the country.
    Mr. Amory: Good progress is being made with building the first station at Selby (Yorkshire), which I hope will be ready to start testing early next year. Tenders for the other three stations in England and Wales have been accepted.
    Mr. Price: Are the finances for these stations being found by a levy or direct from the Treasury?
    Mr. Amory: The capital cost of these stations is to be met by the Government,
    610
    in the first instance, and recovered from the industry over the years through the mechanism of the Annual Price Review.

    Turkeys
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is towards the importation of turkeys in the forthcoming autumn and winter.
    Mr. Amory: Our policy remains to allow importation freely, apart from restrictions imposed for balance of payments reasons or considerations of animal health.

    Livestock Producers, Pembrokeshire (Meat Prices)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange for his officials to consult the Pembrokeshire National Farmers' Union on the prevailing prices for home-killed meat and the current tendencies in the utilisation of livestock.
    Mr. Amory: My officials keep in touch with N.F.U. Headquarters about prevailing prices and trends for home-killed meat. So far as the position in Pembrokeshire is concerned, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 19th July.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman's officials cannot consult the National Farmers' Union in the district?
    Mr. Amory: No, none at all, as to general consultation. In fact, I believe that a meeting has been held between my officials and the Pembrokeshire National Farmers' Union today—either it has been or will be held.

    Eggs (Marketing)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's future policy on egg marketing.
    Mr. Amory: I cannot add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) on 20th July.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to make a statement on this matter before the Recess?
    Mr. Amory: I am not sure whether I shall be in a position to make a statement or not, but I will see that there is no avoidable delay in making up my mind or in notifying the promoters of the scheme of any modifications that I may require before feeling able to put this proposal to Parliament.

    Imports
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an assurance that he will have regard to the views of marketing boards when formulating import policy on the commodities with which they are concerned.
    Mr. Amory: I shall always regard marketing boards as a principal source of information on production, prices, and prospects of the commodities with which they are concerned; and I shall always be ready to consider any views or advice they, or other responsible organisations, may wish to offer. But decisions on import policy, which must necessarily be taken in the light of the widest considerations, can only be a matter for the Government.
    Major Legge-Bourke: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask him if, in view of the fact that at the moment boards have to rely very largely on Customs and Excise information regarding imports, and the fact that that information is not available to them until it is almost too late to be of the slightest relevance, he will allow and, indeed, encourage them to set up their own information staff at the ports of origin, which I think would be legitimate under the Act?
    Mr. Amory: I think that market intelligence is a proper activity for marketing boards. I will be glad to help them in any way I can.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that it is not merely a case of market intelligence, but a much narrower point of information with regard to imports, and that it is vitally necessary for these boards, particularly marketing boards, to have that information at the proper time, and not too late? Will he look into that point, because at the present time it is important that the Potato Marketing Board should have current and up-to-date information?
    Mr. Amory: I will look into that point, because I realise its importance. It is important that boards should have all the information that is available as to imports and prospective imports.

    Myxomatosis
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent he estimates that the dearth of rabbits owing to myxomatosis has affected the population of other beasts and birds and, in particular, foxes, rats, weasels and buzzards.
    Mr. Amory: I have insufficient evidence at present on which to arrive at any reliable estimate. There is evidence that foxes and other predators of rabbits have turned to rats and other small ground vermin. Buzzards suffered a substantial reduction in the breeding rate last year, but they are now said to be recovering in some areas.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend make every effort to keep himself abreast of all existing developments in order that we may be able to appreciate whether the lack of rabbits is a blessing or a curse?
    Mr. Amory: Yes, I most certainly will take my hon. and gallant Friend's advice on that point. I think the present evidence is enough to show that, in general, these changes are a blessing. Quite apart from rabbits, the reduction in rats, whatever the cause for it, is really most encouraging, and will redound very much to the advantage of home food production.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Canteen Advisory Service
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour how many members of the Canteen Advisory Service he proposes to retain.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): One only as a canteen adviser, but my right hon. Friend is considering whether any of the other advisers can be employed in another capacity.
    Mr. Lee: Is it not a fact that, on the day on which the Parliamentary Secretary informed us that he was not aware of

    613
    the numbers who would be left, in fact advice was sent out to the unions concerned that only one would be retained? Does he agree that, at the 39th Session of the International Labour Office at Geneva, this country undertook certain responsibilities in these terms:
    "The competent authority or some other appropriate body should make suitable arrangements to give information, advice and guidance to individual undertakings with respect to technical questions involved in the setting up and operation of canteens."
    How does the hon. Gentleman propose to carry out that recommendation if he has no people to do it?
    Mr. Carr: It is not correct to say that we have no people to do it. We have this one adviser, and we believe that in modern conditions that is all that is necessary. With regard to the first point in the hon. Gentleman's Question, I said in reply to the question which was raised by the hon. Gentleman that it would be one, two, or three, and perhaps only one, but that I could not say definitely. That was my personal position at the time.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour to how many officers of the Canteen Advisory Service he has issued notices of dismissal; and on what date these notices were issued.
    Mr. Carr: None has yet had final notice. On 16th July, when the announcement about the future of the service was made in the House, an explanatory letter was sent to every member of the service concerned. On 24th July, preliminary warning was given to the four temporary advisers that in a month's time they must expect to receive formal notice that their appointments will end on 30th September.
    Mr. Swingler: In that case, will not the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend reconsider this position? Is it not a fact that many industrial firms as well as overseas Governments have been using the services of these advisers and have found their work both necessary and desirable? As only a small number is involved, is it worth while dispensing with them in view of the essential kind of work which they are doing?
    Mr. Carr: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to reconsider this matter. In these things we must get our priorities right. We are not saying that this service
    614
    has not done good work, but we are saying that in modern conditions it cannot be regarded as essential in relation to the other calls of more essential things which we have to do.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour to what extent factory inspectors are trained in the provision and maintenance of catering facilities.
    Mr. Carr: There are three industries in which there is a statutory obligation to maintain a canteen, and factory inspectors are fully competent to see that the requirements are being observed. The Canteen Advisory Service is being discontinued because it is no longer considered necessary to give detailed advice to managements on the running of canteens.
    Mr. Swingler: Is it not a fact that the Factory Inspectorate is already overstrained and that winding up the Canteen Advisory Service means the imposition of additional duties on factory inspectors with the inspection of canteens and advice on the provision of canteens? How is the already overstrained Factory Inspectorate to cope with these duties? Is it not a fact that it will not be able to cope and that these duties will be neglected?
    Mr. Carr: Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that we are expanding the Inspectorate.
    Mr. Lee: Is it not a fact that in 1955 more than 2,000 applications were made for technical advice on the opening and running of canteens? In those conditions, how can it be said that there is no real need for the services of the Canteen Advisory Service?
    Mr. Carr: In our opinion, such advice is readily available and can be provided without public expense.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour what regulations are now in force regarding the provision of canteen facilities for industrial workers; and which industries are affected.
    Mr. Carr: Regulations requiring the provision of canteen facilities are contained in Codes of Regulations relating to three industries—building, jute and clay works.
    Mr. Swingler: Statutory duties about canteen facilities are imposed in three

    615
    industries at any rate. Does not that make it clear that additional duties are now being imposed on a not yet expanded Factory Inspectorate because of the liquidation of the Canteen Advisory Service? Would it not be better at any rate to wait until the Factory Inspectorate has been expanded before dispensing with the services of the Canteen Advisory Service?
    Mr. Carr: The service is, of course, an advisory service, and it is my impression that the statutory regulations must be and are studied by factory inspectors.

    Factories (Fire Escape Certificates)
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour how many factories have received certificates indicating that their fire escape arrangements are satisfactory.
    Mr. Carr: Thirty-three thousand, one hundred and sixteen.
    Mr. Lee: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what percentage that is of the factories which come within the provisions of the Factories Acts?
    Mr. Carr: About 45 per cent.

    Thorne Colliery, Doncaster (Closure)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the forthcoming closure of Thorne Colliery, near Doncaster; and what action he proposes to take to ensure the local reemployment of the 2,400 miners involved.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I understand that most of the men concerned will be offered a transfer to other pits within daily travelling distance. For any who seek other employment, the facilities of the employment exchange service are available, and I understand that there are substantial demands for labour within that distance.
    Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that is and has been going on during the last few days without any intervention or help on his part, and that it covers only able-bodied miners who can work at other pits? Is he aware of the fact that there is a large number of partially disabled older men, for whom his Department must assume
    616
    responsibility, and will he take special measures to see that they get alternative employment?
    Mr. Macleod: We will do everything we can, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This is one of the main man-power deficiency areas, as far as the Coal Board is concerned. In regard to the great number of the workers concerned, it is possible to offer alternative employment. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, that there will be difficulties during what, we hope, will be a temporary closure of the pit, and my Department will do everything it can to help.

    Building Industry (Safety Regulations)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of his intention to review the safety regulations of the building industry, he will invite the representatives of the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives to consult with him on the matter.
    Mr. Carr: There is no present intention to undertake any general revision of these regulations, which were made in 1948, but revision of certain points is under consideration. My officers have already had discussions with the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives, and there will be further consultations if necessary.

    Remploy
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour if, during the next five-year period, he will take steps to allow Remploy to carry forward to another year any sums allowed for maintenance which are underspent in any one year; and if, in connection with the annual accounts of Remploy, he will consider allowing a notional sum as a credit in respect to each Remploy trainee who is able to transfer to open industry.
    Mr. Carr: Maintenance, as distinct from capital expenditure, is included in the grants for running expenses which are allowed for Remploy in my Ministry's Annual Vote; in accordance with normal procedure any balance unspent cannot be carried forward to the next year. With regard to the second part of; the Question, I doubt if such a scheme is practicable or would secure the results; desired.
    Mr. Collins: While appreciating the difficulties arising from the second part of the Question, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend if he will consider publishing each year with the accounts the number of Remploy trainees who have left for industry and the average cost of training trainees?
    Mr. Carr: I will certainly consider that. I thought that information was available, but if it is not, I will certainly see whether it can be made available.

    Appointments Offices (Closing)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour the annual amount which will be saved through the closing of the three appointments offices in London, Manchester, and Glasgow.
    Mr. Carr: I estimate that the annual saving will be approximately £203,000, of which about £27,000 is provided as allied services by other Government Departments mostly on premises.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this saving—which is nearly half the savings announced by his Department—and the other economies which are being made come at a time when the Government's policy is causing more re-deployment to be necessary, and that therefore further difficulties are being created in finding suitable appointments for men who become unemployed? Will he not reconsider the matter, having regard to the fact that this economy may be extremely unwise?
    Mr. Carr: While I would certainly not wish to depreciate the value of the services which these appointment offices have rendered, it must be recognised that they are a most expensive form of placing. For example, last year only about 3,500 people were placed. I can assure the hon. Member that we are taking steps to continue this service by expanding the functions of some of our larger exchanges. The figure for savings which I gave was a net figure which made allowance for that expansion of certain other exchanges.

    Motor Workers, Birmingham
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Labour why it is proving difficult to find alternative employment for the 5,600 men dismissed in the Birmingham area
    618
    by British Motor Corporation, seeing that he estimates that 12,000 vacancies exist; and to what extent the list of vacancies has been reduced by employers now that labour is actually available.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yesterday there were 10,000 vacancies for men in Birmingham and within reasonable daily travelling distance. I told the hon. Member on 19th July that there were then in this area 1,662 men registered as unemployed who had been recently discharged by the British Motor Corporation, and no later figure is available. I am unable to agree that it is proving difficult in general to find alternative work for these men.
    Mr. Chapman: While I agree that it is too early yet to draw any definite conclusions, is it not a fact that a large percentage of the men who are actually being found work are not, as the Chancellor wished, going into exports or anything like that, but are going into the distributive trades and the G.P.O. and becoming bus drivers and so on, which are not essential at all?
    Mr. Macleod: As soon as we can, I will give the House a break-down by industries of the other occupations in which men find jobs. If the hon. Member would like it, I can straight away send him all the information which we have already, but it by no means bears out all the implications of his supplementary question.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not true that only half of the men dismissed by the company registered with exchanges, and does not that indicate that men have gone back to the jobs which they held before entering the motor industry?
    Mr. Macleod: It is difficult to draw firm conclusions, largely because of the incidence of holidays. One does not know whether many of these people may not come back from their holidays and register at the exchanges at a later date, but the true figure one can give at present is the one in my Answer, that 1,662 out of the total are registered as unemployed.
    Mr. Lee: Will the Minister now make special efforts to discover how many of the vacancies on the books are genuine vacancies? He and I know from experience that very many of them do not

    619
    really exist, and in these conditions it would be a good thing to find which are genuine.
    Mr. Macleod: It is not possible to be exact about whether each one of 10,000 vacancies is or is not genuine. What I can say is that, in general, as it has got more difficult to obtain labour in certain areas and in other areas the pressure upon labour resources has eased, so in sympathy with that the figures of vacancies have become a great deal more realistic in the last week or two than they were a few months ago.

    Dismissed Workers (Assistance)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour what discussions have taken place at the National Joint Advisory Council regarding representations by trade unions to employers' organisations, with a view to providing supplementary unemployment assistance or other forms of compensation in the event of workpeople being dismissed.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: None, Sir. The discussion of particular conditions of service is a matter for the joint negotiating machinery of individual industries rather than for the Council.
    Mr. Shinwell: As this matter has assumed general importance affecting a large number of workpeople, many of whom are in dispute about it, would it not be desirable for the right hon. Gentleman himself to take the initiative and bring the matter before the National Joint Advisory Council and ascertain its views, or consult one side or the other? Can he take the opportunity during the next fortnight, when most of the men are on annual holiday, to inquire into this possibility of finding some solution for what is becoming a very vexed problem?
    Mr. Macleod: Of course, it is a vexed problem. As a matter of fact, at the meeting of the N.J.A.C. yesterday I discussed with the members of the Council some of the general problems arising out of automation and the general situation about the displacement of labour. The Council includes representatives of the T.U.C., and I am certain that it regards the question of compensation for dismissal as one for settlement within the industries and, therefore, for joint negotiating machinery. The fact that
    620
    this has become a matter of national importance highlights the need for having these discussions through the machinery there is rather than through an advisory body, although it is wholly proper that some of the wider aspects of this matter should be discussed at the N.J.A.C.—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that—as was done yesterday.
    Mr. Shinwell: This matter is of general interest and concerns all hon. Members and the general public. Would not the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether it is possible within his powers to facilitate discussions of this kind? Will he take note of the fact that in the United States, a country supposed not to be as advanced in social matters as we are, schemes of this kind have already been adopted?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, indeed, but the experience of the United States rather proves my point than that of the right hon. Gentleman, because these agreements, which I think my predecessor brought to the attention of the employers and the trade unions, were negotiated by the unions with the motor corporations concerned.

    Shotts
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour how many men, women and youths were registered as unemployed at the Shotts Employment Exchange on 31st March, 1956, and on the latest available date.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The unemployment count is taken only on a Monday about the middle of each month. At 12th March, there were 83 men, 101 women, seven boys and two girls registered as unemployed at Shotts Employment Exchange and Youth Employment Office. The corresponding figures for 11th June, the latest available date, were 85, 220, five, and 39, respectively.
    Miss Herbison: Since the number of women unemployed has increased considerably, and the Minister in answer to a previous Question said that there was little likelihood of their obtaining employment in this one area, may I ask what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade, to find work for these girls?
    Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Lady says, this is a problem that largely concerns the employment—or the unemployment, unfortunately, at the present time—of women and girls, and it is largely due to the closing of the factory, about which the hon. Lady has asked many Questions and, perhaps, will raise others in today's debate. She knows that the President of the Board of Trade has been trying to find a tenant for this factory. Those efforts, so far as I know, have not been successful. I know that they are going on.

    British Motor Corporation (Strike)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Labour why, in view of the inevitable repercussions of the absence of notice, he proffered no advice to the British Motor Corporation about consultation on dismissals during the two days when he had advance notice that the dismissals were to be summarily announced.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 12th July.
    Mr. Chapman: The Minister then only said that he was not asked for advice, and I asked him why he had not offered it. If it was not conventional for him to offer advice, would it not have been better to break a few rules in order to avoid the present tragedy? Do the Government really mean what they say when they express horror at the action of Sir Leonard Lord? Does the Minister really believe that he was powerless and impotent on those two days to do something to prevent it all happening?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that at all. I said in my answer that this information was given to me privately, for my information. There was no question of my advice being sought.
    Mr. Shinwell: In order to avoid further trouble arising out of this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman, when information is conveyed to his Department with the possibility of similar dismissals, advise the firms concerned immediately to consult the trade unions?
    Mr. Macleod: I doubt whether I have made a speech since I became Minister of Labour in which I have not stressed
    622
    at all stages the necessity for consultation. I am very happy to do it again. If a suitable opportunity arises, I will, if necessary, bring that to the notice of the particular firm. In this case, the notice given was so short that it would have been quite ineffective.
    Mr. Jay: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Conservative Industrial Charter which proposes legislation to see that, in the case of dismissals, there should be long notice and adequate compensation?
    Mr. Macleod: The Conservative Industrial Charter is one of the most enlightened documents on industrial relations that has been produced since the war, and it is indeed a great encouragement to us all to find that a great many people on both sides of the House who are interested in industrial problems are turning to the solutions which it propounds.
    Mr. Jay: Does the Minister think that the 6,000 men who have lost their jobs will be satisfied with that answer?

    "Careers Guide" (Chiropodist Organisations)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a statement in "Careers Guide", April, 1956, an official publication of his Department, that the only training accepted as leading to a suitable qualification for inclusion in the British Register of Medical Auxiliaries is that approved by the Society of Chiropodists; whether he is also aware that the Institute of Chiropodists, formerly the Joint Council, and the Society of Chiropodists are mentioned as appropriate bodies in the National Health Service Medical Auxiliaries Regulation, 1954, and that the qualifications awarded by both bodies are generally regarded as of equal value; and what action he proposes to take to correct this mis-statement.
    Mr. Carr: The statement in the Guide is strictly correct. The complicated position in this profession might, however, have been more fully explained, and I will consider how best this information can be conveyed to the schools interested.
    Mr. Hastings: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Health,

    623
    decided, after careful study, that these two bodies were of equal esteem. How comes it that, as Minister of Labour, he takes a different view?
    Mr. Carr: I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not take a different view. As I have said, the information in this booklet is strictly correct, but I will see what I can do to have it amplified and made more clear.
    Mr. Hastings: Perhaps the Minister knows that the booklet says that only the Society of Chiropodists is a fit body, whereas, as was made clear in the statement of the Ministry of Health, both those bodies are regarded as of equal esteem. How can that possibly be?
    Mr. Carr: This is one of the few cases where both of us can be right, or anyhow largely right. The British Register of Medical Auxiliaries is maintained by the British Medical Association, which recognises only the Society.

    Dock Labour Scheme (Report)
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Labour when he expects the Report to be available of the Committee which has been inquiring into the operation of the Dock Labour Scheme; and what action he contemplates taking upon the committee's findings.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: This Report is being published today and copies are available in the Vote Office. As regards action on the Report, my first step must be to invite the organisations concerned in the Port Transport Industry, including the National Dock Labour Board, to consider the Report, and this I am doing immediately.
    Mr. Page: Having regard to the very considerable task which my right hon. Friend's predecessor set this Committee, may I congratulate the Committee in getting out its Report in under a year? It was a year ago tomorrow that it was appointed. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Report recommends any substantial reform in the Dock Labour Scheme, and if not, would he agree that he would be expressing public opinion if he told the parties—employers, unions and the Dock Board itself—to get on with the job of making that scheme work in partnership and not always using it as a scapegoat for its own ills?
    Mr. Macleod: The Report is in the Vote Office now. For the information of the House, I can say that no major change in the scheme is recommended. A number of minor changes are proposed. Clearly, I must have the views of all interested parties on this matter before I move.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports in the past have indicted employers for many of the delays that have taken place in the docks. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that the employers as well as the workmen carry out their obligations?
    Mr. Macleod: I am much less interested in indicting people for what has happened in the past than in ensuring that we get the best possible service from this industry for the country in the future.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Cyprus Funds
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that funds collected for alleged aid to dependants of imprisoned Cypriots have not in fact left this country; and whether he will investigate the matter with a view to taking action against anyone who has obtained money by false pretences, and returning the money to the donors.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the police have no evidence which would justify proceedings against any person for obtaining money by false pretence for this purpose.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Home Secretary not aware of the statement that was made in this House that the money collected for this purpose had not left the country? Can he enlighten the House about what has happened to it, and whether it is to be used for subversive propaganda objects other than that for which it was supposed to have been collected?
    Major Lloyd-George: If the hon. Gentleman has any information on that matter, I shall be glad to have it. He

    625
    probably is aware that there is no restriction on the transfer of money to Cyprus. I have no power whatever to order accounts to be produced.

    Spring-Clip Knives
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that, owing to the serious injuries which spring-clip knives can inflict and the menace of their sale, the New York Penal Law, Section 1, 896, has made it a criminal offence for any person to offer, sell, loan or give to any person any knife which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing similar legislation;
    (2) whether he is aware that renewed anxiety has occurred in consequence of the killing of a person by a boy 16 years of age by the use of a spring-clip knife, which boy was found guilty of manslaughter; and whether he will introduce legislation, similar to that contained in the penal law of New York, whereby a person who offers, sells, loans, leases, or gives, to any child under the age of 16 years any spring-clip knife or any other dangerous knife or any gun, revolver, or pistol, inter alia, is guilty of a misdemeanour.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am aware of the public anxiety arising from the use of spring-clip knives, and I am considering whether it would be possible to take any effective action to keep them out of the hands of young persons.
    Mr. Janner: Whilst I am very much obliged to the Home Secretary for at long last realising that something should be done about this matter, may I ask if he will say in respect of the first Question I asked whether he is satisfied or has made any inquiries to satisfy himself as to the effectiveness of the legislation at present in force in New York? In regard to the second Question, would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to realise that these "flick" knives can be used for no other than criminal purposes? Even if he is not actually an accessory to attempts to murder, at least he is putting some kind of instrument into the hands of youngsters which ought never to be allowed there under any circumstances.
    Major Lloyd-George: It is not as easy as the hon. Member makes it appear. There are things like sheath knives worn by Boy Scouts and all sorts of weapons which might be lethal but which are essential to ordinary trade. At the moment, I am having a study made of the New York legislation on the "flick" knife, but I would remind the hon. Member that such knives are greatly used by fishermen and others for legitimate purposes.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would it be possible for the Home Secretary to consult the President of the Board of Trade to try to stop the import of these knives, which come mainly, I believe, from Italy? That seems the simplest way out of the problem.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am looking into the matter and will certainly consult my right hon. Friend.

    Police Pensions (Personal Case)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why in the case of Mr. T. F. S. Milton, pension No. 6, HD 1081, the Ministry of Pensions award of £70 8s. l0d. was deducted from his basic pension before making the calculation of 10 per cent. for the pension increase under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956.
    Major Lloyd-George: Mr. Milton has received the award to which he is entitled under the Act. Regulations which I propose to make in the near future will, however, make it possible to calculate his pensions increase on His present award without any reduction in respect of the industrial injuries award to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Beswick: Is it not a fact that at the moment this man and all other former police officers like him have not in fact had their 10 per cent. increase? If the Home Secretary says that they were entitled to an increase under the industrial injuries award, is it not a fact that when that award was given the equivalent was knocked off the basic pension? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the arithmetic of the matter again, because these men are being deprived of something to which they are entitled?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think that is being put right but it cannot be done until the Regulations are made. It is a very complicated matter. In this case it will be back-dated to April last.

    Gang Warfare and Organised Vice
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will cause legislation to be introduced at an early date giving him the necessary powers to deal with gang warfare and the commercial organisation of vice.
    Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. Offences of violence of the kind in question are punishable by imprisonment for life, and suggestions for amendments of the law to give the police wider powers in conducting investigations would be unlikely to commend themselves to Parliament or the public.
    As regards the commercial organisation of vice, which is a totally different matter, the question whether any amendment, and if so what amendment, should be made in the law relating to prostitution is among those which are being considered by the Wolfenden Committee. As I said in the House on 2nd July, it would be premature and unwise to legislate on any aspect of the subject until the Committee's Report has been studied.
    Mr. Proctor: Does the Home Secretary realise that there are a large number of matters outside those of which he has spoken? The first refers to the recruiting for the police, and it is necessary for legislation to implement the recent awards, which undoubtedly would have a good effect very quickly. Does he not realise that a very large proportion of the difficulties arise from the bogus club and from drink? Would it not be possible to get some legislation through the House of Commons to deal with that? Would it not be possible, also, to consider prohibiting known gangsters attending racecourses?
    Major Lloyd-George: The hon. Member has asked a great number of supplementary questions. On the last one in regard to racecourses, I think he would appreciate that the position has been practically entirely cleared up compared with the situation in the 'twenties and 'thirties. The other supplementary questions are rather outside the terms of his Question. I repeat that there is already
    628
    punishment of imprisonment for life for some of these offences.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Does it not ill become the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) to ask a Question of this nature, as his party was largely instrumental for passing the anti-hanging Bill, thereby encouraging robbery with violence and, in the final resort, murder?

    Prisoners (Letters to Members of Parliament)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a letter handed in for censorship at Pentonville prison on 10th June and addressed to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury was not delivered until 18th June; and if he will cancel the instructions under which letters sent by prisoners to Members of Parliament are censored and copied before posting.
    Major Lloyd-George: I have been unable to ascertain the reason why the letter took so long to reach the hon. Member, but the delay, which I regret, does not appear to have been due to the time taken to censor or copy the letter. The purpose of taking copies of prisoners' letters to Members of Parliament was to facilitate inquiries and expedite replies to hon. Members' letters, but the practice has disadvantages and I agree that the experiment of dispensing with them might be tried. I am accordingly directing that the practice be suspended. As regards censorship of prisoners' letters, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on 21st June.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Home Secretary aware that the question of delay was far less important than the second part of my Question and this his reply to that will give great satisfaction? Will he indicate whether this change will be made immediately and that from today prisoners' letters to Members of Parliament will no longer be copied or censored?
    Major Lloyd-George: I am directing that the practice should be suspended.

    Bristol Prison (Accommodation)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the normal capacity of the Bristol Prison with

    629
    one prisoner for each cell; the present number of prisoners housed in the prison; and what steps are being taken to increase the prison accommodation and to deal with offenders other than by sending them to the prison.
    Major Lloyd-George: On the night of 16th July, 1956, there was normal accommodation at Bristol prison for 237 prisoners of which 207 places were in cells and 30 in rooms. There were 231 prisoners in cells that night and 37 prisoners in rooms. The additional accommodation in the two new prisons and the psychiatric institution which it is proposed to build will ease the pressure on general local prisons such as Bristol. I have asked the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders to consider possible alternatives to short terms of imprisonment and a Committee of the Council is actively engaged on the problem.
    Mr. Awbery: Could the Home Secretary tell us how many cells were occupied by three prisoners or more?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think there were 78 prisoners at that time who were three in a cell.

    Secretarial Agencies
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that some London secretarial agencies supplying clerical staff on a hiring basis deduct 4s. in every £ each week on the salary earned by such employees however long the employment may last; and whether he will consider legislation to put a stop to this practice.
    Major Lloyd-George: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to agencies who themselves employ staff and hire them out by the hour or day for secretarial work. On the information available to me, I do not consider that the terms of such employment is a matter which is appropriate for Government legislation.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that this practice bears very hardly indeed on many a woman or girl who has only this income to live on and that to take 4s. in the £ week by week is a shocking scandal? Surely the Government should take notice of it?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think it would be a new departure if the Government were to legislate to control wages between private people and their staffs.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: They are not their staffs.
    Major Lloyd-George: They are their staffs. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The right hon. Member says so in his Question. They supply staff on a hire basis. The Question refers to:
    "London secretarial agencies supplying clerical staff on a hiring basis."
    Therefore, according to the Question they hire out these people. In any case, I would suggest that those who take on this employment must know what the terms are before they take it.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is not the Home Secretary aware that the agencies do not employ them in the ordinary sense of the term? They advertise for them but never employ them themselves. They pass them on to employers. The employee has to go back week by week to the agency for the money and then the deduction is made.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am not sure whether we are on the same point. I assume that the girls employed must be employed by the agency. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Someone must go to the agency to ask for a girl to work as a typist. Whether she goes there or not, I assume she must know what the terms are. I should have thought that, with a great shortage of this type of staff at the moment, it would be possible to make a perfectly reasonable agreement. In any case, it would be quite a new departure for the Government to introduce legislation to control wages between private employers and their staffs.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Would it not be advisable to ensure that all these agencies are registered and that the terms on which they work should be subject to Government control? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Is not that the way to meet the problem?
    Major Lloyd-George: That is another matter. We are talking about what are the terms. It is up to the people who go to the agency to refuse or to accept the terms.

  EDUCATION

    Technical Colleges (Courses)
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Education whether in designating colleges as regional colleges of technology, he will provide for their continuing to offer courses designed to lead to university degrees.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): Neither colleges of advanced technology nor regional colleges which prepare students for university degrees will be prevented by me from continuing to do so, so long as the courses concerned remain efficient and economical. But, for the reasons given in paragraph 60 of the White Paper on Technical Education (Cmd. 9703), I regard it as important that students in technical colleges should be able to work for a qualification of high standing that would not involve the disadvantages inherent in an external degree.
    Mr. MacColl: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the regional colleges are encouraged to give university courses, it will maintain the quality of their staff and increase the general interest which they are taking in their work and make them feel that they are not being discriminated against for the benefit of the national colleges?
    Sir D. Eccles: There will not be any difference between regional colleges and the national colleges in regard to the Hives' award, and we think that it will be more in the interests of the students that courses should be drawn up to suit local needs, possibly local industry. The disadvantage of the external degree lies in that direction.

    Swimming Instruction
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the number of boys who have been drowned in British canals, rivers, and seas owing to their inability to swim; and if he will now provide better and more extensive facilities for the promotion, in schools and other places under their authority, of education in the art of swimming.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Local education authorities are well aware of the importance of teaching
    632
    children to swim. As to the provision of additional baths, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave him on 31st May last.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that this should be encouraged and that the provision of adequate education in swimming provides not only for safety but also for physical fitness, which should have a very high priority in his plan? Will he ensure that it has?
    Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir, I agree, and I admire the persistence of the hon. and learned Gentleman in raising the matter. However, I equally believe that local authorities are aware of it and are doing all they can.

    BOARD OF TRADE (MINISTERS)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the need for an extra Minister at the Board of Trade.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I am satisfied that there is no need for an extra Minister at the Board of Trade.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Prime Minister aware that either the number of Ministers is inadequate or his present Ministers are hopelessly inadequate? If he is not aware of either of those things, will he carry out an investigation to ascertain why the Ministry is so inefficient at present?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I accept the hon. Lady's last conclusion. I think she will agree with me that, even if Ministers are not always as accessible as she might wish on some occasion, that would not be a final argument for increasing the number of Ministers. Otherwise, we might find quite a multiplication sum going on.

    DIVIDENDS
    Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister what response he has received to his appeal to private industry by way of specific assurances that restraint will be exercised in the payment of increased dividends.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the recent statement of leading associations of private industry recommending to their members among other things great restraint in prices. Such restraint would naturally have an influence on the level of profits and dividends.
    Mr. Jay: Did the Prime Minister notice that the statement by the F.B.I. and other bodies contained no reference to dividends? In view of the recent interference by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in wage negotiations, is it now the Governments' policy that there should be Government control of wages but Conservative freedom in profits and dividends?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not accurate, and that my right hon. Friend's so-called "interference" is not accepted. There are other precedents in that matter. As regards the question of prices, the right hon. Gentleman might notice what the Director of the British Employers' Confederation said, that—it was quite clear in the matter—the solution of achieving the equilibrium lay in employers taking calculated risks in using their profit margins for steadying prices. I suggest that is exactly what the nation would like to see.

    HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS
    Mr. Snowasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the virtual indestructibility of certain sinister products, including strontium 90, following thermonuclear tests, and the consequential build-up of deposits, he will expedite discussions with the United States of America and give urgent consideration to the offer of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to stop further tests.
    The Prime Minister: I have dealt with this subject during the last few days, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statements which I have made.
    Mr. Snow: I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Question was tabled before he made his speech on Monday. Nevertheless, is he satisfied that public opinion has been sufficiently
    634
    aroused and alerted regarding the cumulative effects of these tests?
    The Prime Minister: As I said in my speech, I feel that the matter—we must be careful to strike a balance—is not immediately urgent in that sense. On the other hand, it is a matter with which, in my judgment, nations must deal before it becomes urgent. That is why we have thought it necessary to prepare ourselves for whatever consultations are required to try to bring the matter forward.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In all his answers and in his speech on Monday, the Prime Minister has spoken of "limitation of tests." Has he considered the plea by eminent American atomic scientists that the total prohibition of thermo-nuclear tests would prevent the development of hydrogen warheads for guided missiles? Does he consider that a guided missile with a hydrogen warhead would be a mortal danger to this country, and, therefore, that the stopping of the tests is a major British defence interest?
    The Prime Minister: First, perhaps I might say how glad we all are to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place. What he says is true; I have carefully chosen "limitation". I think—with his experience, the right hon. Gentleman may agree with me—it is wise to start with this method. I do not, if I might use such a phrase, necessarily limit myself to "limitation," but I believe that the best chance of getting agreement in this very difficult matter is by starting with limitation.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Is it the intention of the Government to reply to the proposals made by Mr. Shepilov last week after having completed the study of the proposal to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in a reply to me?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be good enough to table a Question to the Foreign Office about that matter. I am not sure what the plans are.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend note the zeal with which the Opposition desire to limit the manufacture and testing of a weapon which they themselves admit is a decisive factor in the maintenance of peace?

    JOINT PERMANENT SECRETARIES TO THE TREASURY (DUTIES)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Prime Minister to make a statement regarding the future appointment of Permanent Under-Secretary to the Treasury and the designation of official head of the Home Civil Service.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister to make a statement on the recent changes in the senior posts of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister what are to be the duties of Sir Roger Makins in his new appointment.
    The Prime Minister: On the forthcoming retirement of the present Permanent Secretary to the Treasury the post will lapse and two Joint Permanent Secretaries will be appointed. They will be Sir Norman Brook and Sir Roger Makins.
    Sir Norman Brook, in addition to his duties as Secretary of the Cabinet, will advise me on problems of Government machinery and will have general charge of the organisation and management of the Home Civil Service. He will advise me in my capacity as First Lord of the Treasury on appointments to senior posts in that service and will be official Head of the Home Civil Service. He will advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer on matters concerning pay and other conditions of service.
    Sir Roger Makins will have charge under the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the financial and economic work of the Treasury.
    The House would not wish me to let this occasion pass without paying a tribute to the outstanding services rendered to the nation by Sir Edward Bridges over a long period of years—both as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and during the war as Secretary of the Cabinet.
    Major Legge-Bourke: In endorsing most warmly what my right hon. Friend has said in his tribute to Sir Edward Bridges, and in warmly welcoming the decision which he has taken to sub-divide the duties, might I ask him whether he
    636
    can tell us which of the two new permanent officials will be responsible for carrying on the work of various committees on which Sir Edward Bridges sat, especially those concerned with defence?
    The Prime Minister: The new arrangement means that the Chancellor, who is already responsible for directing and coordinating economic policy, will have the advice of a full-time Permanent Secretary. That seems to us a desirable improvement. It will result in the Secretary to the Cabinet, Sir Norman Brook, in his new capacity, being responsible for the higher appointments which, as former Members of the Cabinet will know, have inevitably taken up a certain amount of the time of Sir Edward Bridges as head of the Civil Service
    Mr. Gaitskell: First, may I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the tribute rightly paid to Sir Edward Bridges? Might I ask the Prime Minister two questions? First, why has it been decided that Sir Norman Brook should be head of the Home Civil Service, thus excluding the Foreign Office and, presumably, certain other Departments as well? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it wise to make this distinction in respect of appointments and matters of that kind, and why should it be made? Secondly, for exactly what will Sir Norman Brook be responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: To take the question about the Home Civil Service, this is an integrated Service, and those who enter it are initially posted to a certain Department. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Foreign Office is not included, but it has not been included since 1943, since the date of what were called the Eden Reforms but were carried through this House by Mr. Bevin, and, therefore, will, I hope, be acceptable to all concerned on either side of the House. As regards Sir Norman Brook's responsibility to the Chancellor, he will advise the Chancellor on matters concerning pay and other conditions in the Service, whereas he advises me, as Sir Edward Bridges did, on the higher appointments in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Grimond: As regards the Treasury, may we take it that the appointment of Sir Roger Makins is, in fact, to strengthen the Treasury and the staff for the

    637
    better collection of statistics, which the Chancellor foretold in his Budget speech? Further, is it intended to give him a bigger planning staff, on the lines of Sir Stafford Cripps's staff, with a view to making inquiries into better methods of controlling credit and currency with a view to stemming inflation?
    The Prime Minister: Naturally, we should not have made the appointments had we not thought that the result would be to strengthen the Treasury and the advice given to the Government generally. It will. I am sure, have that result. It will also make sure that Sir Roger Makins will not have to carry some of the burdens which used to lie, I thought sometimes, perhaps, a little unfairly on Sir Edward Bridges as Head of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would not this be a good opportunity to put into force the recommendations of the 16th Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which dealt with organisation and methods in the Civil Service, and which recommended that a senior civil servant of this kind should be responsible to the Prime Minister for the efficiency of the Civil Service and for the general promotion of organisation and methods in all the Departments?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think there is anything in what I have said which contradicts what the right hon. Gentleman has said. What seems to me important in these matters, if I may repeat it, is that now the Chancellor will have a distinguished civil servant whose whole time is to be devoted to advising him on the economic and financial matters with which he has to deal.
    Mr. Gaitskell: May I return to the question of responsibility for appointments in the Foreign Service? Is the Prime Minister responsible for making those senior appointments and, if so, who advises him on them now? And is it only the Foreign Office which is excluded
    638
    from Sir Norman Brook's powers, or is it also the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. This is slightly, I will not say anomalous, but, by the reforms of 1943, the Foreign Office was excluded from the rest of the Civil Service, the reason being its special overseas duties, and other points which, at the time, seemed reasonable. As regards appointments, they are, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that there is any law laid down, but I think that it is customary—certainly it was customary when I was Foreign Secretry—to consult the Prime Minister on certain senior appointments, but they remain the responsibility, I think I am right in saying, of the Foreign Secretary himself.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to obtain additional advice? If so, does not that indicate excessive modesty on his part? And is not his right hon. Friend aware that advice has frequently been tendered to him by this side of the House? What does this really mean? Does it mean that the Chancellor has been a failure or a success?
    The Prime Minister: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not complain that any of my colleagues, or any other hon. Member of the House, showed excessive modesty.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is to be the salary of Sir Roger Makins? Is he to get more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and, if so, why?
    The Prime Minister: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's sympathy. For some time past, I think, senior civil servants have been getting more than their political chiefs.
    Mr. Hughes: What is it?

BRITISH MOTOR CORPORATION (STRIKE)
Mr. Lee (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the British Motor Corporation strike.
Mr. Iain Macleod: The House will be aware of the course of and the response to the strike called this week at the B.M.C. factories. The great majority of the workers involved in the dispute start their annual holidays tonight. It is to be hoped that this breathing space will be used to find a solution, and if the two sides seek my help I will be ready to arrange further talks at an early date.
Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that the strike has now spread beyond the B.M.C. to other parts of the motor industry, and that unless we get a fairly quick solution in this matter it may well be that it will spread even wider? May we take it from the Minister's Answer that, when he talks about the "breathing space" provided by the holiday period, he himself intends to use it to take the initiative in trying to bring the two sides together? If so, may I ask whether he has noticed the statement of Mr. Harry Brotherton, pointing out that any sensible or reasonable opportunity of talking the matter over in the way they think it ought to be would certainly be taken by the trade unions themselves? In other words, it would appear that the trade unions are willing to accept the Minister's intervention at this point. Would he consider that very seriously indeed?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member has very considerable experience of this and, if he and the House will forgive me for pointing it out, may I say that the words in my statement were very carefully drafted? There is an agreed procedure in the industry, which it is very important that I should not short-circuit. But perhaps I can add that I hope, and, indeed, expect, that there will be a response to the words I have just uttered.
Sir T. Moore: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true, as the Press tells us, that pickets are now using violence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—against those who want to work? If so,
640
is this not illegal? Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is taking adequate steps to stop this cruel and cowardly practice against people who, apparently, are only putting their country before their union?
Mr. Macleod: The position in so far as it concerns this question is that peaceful picketing is permitted and intimidation is not. But I should not like to be led down the by-ways of my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Minister whether he realises that if he does take the initiative he will carry with him the good wishes of the House and of the nation? Would he bear in mind—and I speak as having some experience of these matters—that the kind of industrial situation we now have is the kind that in our experience has led in the past—and it would be regrettable if it led in the future—to permanent deterioration of industrial relations?
Mr. Macleod: I accept the anxiety of every right hon. and hon. Member of the House, wherever he may be seated, to find a solution to this matter. They know perfectly well that I am with them in that. Matters of procedure, however, are not unimportant in this question, and I must return to the remark I made to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), that my words were carefully drafted and that I believe that there will be a response to them.
Mr. Osborne: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if fewer provocative questions were asked in the House, from either side, the better would be his chance of getting a settlement?
Mr. C. Pannell: Does the Minister realise that we do not necessarily agree that the normal rules of procedure apply here? We consider that the ordinary rules of procedure were broken in the first place, at least on one side of this dispute. We feel that very little reliance can be placed on the employers. Does he realise that we feel that, in view of the lack of consultation in dismissing men, which has been condemned on all sides of the House, the Minister has a plain duty to intervene and not to stand on any procedural niceties?
Mr. Macleod: I am not standing on any procedural niceties. I know, of course, the attitude that the unions and

641
the employers have taken towards procedure. I do think, however, that we in this House would be wise to give this opportunity a real chance to work. I think it is such a chance, and we ought to take it.
Mr. Chapman: Would the Minister be good enough to consult his right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary about the very unhappy scenes which are now occurring outside factories in Birmingham? In particular, would he see whether something can be done to prevent the sort of Fascist provocation which I myself saw used there? Secondly, would he be good enough to see whether the police can be asked to limit their use of mounted police—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Oh, yes. Is not the Minister aware that I saw that for myself yesterday? I was next to them, and it does often make men "see red".
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are not matters for the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Chapman: On a point of order. I was asking the Minister to consult his right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary on these points.
Mr. Speaker: That is merely a device for asking the right question of the wrong Minister.
Mr. Shurmer: Further to the plea that has been made to the Minister to intervene, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only a question of the present strike and the holiday period, but that already there are indications in Birmingham and the rest of the Midlands that the whole of the motor car industry, including the motor accessory industry, will be disorganised, and that many thousands of men will be out of work, or perhaps doing a couple of days work a week after the holidays? In those circumstances, is he prepared to hold back and to allow this suffering which might, perhaps, mean a greater struggle in the Midlands and which might extend throughout the country?
Mr. Macleod: Nothing I have said this afternoon, or in any statement I have ever made on this matter, could justify the suggestion that I am not prepared to play my full part in bringing the two sides together.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the Adjournment of the House—[Laughter.] They will not be laughing in Birmingham. I beg to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Member, but I do so to save time. I am precluded by Standing Order No. 16 from entertaining such a Motion. This is the last Supply day, when I am bound, at 9.30, to put certain Questions from the Chair. Standing Order No. 16 prohibits me from accepting a Motion of that kind today.
Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the national emergency which has arisen, I want to move the suspension of the Standing Order to which you have referred, Sir. I respectfully agree that you have got greater access to advice as to what is in order, but I, representing ordinary men—and that is all I desire to do—have studied the Standing Orders—
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member says, I have the responsibility for administering the Standing Orders. A Motion to suspend the Standing Order requires notice, and no notice has been given. I am bound by the Standing Orders as much as the hon. Member.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are you prepared, then, in view of the very serious situation in the motor car industry, with its continuing effects upon our economy, to accept a Motion, "That this House do now Adjourn," so that we can consider this serious situation?
Mr. Speaker: No. I may say that next week, as I understand, we are to deal with the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and, in so far as this matter is a matter of Ministerial responsibility, I think that perhaps advantage could be taken of that occasion to discuss it. But it certainly cannot be taken now.
Mr. Ellis Smith: With respect—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Never mind the "No, no." With respect, Mr. Speaker, I hope that there will be a sense of fair play when you come to have regard to what has occurred during this last day or two.
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly try to be as fair as I can.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will announce the business for next week?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 30TH JULY—Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill; to the Road Traffic Bill; and to the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to set up a Select Committee on Procedure.
TUESDAY, 31ST JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which it is proposed to take formally.
There will then be a debate on Manpower and Defence, which will take place on an Opposition Motion.
WEDNESDAY, 1ST AUGUST—Committee and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
The following subjects will be debated:
The case of the Chief Justice of the Seychelles.
The Motor Car Industry.
The position of Seretse Khama.
During the week we shall ask the House to consider any further Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place, and complete the Committee and remaining stages of the Overseas Resources Development Bill and the Crown Estate Bill, if not completed on Friday of this week.
If all necessary business is disposed of, it is hoped to adjourn for the Summer Recess on Thursday, 2nd August, until Tuesday, 23rd October.
It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 2nd August, to take Questions until 12 noon, and to adjourn at 5 p.m.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the debate on Tuesday, on an Opposition Motion, is intended to be principally about manpower in relation to defence, and that, in our opinion, it is most desirable that there should be a further wider debate on defence in the
644
autumn, before the end of the Session. to cover a number of questions which cannot be covered in a single day's debate at this time? Is he further aware that we hope the Government will find time for debates on some, at least, of the nationalised industries before the end of the Session?
The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is why I put manpower in front of defence, as I understand that it is not weapons so much as manpower which the Opposition wish to discuss. No doubt we can discuss the question of defence through the usual channels. In principle, I am certainly not against that discussion taking place in the autumn, or the other matters that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions, one about a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has just made reference? Is it clearly understood, that, within the terms of the Motion on Tuesday, the subject of defence can be considered in addition to the subject of manpower, but that it will be difficult to dissociate the two questions? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that? Further, is is clearly understood that we cannot be precluded from debating defence? Finally, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in connection with his announcement that the House will be in recess until Tuesday, 23rd October, that means that the Recess this year will actually be longer than it was last year? If so, is that advisable in the circumstances?
The Prime Minister: The range of the debate on Tuesday depends upon the Motion which will be tabled by the Opposition. I have no responsibility in the matter except to arrange for the Opposition's time, and they then table what Motion they like. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have telegraphic exchanges with the two benches in front of him and come to any conclusions he likes. As far as we are concerned, it is entirely a matter for the Opposition to decide what the terms of the Motion are and for you, Mr. Speaker, to say what comes within the rules of order. That is just one of those things with which, fortunately, the Government have nothing

645
whatever to do. On the question of the Recess, I should like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be a week shorter this time than it was last year.
Sir I. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has announced the date of the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill for Wednesday and has indicated three subjects which may be given a kind of preference. You, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) have, perhaps, given him reason for hoping that he will catch your eye that day. May I ask you whether it is not the custom of the House that there should be a free opportunity for all who wish, so far as is reasonable, to debate any matter which comes into their minds without necessarily being restricted by the Leader of the House or by any predilection for any particular Members?
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member says is quite right. In the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill any matters of ministerial responsibility, within the rules applying to Supply, are debatable, as far as I am concerned; but it has been customary, of course, over a large number of years now, for both sides of the House to indicate which subjects they want to discuss. But these are matters of party arrangement and are nothing to do with the rules of order or with my responsibility.
Mr. J. Hynd: It will probably have been brought to the Prime Minister's attention that there are at least two Motions on the Order Paper dealing with a common market in Western Europe, in one case signed by nearly 90 members of his own party and 70 or 75 Members of the Opposition. Do I understand that, in spite of that fact, we are not to have an opportunity of debating this very important matter before the Recess?
[That this House expresses agreement in principle on the establishment by stages of a common market in Western Europe and urges Her Majesty's Government to accept the invitation to participate in the negotiations currently taking place on the subject between the representatives of Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, with a view to ensuring that if, or when, any treaty is signed the way will be open
646
for British participation in the common market on an acceptable basis and in accordance with the interests of the Commonwealth and Empire.]
[That this House, while recognising that there would be both advantages and disadvantages for this country in membership of the proposed common market, and that it would be necessary for the United Kingdom, as for each other country, to seek appropriate compensating concessions for the risks and sacrifices involved (such as Imperial Preference), nonetheless urges Her Majesty's Government to accept the invitation to participate in the negotiations among the other six member countries of Western European Union and endeavour to negotiate arrangements which would make it possible for the United Kingdom to participate in the advance towards a common market without detriment to the interests of the Commonwealth.]
The Prime Minister: I think that the matter was referred to in the recent foreign affairs debate. In any event, we could not give time, obviously, before the House rises next week.
Mr. Holt: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to have an opportunity of debating the Herbert Report on the electricity supply industry before the end of the Session?
The Prime Minister: I am dealing only with next week's business. That is a matter which could be discussed.
Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister recollect making a speech a week or so ago in which he said that he and the Government wanted to set an example to the country—it was on the question of Members' salaries? Is he aware that people generally believe, whether we here believe it or not, that the House has far too long Recesses? Would he consider this and set an example to the country?
The Prime Minister: I have looked carefully into the figures concerning Recesses. The coming Recess bears an average to what has been done over a considerable number of years.
Mr. Lewis: The Prime Minister should set a new example.
The Prime Minister: I think we have a responsibility to explain to the country that we have other duties in addition to those actually carried out here in Parliament, and that the sense of Parliament should be that we must allow ourselves time for their proper discharge.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. E. Fletcher: I desire to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a question of Privilege, which was referred to at Question Time yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and which you allowed me to defer until today.
The question of Privilege arises out of a communication which I have received from a resident in the Seychelles. During recent weeks I have received a number of communications from both residents in and visitors to the Seychelles, complaining of the maladministration there. Those complaints have had particular reference to the conduct of Mr. M. D. Lyon, the Chief Justice of the Seychelles.
Therefore, acting, I hope, with a due sense of responsibility, I tabled a Question for Answer yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, asking him
"what action he has taken regarding the petition sent to him, signed by 50 leading citizens of the Seychelles, pleading that Her Majesty's Government will refrain from appointing Mr. M. D. Lyon for a third term as Chief Justice of the Seychelles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 418.]
A somewhat similar Question appeared on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and there were also other Questions referring to the Seychelles.
On Monday afternoon, I received a letter from one of my correspondents in the Seychelles, Mr. Mullery, in which he told me that his house had been searched and his correspondence had been taken away from him pursuant to a search warrant signed by Mr. M. D. Lyon, the Chief Justice of the Seychelles. It may or may not be a pure coincidence that that episode occurred at the time, or very shortly after, my Question appeared on the Order Paper.
I will hand you the letter, Mr. Speaker, which I received from Mr. Mullery, which is dated 12th July, but for the convenience of the House perhaps I could be
648
allowed to read the relevant extracts from it. Mr. Mullery says:
"Dear Sir,
Copies of the letter and the typewritten documents enclosed with it, that I sent to you last month, have been seized and removed from my house by the police acting on a search warrant signed by M. D. Lyon…. Captain Michel, assistant superintendent, and Lieut. Ah-Yave, of the Seychelles Police, came to my house in a police van driven by a constable. Captain Michel showed me a search warrant, signed by M. D. Lyon, authorising search and removal 'upon sworn information of contempt of court'. Details were not given of what was alleged to constitute the contempt of court, nor of the specific article or articles to be removed….
They asked me various questions—had I a typewriter, where I kept my papers …&c. They made a search of my house, showing interest in only manuscript and typewritten letters…They had already run rapidly through the documents in my files. When they came across the carbon copies of the typescript I sent you, I told them what these were. They then removed my three files… papers, notes…."
It seems to me that here is a case of a deliberate interference by the Chief Justice in the Seychelles with a Member of Parliament, having received a communication from a resident in that island, in trying to bring before this House a matter specifically within the cognisance and jurisdiction of this House.
I pause to observe that, as far as my researches have gone into the laws in force in the Seychelles, there is no authority whatever which justifies a Chief Justice or anybody else issuing a general search warrant on the ground that there has been a contempt of court. As far as I can discover, the law of the Seychelles is similar to that in this country. If there has been a contempt of court, appropriate proceedings can be taken if anything justiciable arises, but it is not in any circumstances a matter which justifies the issue of a general search warrant.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke pointed out yesterday, I desire to submit that, prima facie, it would look as if the Chief Justice of the Seychelles, because of communications sent to Members of this House calling in question the propriety of his conduct, has not only abused his judicial functions in any respect, but has abused them in such a way as to interfere with the proper discharge by Members of the House of their constitutional obligations.

649
I need only trouble you, Mr. Speaker, with two short quotations from Erskine May about the relevant precedents. The general proposition is stated in page 109 of the Fifteenth Edition, where it is written:
"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."
I cannot find any precise precedent for an offence of this kind. That is hardly surprising, because surely it must be the first time in which a Chief Justice of a Colony administered by the Colonial Office has sought to abuse judicial powers entrusted to him in a way calculated to interfere with Members of this House in the discharge of their constitutional duties. There is, however, a passage in page 131 of Erskine May which, I respectfully suggest, has a bearing on the matter. That passage states:
"To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either House or any committee of either House or to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege."
As I read the authorities referred to in the appendix to that paragraph, the references to "a witness" are not limited to witnesses in proceedings actually pending before this House or a Committee, but are capable of being applied to anybody who, as a result of proceedings in this House, might naturally be expected to give relevant evidence about matters to be raised in this House.
The only other comment I would add is this. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, this House has always been particularly jealous about any interference with its Members by the courts, either of this country or, ever more so, of a colonial country. This House has been particularly jealous also of any interference with its privileges by any holder of any Crown appointment. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, on these facts that there is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege which justifies the reference of this matter to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was
650
good enough to inform me yesterday evening of the ground of the submission which he has just made, and I have, therefore, had an opportunity of considering the matter with much more care than I could have done yesterday, when it was first raised. My duty in these cases is procedural. It is not for me to decide whether there has been a breach of Privilege or not: it is for the House. I have to decide whether the hon. Member has made out a prima facie case of breach of Privilege, as would justify my giving his Motion precedence or priority over the Orders of the Day.
For the purpose of my Ruling today I assume that the letter from which the hon. Member has read extracts to us is a true statement of fact, and I also assume that the inference which he made about the correspondence between the dates of the appearance of his Parliamentary Question on the Order Paper and the events complained of was a valid inference. Of course, I do not know these things, but for the purpose of what I am going to say I assume them to be true.
The gist of the hon. Member's complaint, as it seems to me, is that action has been taken against his correspondent in the Seychelles because that gentleman had written prompting the hon. Member for Islington, East to ask a Question in this House. The hon. Member claims that this amounts prima facie to a breach of Privilege by whoever took that action.
On Friday, 18th March, last year, I had to deal with a case similar in principle, which was submitted by Mr. Driberg, who was then, as hon. Members who were Members in the last Parliament will remember, the hon. Member for Maldon. Briefly, the case was that a chaplain to the Forces on Salisbury Plain wrote to the hon. Member giving some details about a cocktail party held in an officers' mess; the hon. Member, Mr. Driberg, raised the matter in the House; whereupon the superior officer of the chaplain intervened, reprimanded the chaplain for taking this step and threatened him with certain consequences if he continued his correspondence with the hon. Member.
There was, in that case, a question of time. It was not submitted at the earliest opportunity. That question does not

651
arise in this case, because it was submitted yesterday, as I rule, at the earliest possible time.
In Mr. Driberg's case, answering points that arose, I made these observations, among others:
"There is this further point that had there been any question of an attempt to threaten the hon. Member for Maldon with any unpleasant consequences if he fulfilled his duty as a Member of this House in bringing the matter before the House, then the case would have been clear. But it seems to me a novel doctrine to rule on such short consideration"—
this was a Friday morning, I may say—
"that the Privilege of Parliament, as distinct from legal privilege, extends to every letter written by a member of the public to his Member of Parliament. That has never been, so far as I can find out in the time available to me, the doctrine of Privilege of this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 1610.]
Later, I said:
"I would say that hon. Members who raise Questions in this House about their constituents are absolutely privileged. I have never heard it stated that any member of the public who writes to his Member of Parliament is himself covered by Parliamentary Privilege. That, I think, would be a new doctrine, and one which I could not give on a prima facie Ruling."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 1614.]
I then advised the hon. Member to submit this matter for the judgment of the House, because the House is the final judge, by putting down a Motion for the consideration of the House, which the hon. Member did, and the House accepted the Motion, and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I have before me a copy of the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and as the matter is of some importance to hon. Members, perhaps the House will permit me to read from it. It said:
"The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred the Complaint of the honourable Member for Maldon, regarding the action of the Deputy Assistant Chaplain General, Salisbury Plain District, in threatening the Reverend J. P. Stevenson, one of his subordinate chaplains, with a view to influencing proceedings in Parliament:—Have agreed to the following Report: —

1. Your Committee have investigated the complaint referred to them and have come to the conclusion that no question of privilege or of contempt of this House is involved. The term 'breach of privilege' is often now used as synonymous with 'contempt', and while it is for the House to determine the limits of its jurisdiction, the House acts so
652
far as possible in accordance with precedents in deciding whether or not certain conduct constitutes a breach of privilege or a contempt.

2. Your Committee can find no precedent where an attempt by one individual to influence another individual (not a Member of Parliament) as to the nature or content of the latter's communications with a Member of Parliament has been treated as a breach of privilege or as a contempt of the House."

The Committee went on to mention the importance of maintaining the practice whereby people in the Forces can write freely to their Members of Parliament and said it was a matter for the Ministers concerned.
Therefore, though I had to give the first Ruling on a negative basis, that I could not remember a case, I found that the Committee of Privileges, when it discussed the matter with far more time than I had at my disposal, came to the same conclusion.
Therefore, I must rule that the conduct of a person in influencing a correspondent of a Member of Parliament is not a question of Parliamentary Privilege, and that the case which the hon. Member has narrated to us is one for the responsible Minister.
The hon. Member said there was no law in the Seychelles which justified this search warrant. That, of course, I do not know, but I accept his word for it: but if so, that is a matter for the courts to determine. In the famous case of Wilkes, in the eighteenth century, which was of constitutional importance for this House, it was the courts which decided that a general warrant was illegal—against, perhaps I may say, the wish of a large number of Members of this House at the time. It is a matter for the courts. In so far as this has been a fault of administration, it is a matter about which the House can deal with the Colonial Secretary. I understand that it is to be debated next week.
I am clear on this, that it would be wrong of me, giving a prima facie Ruling today, to extend Parliamentary Privilege to cover the correspondents of hon. Members. If hon. Members consider what might be the result of that, they will see that more evil consequences might flow from that than the incident which the hon. Member has related. So, bound as I am by the findings of the Select Committee of Privileges on what, I think, is exactly the same point, I have to rule that the

653
hon. Member has not made out a case prima facie which would justify me in giving his Motion now precedence over the Orders of the Day. Therefore, I suggest to him. as I did to Mr. Driberg on that occasion, that his proper course is—and I shall not in the least resent it, of course—to put down a Motion on the matter for the consideration of the House.
Mr. Bevan: Do I understand you to say, Sir, that you admitted that there was a valid inference that there was a connection between the search warrant and the correspondence of my hon. Friend?
Hon, Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I assume that for the purpose of my Ruling. I was careful to say I did not know whether it was true or not, but that I assumed it.
Mr. Bevan: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that your subsequent remarks were based on the assumption that there was a connection between the actual searching of the correspondent's premises and the Question on the Order Paper of the House. I understand you now to say that you consider that the search warrant—the action of the Chief Justice—must, therefore, be considered as an administrative action by the Colonial Secretary and must be debated from that point of view. Therefore, if there is contempt it is the Colonial Secretary who has committed it.
Do we now understand from what you have said, Sir, that an action taken by a Chief Justice, in furtherance of what he considers to be his duty as a judge, in signing a search warrant can be regarded as an administrative action by the Colonial Secretary? Does it not carry the matter to an extent that is almost without precedence, that an action by a member of the judiciary in the discharge of what he considers to be his work and functions as a member of the judiciary can now be regarded by the House of Commons as an administrative act by the Minister himself?
Mr. Speaker: I made no such statement. What I said was that the hon. Member for Islington, East has said that his researches led him to believe that the issue of the search warrant was illegal. I said that that was a question of law and not a question for this House, and in so far as there were complaints about
654
administrative actions which followed the issue of the warrant that was a matter on which the Colonial Secretary could be challenged in so far as he was responsible for it.
Mr. Bevan: That is the point I am making. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a very serious matter. I am not at the moment raising the legality or illegality of the action of the Chief Justice of the Seychelles in signing a search warrant in respect of what he considered to be contempt of court.
The point that I am raising concerns your Ruling, Sir, that a prima facie case has not been made out of any interference with any member of the public writing to Members of Parliament. If, in fact, the Chief Justice of the Seychelles acted in this way, legally or illegally, it is not in your judgment a judicial act but an administrative act by the Colonial Secretary. If that be the case, we are reaching a point where actions by the judiciary in the discharge of what they may, rightly or wrongly, consider to be their judicial functions can be construed as administrative acts by the Minister concerned.
Mr. Speaker: If my language has not been clear, I am sorry for it. All I meant to say was that this action that has been complained of, by the Chief Justice or by officers of the police, whatever else may be wrong with it, was not a breach of the Privilege of this House. I could not agree so, on account of the cases which I have quoted. It was not a breach of the Privilege of the House—that is, in my opinion, because it is for the House to decide a matter like that. Therefore, I could not give the hon. Member for Islington, East the precedence for which he asks.
Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. Have we in the House no immediate means of protecting citizens against reprisals taken against them on account of complaints made to Members of the House about maladministration? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, I and a number of other hon. Members have received correspondence from citizens in the Seychelles alleging gross maladministration and incompetence, with innuendoes of graft and corruption, supported by copies of the Press of the Seychelles which are full of such allegations at the moment, many of

655
them based on the report of the principal auditor on the accounts of the Seychelles. There is a prospect of other actions against other citizens who have communicated with Members of the House. Short of a question of Privilege, have we, as Members, any immediate means of protecting the citizens who have quite legitimately communicated to Members of the House complaints against the Executive in the Seychelles? Have we any means of protecting them against reprisals taken on that account?
Mr. Speaker: All I have to say is that what happened in the case of the chaplain was that the Secretary of State for War took some action administratively to correct the matter. It may be that if some injustices have been perpetrated on those who have corresponded with the hon. Member and other hon Members, that can be put right either by legal or administrative action. All that I am saying is that it is not a breach of the Privilege of the House for such things to happen. Other remedies are open to the men. I ask the hon. Member to consider what would happen if every letter written to Members of Parliament were protected by Privilege. It would be a serious departure.
Mr. Bevan: We would wish to clear our minds for the debate next week. Are we to understand that it is not, in your judgment, Sir, an intimidation of a potential correspondent with a Member of the House if he is given to understand that if he sends a letter to a Member of the House, making allegations against an Executive anywhere at all, he may be liable to have his house searched? Are we to understand that that is not a deterrent to correspondence with the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to involve me in the merits of this case. It may be, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, East—and the right hon. Gentleman appeared to agree with him—a very bad case, but that has nothing to do with it. That is not for me. Whatever the remedy is, it is not Privilege. That is all I have to say.
Mr. J. T. Price: Further to that point of order. With very great respect, Sir, to the advice which you have given to
656
the House, with regard to recourse to legal action if a citizen of the Seychelles is being unjustly treated. we in the House, as democrats, have always recognised that the ultimate defence of liberty is in the inviolability and independence of the judiciary. But if, in this case, the fountain head of the law is corrupt, how can there be an appeal to the judiciary?
Mr. Speaker: Again, it is not a question for me. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of debating the matter next week and of hearing both sides; and there are generally two sides to all questions.
Mr. Gaitskell: There is one point in your Ruling, Sir, which, if I may say so with respect, I find rather difficult to follow. You pointed out that it was not a breach of Privilege if a third party interfered with a member of the public who was trying to communicate with a Member of the House. You instanced a case where a member of the Forces was stopped or prevented from doing so, and you told us that in that case our right course was to hold the Secretary of State for War responsible in the House in the ordinary way.
The particular point raised here is an act of the Chief Justice of the Seychelles in issuing a general search warrant. Is the issue of that search warrant an administrative act for which the Colonial Secretary takes responsibility, and for which he is, therefore, answerable to this House, or is it something which the Chief Justice did in his judicial capacity and, therefore, something for which the Colonial Secretary cannot be held responsible?
Mr. Speaker: That is a question which I cannot answer, because I do not know the full circumstances of the issue of the warrant. I know only as much as the right hon. Gentleman about that, namely, what I have been told by the hon. Member for Islington, East. I cannot tell in what circumstances the warrant was issued. I presume that if it was issued in a judicial capacity there exists a court of correction whereby a wrongful judicial act could be recalled and quashed if necessary.
If, on the other hand, it is an administrative act by the police, or something of that sort, then it would be a question

657
for the Colonial Secretary to answer. I do not know how the warrant was issued, or whether it was a police matter. A warrant may be issued on the instance of a judge no doubt, for contempt of court or something of that sort. On the other hand, it may be issued at the instance of the police, who lay an information of some sort before a competent court and get a warrant signed, but without knowing the circumstances I cannot possibly answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. The debate will probably clear the matter up.
Mr. E. Fletcher: I thank you for your Ruling, Sir, which naturally I accept, but may I take it that there is nothing which you have said to the House that debars us in any way, in the debate next week, from criticising the activities of the Chief Justice, both in relation to this matter and to his general conduct in the Seychelles, which has been the subject of so much complaint?
Mr. Speaker: With due regard to the language that is Parliamentary and proper in this House, I do not see that there is any bar in advance that I can suggest to hon. Members. I may not be right about this, and I should like some assistance. Colonial judges are sometimes in two different categories, as I understand. Some are appointed by Her Majesty, in which case the normal rule is that a Motion is put down if hon. Members seek to attack them. Others are merely appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I do not know into which category this gentleman falls.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could assist you and the House in this case. The appointment of the Chief Justice is made by Her Majesty's Government, I understand. I have understood, but I may be wrong, that, following the practice of this House, no charges can be made against a number of people, including judges of the High Court, unless a substantive Motion is put down; and that by a statement made by Mr. Speaker, in, I think. 1912, it was held that this also extended to judges in the phrase "in other parts of the Empire".
Yesterday, I was not sure whether that was so. Had I been certain of it, then I would have ventured to intervene in the
658
course of the discussion, suggesting that perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was not entitled to make those charges without having put down a substantive Motion. I still must confess that I am a little uncertain of the position, and I should be glad if my doubts in that way could also be put at rest.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Colonial Secretary one question, Sir? Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the issue of a general search warrant would be made by the Chief Justice in his judicial capacity, or administratively?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is the first time that this particular question has been put. I will communicate immediately with the Governor of the Seychelles on that point and, I hope, be in a position to answer any question of fact that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman may ask during the discussion on Wednesday. I understand that the search of this gentleman's house was made on a warrant issued on the application of the police without Government direction but, as I say, I will get all the details I can in order to be able to enlighten the House.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the point here is that the judge was appointed by Her Majesty, is it not time that the Colonial Secretary withdrew the remark he made yesterday about this official being appointed by the Labour Government.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. If the House will bear with me for a moment, let us not anticipate the debate. I must make inquiries, first, as to the precise status of this gentleman. I do not know what it is. I do not know the terms of his appointment, whether he holds the appointment as a High Court judge, or whether he can be removed by the Governor. I must find that out. I shall be able better to advise the House when I know the facts. I do not like to advise without knowing the facts.
Mr. Bevan: It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, that we should know the facts in order to be guided as to how we are to have the debate next week. If it is a Crown appointment, and we are, in fact, considering a judicial decision—which is a

659
point I made earlier—it has a bearing on your statement that it is an administrative act by the Minister. If it is a Crown appointment, and if this act by the Chief Justice was done in the course of his duty as Chief Justice, then, obviously, it is not an administrative act by the Minister, in which case to raise it we must put a Motion on the Order Paper; a Motion which, in that case, would embrace both the Chief Justice and the Minister, because there are other questions to be raised apart from the judge.
It is of great importance to us to know whether, in your Ruling, Sir, in the separation of the administrative responsibilities of the Minister for what happened, and the judicial responsibilities of the judge, there was a valid distinction at all. If there was no valid distinction there, we are faced with allegations of improper conduct by a judge and not necessarily in this respect, and only in this respect, improper conduct by the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: We must clear up that matter. I must say that how I know about judges is that when an hon. Member has put down Questions about the conduct of a judge, they are submitted to the Table, and they are not accepted if they are questions about the conduct
660
of a judge that ought to be raised in a Motion. The fact that this one was accepted by the Table—I have no doubt after consultation with the proper people—led me to believe that this was not an appointment of the kind that needs a Motion; but we will find out.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On your last observation, Sir, may I say that I think the terms in which the Question was asked yesterday could not have been held to be in any way a reflection on the Chief Justice, and so no doubt properly passed the Table as being couched in language which was appropriate, even though it referred to a Chief Justice. It was a supplementary question that introduced quite different thoughts into the discussion, and it was on that question that I was anxious for elucidation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 25th July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY SUPPLY

  SUPPLY
  [26TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [25th July]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1956–57; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1956–57.
  Resolutions reported,
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57. AND NAVY ESTIMATES, 1956–57.
  1. £288,539,004 for the services included in the following Civil and Navy Estimates, viz.:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57, AND NAVY ESTIMATES, 1956–57
  £

  Class I, Vote 24, Scottish Home Department

  1,611,143

  Class V, Vote 12, Housing, Scotland

  7,747,540

  Class VI, Vote 1, Board of Trade

  3,055,690

  Class VI, Vote 2, Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services) (Including a Supplementary sum of £44,600)

  1,960,194

  Class VI, Vote 4, Services in Development Areas (Revised Sum)

  2,517,300

  Class VI, Vote 5, Financial Assistance in Development Areas

  357,510

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

  13,714,000

  Class VI, Vote 9, Ministry of Supply

  143,400,000

  Class VI, Vote 11. Royal Ordnance Factories

  3,800,000

  Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works

  5,620,120

  Class VIII, Vote 5, Fishery Grants and Services

  3,249,770

  Class VIII, Vote 11, Forestry Commission

  5,591,000

  Class VIII, Vote 12. Department of Agriculture for Scotland (Revised Sum)

  22,360,096

  Class VIII, Vote 13, Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry (Revised Sum)

  1,570,001

  Class IX. Vote 1, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Revised Sum)

  5,666,700

  Class IX, Vote 3, Transport (Shipping and Special Services) (Revised Sum)

  381,000

  Class IX, Vote 4, Civil Aviation (Revised Sum)

  4,255,010

  Class IX, Vote 5, Ministry of Fuel and Power

  2,682,810

  £

  Class IX, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services)(Revised Sum)

  3,014,000

  Class IX, Vote 7, Atomic Energy

  38,264,390

  Class IX, Vote 8, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  5,035,100

  Class IX, Vote 9, Roads, &c" Scotland

  4,612,630

  Navy Estimates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office

  8,073,000

  £288,539,004

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1956–57
    CLASS IV
      VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (REVISED SUM)
      2. That a sum, not exceeding £221,201,218 (including a Supplementary sum of £10,753,000), 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, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid. a subscription to an international organisation, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57
    CLASS I
    3. That a sum, not exceeding £12,181,164, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS II
    4. That a sum, not exceeding £57,043,170, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS III
    5. That a sum, not exceeding £61,043,925, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class 111 of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS IV
    6. That a sum, not exceding £67,535,811, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS V
    7. That a sum, not exceeding £481,415,332, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS VI
    8. That a sum, not exceeding £1,460,270, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS VII
    9. That a sum, not exceeding £39,801,653, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS VIII
    10. That a sum, not exceeding £141,225,865, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS IX
    11. That a sum, not exceeding £31,658,000, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS X
    12. That a sum, not exceeding £303,832,840, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.
  ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57
  13. That a sum, not exceeding £237,623,300, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1956–57
  14. That a sum, not exceeding £10,800,000, 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, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including an
  664
  international subscription; and a grant in aid of certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1956–57
  15. That a sum, not exceeding £186,779,000, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1956–57
  16. That a sum, not exceeding £196,480,000, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1956–57
  17. That a sum, not exceeding £135,760,000, 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, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.
  [For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1956, cols. 546–557.]
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT, SCOTLAND
4.27 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: We have been delayed not a little in reaching Scottish business this afternoon, and I will not waste time by saying more about the delay now. We have decided to discuss the future of industry and employment in Scotland. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland will agree that we shall not be able to draw heavily upon the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland, 1955, in our discussion today because there is nothing about the future in the Report.
May I make one preliminary point before proceeding with my argument? From time to time, one gets the impression that hon. Members in different parts of the House think that, when we are discussing Scottish affairs, we are discussing the affairs of some county in the North of England, some small area inhabited by a comparatively small number of people. In fact, we are discussing an area which is more than half the area

665
of England and Wales, and that gives it an importance which it is not always conceded in this House. Our share of the population, of course, is not quite the same, and unfortunately it is falling. In 1931 our population equalled 121 per cent. of that of England and Wales. By 1955, in the last census return, the figure had fallen to 11·5 per cent.
We wonder whether our share of the population will continue to fall. We ask why our share has been falling. We have a plain duty these days—indeed, we have had it a long time—to seek to secure that all our resources are fully employed in the interests of the whole country. It is clear that we cannot employ all the resources of Scotland if the population, small as it is, continues to decline or if our share of the total population of Great Britain continues to decline.
Why has our population declined? Surely it is because of the magnetic attraction of the centre for new industrial investment at the expense of the perimeter. We have had a growth of industrial development in the London area for a very long time, and much in the Midlands, and that has taken place at the expense of Scotland and Wales in particular. It went on for a great many years because it suited the investor and the industrialist. There was more profit if the industrialist developed in the centre of population, where he was nearer his markets, and that applied, because of the interdependence of a large number of servicing industries, particularly in the light engineering industries. All these factors contributed to making it more profitable for the investor and the industrialist to build up in the London area or the Midlands.
It will be within the recollection of a number of hon. Members that the wartime Coalition Government took the view that the concentration of industry in certain areas was very bad for the country. Great efforts were made during the war to bring about a dispersal of industry and population. The arguments were concerned with considerations such as strategy. It was appreciated that it was disadvantageous from a strategic point of view to have the great aggregations of industry in London and the Midlands that we then had, and successful efforts were made to achieve a certain amount of dispersal.
666
The Coalition Government also took the view that, from the point of view of the economic well-being of the country, and most certainly of its social well-being, the dispersal of the great aggregations of industry and population should proceed. It was in that mood and against that background that the war-time Coalition Government passed the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.
I well remember the discussions that took place during the passage of that Measure. Here and now I would tell the President of the Board of Trade that because of the discussions that then took place, because of my very close interest in what was then discussed, and because of the reasons then given for the Act, I was alarmed and shocked by what I read in the conclusion of the second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates relating to Development Areas in 1955. I thought that the conclusion could be based only on ignorance or a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Distribution of Industry Act in the first place.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will bear in mind what I have said when he considers the recommendations made by the Committee, based on the conclusion which it reached in the first place. When reading the Report, the President might take the trouble to read the evidence given by the Scottish witnesses, in particular by his Regional Controller and the General Secretary of the Scottish Industrial Estates Limited. Their evidence was such that, if it had had any influence at all upon the Committee, the conclusions and recommendations would have been very different from what they were.
The post-war Labour Government gave effect to the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act, and, arising out of the same policy relating to the desirability of dispersing aggregations of industry and population, they passed the New Towns Act, 1946. My hon. Friends and I still believe in planning. We still say that the additional new jobs being provided should be provided where they are most needed. We say that account must be taken now and all the time of the contribution that Scotland can make, and is anxious to make to the economic well-being of the country as a whole. Lanarkshire, the North-East Coast, and Fife and the Lothians, those developing coal areas.

667
must always be kept in mind by the Government when considering any expansion of industrial enterprise.
Let not any Minister say at the end of the debate that Opposition speakers said little about what they would do if they were in power. If we were the Government, we should be building factories where they are most needed and we should stop the building of factories where there is no need or room for them. That is what the Labour Government did, and that is what we should do if we were the Government now.
Let us look at the unemployment figures. Scotland's unemployment figure, as given by the Ministry of Labour Gazette for 2nd May, is 51,761. That is about as low a figure as we have ever had at this time of the year, but let us consider alongside that the unemployment figure for London and the South-East region, which is 37,369. The Midland region unemployment figure is 21,938. Notified unfilled vacancies in Scotland total 22,692, which is less than half the figure of unemployed. The London and south-eastern figure of unfilled vacancies is 104,015, nearly three times the unemployed figure, and the Midland figure, at 40,915, is nearly twice the figure of unemployed in that region. It is clear from those figures which region most needs new industrial building.
I would mention another important figure to the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade. We find that 46 per cent. of the population of Great Britain are insured workers. If we look at the comparable figures for Scotland, we find that 42 per cent. of our population are insured workers. If Scotland had another 4 per cent. of her population included as insured workers, it would represent 200,000 more. We must, therefore, add that 200,000 to our unemployed when we are looking at the available labour supply in Scotland.
Everyone knows—the President of the Board of Trade knows it—that when a new factory is erected in an area where there has been a little unemployment, labour which has not previously been in employment at all is attracted into the factory. It is because of that fact that I say we must credit Scotland with having as high a proportion of its population able and willing to work as south of the
668
Border. If anyone should think that in Scotland we have a higher proportion of children and old people than elsewhere, I would hasten to say that I have made a calculation and find that in both countries about 66 per cent. of the population is between 15 and 65 years of age, so that there is no difference there.
There is another important set of figures to be borne in mind when seeking to decide where new industries should go. First, I want to make it clear that Scotland's share of Great Britain's production is going down steadily each year. There is no Government report which makes any comment upon that, but one extracts the figures from reports and is able to make that discovery. I want now to give some figures which I have culled from official publication, mainly the Digest of Statistics. If we take 1948 as 100, we find that the total for all industries in Great Britain in 1955 was 137, the index having risen by 37 points. In the case of Scotland the index has risen to 125, so that Scotland has a shortfall of 12 points.
We all know that Scotland has been falling behind in some of our basic industries, and there has been an assumption running through the speeches made by the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers in these debates in recent years that we were making up for this in manufacturing industries. I take the figures of production in the manufacturing industries. Taking the Great Britain figure at 100 in 1948, by 1955 it had gone up to 142. In Scotland, taking 1948 at 100, it had gone up in 1955 to 129; so we fell even further back in this sphere of production from our manufacturing industries. It is, therefore, clear that we are not making good in the manufacturing industries what we are losing in our basic heavy industries in Scotland.
I turn now to where the new industrial building is in fact going on and where additional jobs are being created. Let me put on record at the outset that, according to official publications, at 31st March, 1955, there had been created the following amount of new factory building: in Scotland, from January, 1945, to March, 1955—a period of ten years—24,891,000 square feet; in London and south-east England, 23,069,000 square feet and in the Midlands, 26,849,000 square feet.

669
I say at once that it is clear that Scotland did fairly well in the ten years after the war in completions of new factories. Incidentally, any factory building which was merely a repair or a replacement of war damage up to 1948 is not included in these figures, wherever it has taken place. We did fairly well until 1948. When we look at the completions for the nine months to 31st December, 1955, we find that Scotland got an additional 2,458,000 square feet, London and south-east England an additional 5,218,000 square feet—a good deal more than twice what Scotland got in that period, although in the previous ten years Scotland got slightly more than London—and the Midlands, in the same period get 4,483,000 square feet.
These figures are very important. I complained in the debate last year about the amount of allocation of new industrial building to Scotland in relation to what was being allocated to the rest of the country and particularly to the London area. What has been the record since? Between 30th June, 1955, and 31st March this year—the latest figures available—approvals were granted as follows: —for Scotland 3,999,000 square feet, for London and the South-East, 13,908,000 square feet and for the Midland region, 7,522,000 square feet. London is now getting three and a half times the amount of factory building that Scotland is getting.
In London, which is getting this additional factory accommodation, there are 104,000 unfilled vacancies at the employment exchanges and the men cannot be found to fill them. When we look at the vacancies filled in the four weeks ended 2nd March, we find that the figures in Scotland are about 23,000, in London and the South-East about 60,000, and in the Midland region about 21,000. These vacancies filled in London were not filled by unemployed Londoners, they were filled by the workers sucked in from Scotland, Wales and elsewhere where employment is needed.
The Minister of Labour, in his speech on 3rd July, in discussing the problems of the motor industry in the Midlands said:
"There was a more substantial movement still into the London and Southern regions.
It is clear that there is already taking place as part of the normal life of our country a
670
sizeable geographical movement of labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1956; Vol. 555, c. 1296.]
That is our complaint. There is this size able geographical movement of labour, which is a very evil thing. It was seen to be so by the Coalition Government, recognised as such by the Labour Government, but it seems to be taken for granted as a normal thing by the Government that Scotland's unemployment problem will be solved by building factories in London and the Midlands. That is precisely what is taking place at the present time.
I am reliably informed that it is only lack of housing that is holding up the flow of workers to the South. The President of the Board of Trade is no innocent in this matter. All this factory building in the south is approved by him by the issue of industrial development certificates. Why have this apparent control? Is it control? When application is made to the President of the Board of Trade for certificates, does he take into account whether or not to grant industrial development certificates? Does he ever ask himself whether there is labour in the area to take the jobs to be created in the new factories? If he asks himself that elementary question, is he content to get an answer from the Minister of Labour that the workers are not there?
The right hon. Gentleman may take comfort from the fact that the workers are there in Scotland and will be attracted into London, the South-East and the Midlands because that is where the investor or the private industrialist wants to build his factory. No regard seems to be taken of the social and strategic requirements. In this atomic age, the President of the Board of Trade seems bent on providing near the River Thames the biggest target for a hydrogen bomb anywhere in the world. So one bomb in future will be sufficient to knock out the whole of this country. That seems to be what he is doing in his policy for the distribution of industry by issuing his industrial development certificates.
Will the President of the Board of Trade give the criteria by which he takes into account whether or not to issue an industrial development certificate? Has he anything to say different from what I said just now? If so, he will be contradicting the former Parliamentary

671
Secretary, who explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) not long ago precisely what considerations were taken into account. They were those that I have mentioned, namely, the available supply of labour.
Even in agriculture we in Scotland are falling behind. We had recently the Report of the Hill Lands (North of Scotland) Commission. It was the most defeatist Report that I have ever read. This was a Committee of responsible persons who were asked to look into the possibilities of increasing beef production in the Highlands. After sitting for a very long time, they discovered that all the land in the Highlands is occupied by somebody. Anyone could have told them that before they started. It is all occupied. The Committee said in the Report that the occupiers of the land were sometimes misusing land and had been given advice by representative and responsible bodies, including the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, but in many cases they were unwilling and, in some cases unable, through lack of finance, to bring about the restocking of the hillsides which the Hill Land Commission and the College of Agriculture thought desirable. The Report of the Commission says that there is nothing that we can do about it. There is no power. The Secretary of State told me, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that he accepts the conclusions of this Commission, and he praises Lord Balfour and his Commissioners for the useful job of work which they have done.
Is the Secretary of State really saying that we are to ignore the potentiality of the whole of the Highlands area, or does he really think that we should have increased beef production? He cannot argue in favour of both. It will be remembered that we recently had a Report about Mid-Wales—the Mid-Wales Investigation Report—which was much more imaginative and much more adventurous. The view was taken that something could be done to see that the natural resources of that area were properly utilised in the interests of the country as a whole. Surely the same can be said of Scotland—or must Highland depoulation continue?
I commend to the Secretary of State an article which appeared in the Scotsman on 13th July from which I should like to
672
quote much, but from which I will quote only:
"If the Hydro Board can take over a glen and fill it with water, and the Forestry Commission can take whole hillsides and clothe them with trees, why not a body to take a glen and stock it with cattle?"
I echo that suggestion—why not a body to take over a glen and stock it with cattle? If we are treating this matter seriously, and if glens, like the Great Glen stocked with cattle by Mr. Hobbs, can be stocked with cattle, why should they not be so stocked in the interests of the country? Are we to say that we cannot do that, because someone who owns the glen is unwilling or unable to stock it with cattle? I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider that.
On Tuesday I asked him whether,
"…in view of the Government's request for an increase in beef production, he will encourage local authorities to operate the provisions of the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, as a matter of urgency."
During the passage of that Measure we were assured by the Government spokesman that the Government were anxious to pass that legislation, because it was needed to improve the roads to give access to livestock rearing areas in order to get a much needed increase in beef production. The Secretary of State replied:
"I regret that, in view of the need to limit capital expenditure, I cannot offer grants for this purpose at present. I am prepared, however, to consider any schemes submitted to me by local authorities with a view to the offer of grants as soon as circumstances permit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 22.]
That is another victim of the Chancellor's anti-inflation policy. Works urgently required to increase food production are stopped by Government action and Government decision while luxury building in London and the building of new petrol filling stations all over the country are merely discouraged by putting up the price of money. That is the sense of proportion which Ministers appear to have.
The Government's inflationary difficulties are not caused by over-consumption in the Highlands and crofting counties, where unemployment is 4·4 per cent. They are not caused by over-consumption in the livestock rearing areas and the fishing area in the north-east of Scotland, with which the Secretary of

673
State is familiar and where unemployment is 5·4 per cent., nor in Lanarkshire, where unemployment is 3·2 per cent., nor in West Lothian, where it is 3·2 per cent. Yet all are treated alike by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except, perhaps, that Scotland has worse treatment, because Scotland is much more dependent than London and the rest of the country on public enterprise, and it is thereby more adversely affected by Government policy.
I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind the delay in completing the mechanical engineering research laboratory at. East Kilbride. A few days ago the Mechnical Engineering Research Board said, in its Report for last year:
"This country will fall behind others in industrial progress unless there is a quicker rate of advance in the provision of adequate research facilities.
The main causes for the present state of affairs are inadequate financial provision and cumulative delays which have occurred during the design and construction of buildings and equipment."
Work began on the laboratory in November, 1949. The Report said:
"Now, six years later, it is not nearly complete, and the completion date is likely to be at least ten years later than the latest date suggested by the original committee."
The establishment of this laboratory was a bold and imaginative step in research and technical education in Scotland, but it is to be delayed by ten years because of financial stringency. I need scarcely ask what would have been the decision if this project had been in London or Birmingham. Would it have been delayed for ten years? Of course the Secretary of State cannot get the money. He cannot get the money for building the town centre shops in East Kilbride. Perhaps he will ask Mr. Harold Samuel or Ravenseft Properties Ltd. for the money to build this much-needed mechanical engineering research laboratory in East Kilbride.
We have heard something about redundancies in the motor car industry in the Midlands. Great concern about the redundancies has been expressed on both sides of the House and will no doubt be expressed in the debate which I understand is tò take place next week. We have redundancies in Scotland. There has been a pay-off at the India Rubber Tyre works at Inchinnin, a pay-off for workers in the shale industry in the
674
Lothians, where many men are taking down the works in which they were previously employed—and they have been re-employed in an area where unemployment is already 3·2 per cent. There has been a pay-off in the cotton factory at Shotts and redundancies greater than usual in the light castings industry.
Now the Admiralty has decided to close all naval establishments in the Orkneys, where 200 workers will be affected. I do not think that they will find employment within the area. As the Government are always prepared to take work from the perimeter to the centre, I wonder whether Rosyth will be the next on the list. Where are the workers to be re-employed? Presumably redundant workers in Scotland are to be employed in the factories which are now being built in the south.
We had a transfer of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance from Edinburgh to Newcastle—another sucking away of employment from Scotland. Hon. Members on both sides of the House and the Minister of Labour himself criticised the British Motor Corporation for failing to enter into consultations with the unions before the pay-off, but there was no consultation with the Civil Service unions before that pay-off in Edinburgh. Of course that was in Scotland, which makes it much easier.
We have a large number of industries in which there is under-employment at present. I do not propose to take up time by giving the list, but furniture and upholstery trades are suffering badly. The anticipated rent increases in a short time, in view of the forthcoming legislation, will do little to stimulate demand for furniture and upholstery among the working people of Scotland, so many of whom are under-employed, with wages decreasing in consequence.
We do not need planned unemployment in Scotland. What we need is planning for more employment. We need it in many parts, some of which I have mentioned—the Highlands, the North-East, Lanarkshire, Fife and the Lothians, with the developing coal areas. Six thousand miners are to be declared redundant in Lanarkshire. In a short time some will go to Fife, but they will go more easily if the non-mining members of their families can work in modern factories

675
of the kind which we have on the industrial sites in Lanarkshire—and we still need industry in Lanarkshire to take in the slack which is now being further increased. All that takes planning, and makes it absolutely necessary for the President of the Board of Trade to deny industrial development certificates to developers in London and the English Midlands.
I have painted a rather grim picture of the future of Scotland under the present Government. It is, however, the only picture that emerges from an examination of the facts as given in official publications. I ask the Secretary of State not to be blinded by the progress report of his White Paper, "Industry and Employment in Scotland, 1955". Let him—and surely he has a duty to do this—compare what is happening in Scotland with the progress made in England. The brains and the skill of our people are the greatest asset that we have. We must not deny our people the opportunity of using their brains and their skill anywhere in the world, but let us not turn them away by denying them opportunity in their own country.
5.0 p. m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I welcome this opportunity to intervene for a short time in a debate on trade and industry in Scotland. I share the view of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) of the great contribution which Scotland can make to the prosperity of the United Kingdom. If I paint a rather rosier picture of Scotland's future—as, perhaps, speakers on the Government benches, whatever Government may be in office, tend to do—that must not be taken to mean that I do not share with him some of the anxieties which he has expressed, or that I pretend that there are not places and instances, some of which I may mention in the course of my remarks, which give anxiety to anyone studying this problem.
There are really two choices open to one in making a speech of this kind. One can make a speech about the United Kingdom economy, upon the basis that the prosperity of one is the prosperity of all, or a speech particularly attuned to Scotland's problems. I will choose the latter in a debate of this character. The
676
hon. Member spent a considerable part of his time comparing what was happening in one part of the country with what was happening in another. We cannot have a complete equality as to what is happening in production or building in every section of the United Kingdom; it will vary. On occasions, one will go faster than another.
The hon. Member mentioned London. Metropolitan London has 20 per cent. of the insured population, and its building since the war is equivalent to 10 per cent. Scotland, with 10 per cent. of the insured population, has pretty well held that share of industrial building of all types, Government and private. Six hundred firms have moved out and established branches outside London since the war, not all to Scotland, alas, despite the efforts of the hon. Gentleman's Government and mine. About 350 were established in Southern England, 210 in the North of England, and 40 in Scotland.
Under the policies he referred to, pursued by his Government and mine, there has been some movement of industrial enterprise from the south to the north. I shall refer to the figures in a few moments, when I come to that part of my speech. It is two years since I spoke in a Scottish debate. Since then, there has been a marked improvement in Scotland's affairs. Whether that is to be attributed to my silence or to Scottish enterprise, I know not, but there is certainly a healthier and more prosperous picture to be described now than was the case then.
The hon. Member mentioned some figures, and I want to put a few before the House. Employment in Scotland has increased—and by "employment" I mean the number of men at work. That is not a bad test of the situation. The figure for May, 1955, was 23,000 higher than the figure a year earlier and 59,000 higher than in May, 1953—and the increase was reflected in almost all the main groups except clothing and some of the textile industries.
Unemployment was lower in 1955 than ever before. The monthly average of 51,000 compares with'53,000 in 1951, which was the lowest figure previously recorded. In 1954, which was a good year on most counts, 8,000 more were unemployed than the average for 1955.

677
If I may bring the record up to date, I can say that unemployment in June, 1956—at 46,500—was lower than it was in the same month either of 1955 or 1954.
The general outlook for the future, as shown by the industrial development certificates issued—one measure which is often taken—is certainly encouraging. In 1955 the Board of Trade approved 54 million square feet. This was more than in 1954; twice as much as in 1953, and half as much again as in the boom year of 1951. These are heartening figures for us to hear, upon whichever side of the House we sit, and they represent a striking level of prosperity. The hopes in Scotland, as in the United Kingdom, must be that we should enjoy the fruits of this investment in increased productivity, reflected in more stable prices and more constant levels of consumption.
I should like to leave the statistical analysis of this record, although I do not promise not to mention any more figures. I shall, however, try to mention rather fewer.
Mr. T. Fraser: I am looking at the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland 1955, which says:
"Among the expansions at existing works, schemes by the whisky industry to extend or replace bonded stores were more numerous than usual."
They do not provide against employment.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall mention the whisky industry before I sit down, because I want to pay a special tribute to the contribution which it has made to our export trade.
Leaving the statistical side of the matter, I want to mention some far-reaching changes which are taking place in the Scottish industrial structure. The basis of Scotland's prosperity is not just a few industries established under the Distribution of Industry Act; it lies in her basic industries of steel, coal, shipbuilding, engineering, agriculture and fishing. Unless we have prosperity in those industries, nothing else that any Government can do will make any very large contribution to the problem.
When I made a tour of Scottish industry in 1954 I remember that some misgiving was expressed about the future of the Scottish iron and steel industry, which is the key to much else of that which is produced in Scotland. Today, we can
678
note with satisfaction the good progress that has been made with the Colville scheme for expanding iron and steel output. Even since the White Paper was written developments costing £6 million have been announced by Bairds and Scottish Steel, which are expected to more than double the output of pig iron at the Gartsherrie Works at Coatbridge.
So much for industry; what about shipyards? The shipyards of Scotland employed even more people in 1955 than they did in 1954, and the order books were fuller at the end than at the beginning. Orders in these shipyards represent more than two years' work. It is true, as it always is in these matters, that the position is not evenly spread. The bigger shipyards are better off than the smaller ones. I might mention two important launchings which took place in 1955—the "Empress of Britain" by Her Majesty the Queen, and the "Corinthia" by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. Wherever we sit we can all feel proud that the Clyde can still present these great ships to the world.
Mr. George Lawson: I think the President would agree that one cannot judge the economic trend of a country merely by taking one year's figures and those for the following year. Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there has been any increase in the number of workers in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry in 1955, as compared with the number in 1948?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot offhand, but I will certainly see that the figures are made available.
The point I was making was that there are more people employed in Scotland than last year, and the order books are fuller now than they were at the beginning of the year. I have to deal with quite a lot of figures in the Board of Trade, but what matters is not precise figures. It is the trend that matters, the direction in which we are going—whether we are going forward or backward. I say that in her shipyards, Scotland is going forward, and we are very glad that it is so.
I want to mention the modernisation and development of coal mining, because it presents a rather different picture from what was imagined some years ago. Progress continues to be made, and the

679
National Coal Board is pursuing its plans to replace the declining central coalfields, of which we all know, by new workings, especially in Eastern Scotland. When we think of new workings, we must also think of the declining coalfields and the problems which they bring.
This picture which I am painting, which is a very bright one, has this other feature to it where the coalfields are being worked out, but, nevertheless, the Board's plans are going forward and new workings are being developed. As the older pits become exhausted, it means that more difficult seams have to be worked and new mines have to be sunk, and the industry has to run very hard to stay where it is, in terms of output, as that situation develops.
I do not want to under-estimate the magnitude of the task. The National Coal Board's revised estimate of its labour force shows a modest increase over the next decade, and it is worth looking back, reflecting and comparing that estimate with the very substantial decline which was anticipated in "Plan for Coal" in 1950. The outlook in terms of labour for this basic industry of coal is something far different from that which was at one time anticipated.
If the older industries are holding their own, the new industries are developing. There has been the remarkable post-war development in Scotland consequent on the growth of the oil-based chemical industry at Grangemouth. Forth Chemicals, Limited, should complete an extension late this year to double the capacity of their styrene producing plant. There are large new schemes of expansion by British Hydrocarbon Chemicals, Ltd., now under way, and Union Carbide, a great American company, is building a plant to manufacture polyethylene.
Scotland already has a significant and growing share in atomic energy developments, and Scottish firms in many fields are contributing to the development of nuclear power. The whole of the steam-raising plant for the nuclear power station at Calderhall was manufactured in the west of Scotland. I am deliberately mentioning these new industries because this is the weight of the matter—where the big and powerful contribution of Scottish production to the economy not only of
680
Scotland but of the United Kingdom really rests.
I want to mention some of the other industries. The activity of almost all branches of the engineering industry remains at a high level. There has been further progress in the establishment of the electrical engineering industry, and there are important proposals for the production of contractors' plant. Distillers—and I now come to the position regarding whisky which the hon. Member forecast—are working to capacity and are enlarging their storage space for whisky to be matured. I quite agree that this may not have a great effect in terms of man-power, but it has a very substantial effect in terms of exports. I know that the hon. Gentleman is as anxious as I am to ensure—let me develop the case for whisky in a Scottish debate—that we all pay tribute to the contribution which that industry has made to our exports. In 1955. they were the highest ever recorded, both in quantity and in value. There remains a lively demand at home and abroad for Scottish tweeds, both Harris and Border and the traditional border knitwear industry has also made a great contribution to the export trade.
One particularly welcome sign is that the flow of new arrivals into Scotland has continued and increased. There are some schemes of new arrivals in Scotland which are of major importance; some 600,000 square feet of factory space are involved. The Caterpillar Tractor Company—and I know we all welcome that great American company to Scotland—will have 250,000 square feet, and the Goodyear Tyre company is another of the concerns involved. There is also a large expansion scheme by Burroughs, Ltd. for the manufacture of office machinery at the new town of Cumbernauld.
I want to emphasis the lesson of these investments, because they are an indication of the private funds which well-known companies are prepared to put into the Scottish Development Area. That is a good sign, and a traditional sign, because it is almost exactly one hundred years ago today that the first American company arrived in Scotland. That company made vulcanised rubber, and I think it arrived there because Scotland did not have the same patent laws as England and it offered them a certain marginal advantage. Since then, there

681
has been a constant stream of American firms finding a footing in Scotland, which has brought great prosperity both to themselves and the Scottish people.
Besides these major schemes, there are a number of smaller projects of special value to particular parts of Scotland. For example, one of the first factories on the new industrial estate at Inverness will engage in photogravure printing, there is the electric lamp factory at Buckie; the twist drills factory to be opened at Peterhead which is now under construction, and the new textile machinery parts which are to be made in Dundee, which will help a little to diversify the dependence of that city on jute.
Scotland has her problems in the industrial field, for example, problems of geography, but so have most other countries, even including the United States and Canada. There are very few countries in the world indeed which have not got some kind of problem of geography. The examples which I have given demonstrate that Scotland is overcoming her problems, but that a sustained effort is still needed to bring these developments to maturity and to add others. This is a picture of a vigorous, growing and expanding economy. Having said that, I must also add that of course not all the developments in the last eighteen months have been favourable. Some industries have not done so well. I have already mentioned textiles other than wool.
Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is repeating himself in talking about wool. Surely, there is considerable underemployment in the woollen and worsted industries at the present time.
Mr. Thorneycroft: It may be that in some firms and in some places there is under-employment, but the picture which I have given and can present of Scotland is one of great and growing prosperity. I am saying now and I am about to say very frankly to the House that if we look across the whole field, there are some places that are not doing so well. The hon. Member for Hamilton himself mentioned the difficulty of the shale oil industry, and we will certainly do our best to steer new industry into that area.
There is also the mining village of Shotts, where a cotton spinning and weaving firm has told us it wishes to leave the factory, and we are therefore seeking
682
another tenant. There is a similar situation at Jedburgh, where a firm making viscose rayon has left. The carpet industry in the West of Scotland and Midlothian has met with difficulties, not least due to the Australian import restrictions.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the firm which is leaving Jedburgh was the only instance of this great new industry which existed in Scotland, and that it is disappearing and leaving us without a single example?
Mr. Thorneycroft: That is an example which I took deliberately, because I do not want to paint the picture in too glowing colours. I want to show where are the difficulties, and when we have a firm which is leaving one of these factories, I want to report that we are seeking another tenant.
Scotland has been affected by the credit squeeze and the general policy to moderate consumption. This has affected employment or brought short-time working in some industries. In fact, about 4 per cent. of Scotland's insured population is concerned with consumer durables which are perhaps the most affected. Of course, fewer still than 4 per cent. are directly affected. In Scotland and elsewhere some changes in the employment pattern must take place. But the general picture is still one of prosperity and in that I feel we can all take satisfaction.
I will now turn to the industrial development, referred to by the hon. Member for Hamilton, as measured by the Board of Trade in terms of factory space for manufacturing industry, and I begin by taking Scotland as a whole and not just the Development Area. I have been considering the Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure in the Development Areas which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—he did not pay a tribute to it but he mentioned it—
Mr. Hugh Dalton: It was misleading.
Mr. Thorneycroft: It was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend—
Mr. Dalton: She was misled.
Mr. Thorneycroft: She was not misled by me.

683
The House will not expect me to anticipate the reply to the Select Committee, but it may help to put matters in perspecive if I review the post-war industrial development which has taken place in Scotland, with particular reference to factory building.
The Labour Government took advantage of the exceptional conditions immediately following the war and encouraged the introduction of much more new industry to the Scottish Development Area, mainly by factories built by the Board of Trade, and all this was of great benefit to Scotland. It is interesting to compare progress in the four years of the Labour Government, from 1948 to 1951, with the four years from 1952 to 1955. If I make such a comparison, I do so in no party spirit.
Between 1948 and 1951, if I may take the manufacturing industry, there was approved 13·1 million square ft. of factory space of all types of building. In the four years from 1952 to 1955 the figure went up from 13·1 to 15·1 million square ft. and the range of industries covered in both periods was about the same. The area of building started in the earlier period was 10·6 million square ft. and in the later period it was 12·2 million square ft.
Mr. Dalton: It was, of course, approved in our time.
Mr. Thorneycroft: The area completed in the earlier period was 11·5 million square ft. and in the later period, 13 million square ft. The figures relate to all industrial building over 5,000 square ft. in Scotland as a whole.
Mr. T. Fraser: I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that just to give the Scottish figures is not enough. Will he make the comparison, which I make, between what was approved in Scotland in the last four years of the Labour Government and was what approved in London and the South-East Region; and what his Government approved in Scotland and in London and the South-East Region in the four years which he mentioned?
Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, I will give an answer straight away. It is true to say that in the early period, between 1945 and 1947, a far larger proportion was
684
approved in Scotland. But under the Socialist Government, between 1948 and 1951, that proportion, which was 14 per cent. in the earlier years, fell to 7 per cent. and has been maintained at that level by the Conservatives.
I turn now to the Scottish Development Area. More than half the people live there. The amount of factory space completed was the same for the two periods. It was 8·7 million square feet. Approvals were 8·3 million in the earlier period—the hon. Gentleman was talking about approvals—and 9·6 million in the later period. Starts were 6·7 million in the earlier period and 8 million in the later period. As to the amount of Government building, during the eight years—I am now taking the whole of the eight years—the major part of the factory building in the Development Area was privately financed. I do not think that is generally recognised.
Of the 8·3 million approved in the earlier period, 2 million was financed under the Distribution of Industry Act. Of the 9·6 million approved in the last four years, 2·3 million was financed under the Distribution of Industry Act. It is true that there was also some building by other Government Departments, for example, the Ministry of Supply and so forth, which made a useful contribution. But, making all allowances for that, the privately financed building—it was mainly for the extension of local enterprise—was the greatest contribution. Of course, a large part of the Board of Trade building under both Governments was for the introduction of and assistance to new arrivals. The figures show clearly first, that both Governments have used the powers of the Distribution of Industry Act with vigour and effect—
Mr. T. Fraser: No, no.
Mr. Thorneycroft: Well, I could argue that our figures are better but I did not want to be pushed into saying that.
Mr. Fraser: Under the Labour Government the powers were used with vigour and effect, because we built factories in advance and obtained tenants; but the right hon. Gentleman will not build facories in advance, and the Report tells of large numbers of applicants for the few factories which fall vacant. When they are refused, these applicants do not ask for development certificates to

685
build in Scotland. They ask for certificates to build in London, and the right hon. Gentleman grants them.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I thought that I was bending over backwards to be fair. I say that the figures show incontrovertibly that the Conservatives had done a great deal better, but I tried to bring in the party opposite on the tail of our success, and I said that under both Governments we had pursued these matters with vigour and effect.
Mr. Fraser: But the right hon. Gentleman has not.
Mr. Thorneycroft: Secondly, the figures show—and this is something from which both sides of the House may learn, as it is something from outside—that the main progress in the Development Area has come from the expansion of indigenous industries or the attraction of new firms simply on the merits of the situation in Scotland. In 1948 the industrial structure of Scotland was virtually the same as in 1939, with 16 per cent. of the labour force in the basic industries and 32 per cent. in other manufacturing industries. In 1955, 38 per cent. of a much larger total was employed in other manufacturing industries, and only 12 per cent. in the old basic industries. The change has been much more striking in certain areas. This is a tribute to the policy which in general has been adopted by both parties. It has been a bi partisan policy and most useful.
The situation today is that the Government have made it plain that approval of further Government-financed building will be allowed only in exceptional cases of urgency and importance. We have however agreed to build a 40,000 square feet factory for Pye Limited in North Lanarkshire on amortisation terms, which will bring additional employment to Scotland, and I think we can welcome the development there of the electronics industry by this well-known British company. I will make these points about the slowing-down of Government building as it affects Scotland. I make no apology for economising in public expenditure. No one stands to gain more than does the Board of Trade from general economy in Government spending and it is only right that it should make a contribution in the same way as any other Government Department.
686
Secondly, privately-financed building has always accounted for the bulk of the development in the Development Areas and it is continuing at a high level. The I.D.Cs. for 1956 included little or no Government-financed factory building, which was still above the average for recent years.
Scottish Industrial Estates has been, and continues to be, extremely active. I should like, in passing, to pay a tribute to Lord Bilsland for the contribution which he has made over the whole of Scotland in the work that he did with such energy and drive in getting factories from overseas to come here. He has kept all Presidents of the Board of Trade well upon their toes in these matters. I am sure that we all wish his successor. Sir Robert McLean, all good fortune in the great task which he takes over.
Employment at the 360 factories administered by Scottish Industrial Estates is at the record figure of 65,000. I have described recent industrial projects, but the full effect of some of them will not be apparent for some time ahead. Often there is a time lag between the issue of the I.D.C. and the beginning of construction, and between construction and full use and employment. The rate of industrial development is on a large scale and it is not unreasonable to hope that it will bring a rich harvest to Scotland in the years to come.
Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell us now why he allows three and a half times the factory building in London that we get in Scotland, despite the unemployment figures and the other figures which I have given?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I have already given the answer. Metropolitan London, which already represents 20 per cent. of the insured population of the British Isles, has had only 10 per cent. of the building, whereas Scotland, with 10 per cent. of the insured population, has had her full share.
Mr. Fraser: Are these factories which are going up now to be filled by workers from London or from Scotland and Wales?
Mr. Thorneycroft: The factories in Metropolitan London have been moving out and not in.
Sir James Hutchison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scottish whisky industry has moved down to the Strangers' Dining Room in this House? In view of the complimentary remarks that he has made, it will no doubt be very glad to talk to him.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Hubbard: The fact that the Scottish whisky industry has moved down to the House of Commons has no bearing upon the important matter that we are discussing. I am fully aware that the Scottish whisky industry makes a great contribution to the economy and to the dollar position of the country.
We have been treated to a great many figures this afternoon by the President of the Board of Trade. Some of us have been unable to keep track of them. I am interested in what they were supposed to prove, because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the trend is the thing that matters. One would gather from his speech that everything in Scotland is in a very happy position and that we have little need to worry because we are set fair for the future. The right hon. Gentleman may read a great deal, but he may be reading the wrong sort of stuff. There may be some new industries in Scotland, but we must have the right industries in the right place at the right time.
Even with all the figures he gave, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can claim that we have reached that position. The White Paper shows a very different position. At the very beginning it mentions industries that have suffered from redundancy and under-employment as a result of the Government's restriction of spending in the home market and the restrictions on hire purchase. That is much nearer the picture as we see it in Scotland. It has been the Government's deliberate policy to cut home spending and, as a result, industries which were flourishing a few years ago are now restricted. There is evidence of unemployment and under-employment in them.
I shall focus my remarks on Fife. Not many years ago Kirkcaldy was called the "boom" town because its industries were flourishing and there was full employ-
688
ment. When the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) met a few years ago to consider the development of the new town of Glenrothes nearly all the industrialists protested because they claimed there was already a shortage of labour in Kirkcaldy. In spite of the figures given this afternoon, there is a good deal of unemployment and underemployment in Fife and on the perimeter of Glenrothes. I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to figures given by the Minister of Labour as recently as March showing that unemployment is rising in Scotland and that the new industries are not keeping pace with it but are falling off.
As a result of the Government's policy of reducing home spending the extraordinary position has arisen that the linoleum industry is beginning to pay men off. The White Paper tells us that exports of linoleum and other goods to Australia have fallen off, as well as exports of motor cars, which is causing some of the trouble in the Midlands. The picture is not a good one, especially in the areas which are not Development Areas and which are deemed to be prosperous.
The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that within the last two years 30 per cent. of the operatives in the furnishing trades have become either unemployed or under-employed. Have these figures escaped his notice? This position arises mainly as a result of the credit squeeze and the restriction of hire purchase, and the figures are much more realistic for the people of Scotland than the long strings of figures rolled out by the President of the Board of Trade.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned coal, which, like steel and shipbuilding, is one of the basic trades in Scotland. In my constituency, which is a great coal development area, we have seen the development of Rothes Colliery which has cost more than £10 million. It ran up against difficulties of flooding, and the National Coal Board has had to grapple with difficulties which private enterprise could not have touched. Very little credit has been given to the National Coal Board for dealing with this position in a way that will enable us to produce coal next year in this area. This will be of tremendous importance for the country and for the future of employment in Scotland, yet this area has not one new industry in it.

689
I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland a few weeks ago to tell us whether the Government intended to put new industries into this area, realising the importance of attracting miners from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I understand that by 1965 there will be only one colliery in Lanarkshire producing coal and that about 6,000 miners will be redundant. What is the use of having coal miners without pits in Lanarkshire and coal mines in Fife without coal miners? That is the type of planning that we expect from this Government. We should have an assurance that the coal workings and the men will be in the same place at the same time.
I agree that it is a very difficult and hard decision to ask miners to come from redundant areas, to uproot themselves and families and go to the coal developing areas, with the great disturbance that causes in their lives. That is not something which anyone can do with a good heart, but it is absolutely essential that something should be done to give a measure of encouragement to these workers.
We find in this coal developing area a new town which was scheduled and started building under the 1946 Act. It was intended to provide sleeping accommodation and all the amenities and employment for people who resided in that area. Now we have a coal mine going into production and not a single new industry has been started in the area. One of the reasons given is that the surrounding area of Kirkcaldy and elsewhere was so prosperous that it needed all the labour of people who went to Glenrothes to live and found work in Kirkcaldy.
In my constituency at Seafield there is the development of what might be the greatest coal mine in the country. Boring is taking place on a man made island in the Firth of Forth. Everyone realises that that is a tremendously costly experiment carried out to get coal, which is so much required for the basic industries—coal which today is being imported to Scotland in far too large amounts.
A great deal of development is going on and bores are being made further out in the Firth of Forth. Probably this will be the biggest coal cellar in the whole of Scotland. Yet we have coal in one
690
place and miners in another. In one part of the country there is a development which will restrict miners and give them no encouragement to go to the new area in Fife. Is that the sort of planning which will lead to healthy industry in Scotland in the future? Can we have any hope that the Government will change their plans in this regard? There is the same situation in the Lothians. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) will have something to say about that. At present the picture in Fife is becoming almost as gloomy as in Lanarkshire and other areas where pits have been closed.
There is a big problem presented in the importation of coal. A great deal could be done about conservation. It is interesting to find that the Fuel Efficiency Committee has been offering a great deal of advice on the proper use of coal. It is also interesting to read in the White Paper that sixty-eight surveys were completed in 1955. They were surveys into the use of coal in sixty-eight industries in Scotland in which the aggregate consumption of fuel was 323,000 tons. If the recommendations had been put into effect, there would have been a saving of 46,000 tons a year. At the end of the debate, can we be told if any of those recommendations were in fact put into effect? Were any steps taken to implement the recommendations which would have saved 46,000 tons of coal a year? That saving would apply to the sixty-eight industries in which surveys were taken and it means that 14 per cent. of the coal burned in those industries has been completely wasted, at the same time as we are importing coal to Scotland.
The Fuel Efficiency Committee has given further information and offered advice to other consumers of coal, to the extent of 367,000 tons, whereby there would be considerable savings. We should know what attention has been paid to that advice. Has anything been done as a result of those surveys? Have the huge sums which have been loaned for development been used to good effect? I am satisfied that in that way we could save importing coal to Scotland and could help in the problems of development of industry in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton had something to say about

691
Government establishments. Again, keeping in mind the picture in Fife, I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could give some information about the future of Rosyth. Is it to be put on a care and maintenance basis? What is to happen about Donibristle air station? Is that to be put on a care and maintenance basis or to continue operating? It is tremendously important to know about that. If there is to be a cutting back of employment in Fife, of which there is evidence at present, how can we expect to attract men from other areas?
If redundant miners in other parts of Scotland are aware that there is likely to be unemployment in Fife as a result of closing Rosyth dockyard and a recession in the linoleum, furniture and textile industries, they will not be prepared to transfer to Fife. No matter what is spent on sinking coal mines and their development, we cannot produce coal from them without miners to do the work. It is not every type of labour which is suitable for producing coal. The percentage of men working at the coal face is small. A large number would have to be brought in from other parts of the country.
I should have been very much happier today if we had had some much more realistic information. I hope that before the debate ends we shall get some. I agree that it is important we should get a share of the new factories. There is a complete reversal of the policy declared by the Government, that the development of industry should not be focussed around towns which already are too big and already have populations which are too great. The whole purpose of the Distribution of Industry Act was to encourage industry to go where there were large pockets of unemployment, and to put an end to the one-industry towns. Glenrothes has been made into a one-industry town because no new industry has been started there.
I hope we shall have an answer to some of these questions and a more realistic point of view put forward instead of a series of figures which are already available for anyone to read. The effect and the results of those figures and trends which may be dependent on them really matter. What matters is that in Scotland today there is a higher percentage of unemployment than there has been for many
692
years, in spite of the figures given by the President of the Board of Trade. The trend is for those numbers to become greater still. The trend, in spite of the development of new collieries to replace redundant seams, is not likely to help the production of coal. The National Coal Board has been authorised to spend £40 million over the present period. It is expected that another £87 million will be spent over the next five years in order that we may increase the production of coal in Scotland by about 8 million tons. That would be a great contribution, but unless we have better planning in the development of coal and the use of the miners, this money will be wasted.
5.50 p.m.
Sir James Hutchison: It is not surprising and, to me, not unwelcome that this debate should have concentrated so much on the problem of the distribution of industry, and I should like later to turn to that problem, for I agree with much which has been said on the subject by hon. Members opposite.
Before I do that, as is perhaps not unnatural in an industrial debate, I should like to say a few words on the importance of research. We hear and read on all sides of the importance of scientists and technologists. This importance has been recognised in increasing tempo by the Government in the augmented grants which they are giving to universities for technical education and to technical colleges, as well as in the local facilities which they are now setting up.
I want to examine another link in the chain of research, and that is the link which leads the pure or applied research into the hands of business itself. If that link is weak or missing, we are not making the maximum use of what research has discovered for us; and I am very doubtful whether that link is not weak or missing at present.
The big concerns are all right and I am not worried about them; they have their own research departments and are able to keep abreast of what has been discovered. There are also trade organisations dealing with research, and those who are members of such organisations get certain facilities, but are we certain that all members of an industry, particularly the less important, are members of the trade associations? I am worried about the small concerns—for example,

693
the manager or managing director who has 20 or 100 employees, who is up to his neck in work, anxiety and problems and who has nobody to send to a research centre to find out what is being made available.
We must remember that the majority of British industry still consists of the small concerns. Such a man remains largely ignorant of what progress has been made in new ingredients, new processes and new pieces of machinery, from which, if only he knew what they could do for him, he would greatly benefit. He has not the staff to send to obtain advice and often does not know where to go for it.
The new activity of industrial consultants largely sprang up to fill this gap, but these consultants are concerned mostly with big firms and are very costly to employ. I am not alone in my anxiety in this matter, because, five years ago, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) made a study of the problem and applied for a small grant, only a few thousand pounds, to carry out a review. At first, the application was refused, but later it was allowed largely, paradoxically enough, with the help of the American Aid programme.
That inquiry is now complete. It shows beyond any doubt that the need is great. It shows a great need for a number of peripatetic engineers who will go round industry, particularly the smaller firms, and point out to them where they are out of date and how easy it would be for them to improve their concerns.
The Scottish Council planned to organise such an organisation and asked for £6,000 to set it on its feet. The Council was prepared to pay half if the D.S.I.R. would pay the other half. So far, the D.S.I.R. has refused. This request for money is made only until the organisation becomes self-supporting, because the Council is satisfied, and I am satisfied, that the benefits which this organisation could bring to industry would soon become so well recognised that concerns would be prepared to pay a fee for the advice which they would get from these engineers.
Is it reasonable to expect research to sell itself? Salesmanship is one of the great problems of modern commerce, recognised many years ahead of us by the Americans, who go in for high-
694
pressure salesmanship, which they have reduced to a fine art. We have travellers for industry and commerce; we have insurance agents selling insurance. Is it unreasonable to expect that we should have somebody trying to sell research?
I believe that the task of research is to search out the problems in the country and then try to help to put them right. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the situation and bring pressure to bear upon the D.S.I.R., or whatever Government Department is responsible, so that that very small sum of money will be made available to set up an organisation which I am sure in the process of time will pay for itself over and over again.
May I pass to one of the products of research, atomic energy? In this, Scotland has not been left behind, and I congratulate the Government on what they have done. We have probably the most advanced breeder reactor station in the world set up at Dounreay, thanks largely to the pertinacity and foresight of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). In addition, there are the reactors at Chapel Cross, in Dumfriesshire, and yesterday we heard of a new station with, initially, two reactors to be set up in Ayrshire, probably near Girvan. This is a great start.
It has become a cliché to say that nuclear energy will be the power of the future, but the more one repeats it the more people will realise its great importance. I believe that in the end hydroelectric power will be the cheapest, and I am not one of those who suggests that Mr. Tom Johnston has water on the brain. I think that his hydro-electric schemes are good schemes for Scotland and that the energy produced will, in the long run, be the cheapest power we can get.
Hydro-electricity will have a great advantage in an inflationary period in that the capital will have been spent in fairly early days. The maintenance costs are relatively low. As costs of maintenance and production rise, a business which has invested its capital—and it has been a very big expenditure—and has comparatively small maintenance costs to face in the future will eventually draw great advantages and will end up by being the cheapest producer of electric power.
The curious situation is that these hydro-electric schemes are running short

695
of water. During the last few years a curious change has taken place in the climate. There has been less snowfall and what has fallen has been melting quicker than it used to melt. Snow, melting gradually, supplies the water which very largely fills the reservoirs of these hydroelectric schemes, and now we have the paradoxical situation in which those running hydro-electric schemes sometimes have to consider whether they will be forced to follow the procedure on the Continent and buy pumping stations to pump water into their reservoirs. I wonder whether we are to come to the paradoxical situation of hydro-electric schemes having to buy nuclear stations in order to pump the water into their reservoirs to enable them to produce the requisite amount of electricity?
There is a curious theory, and there has been a very interesting book written about it by a scientist in America called Mrs. Carson, that the ice cap is receding. If she is right, it is fascinating to speculate what is to happen to the Scottish climate. Will it continue to get warmer? Are all our calculations on the supply of water, snow, and so on, to be vitiated? It is fascinating to think what would happen, in that case, to our tourist industry and to our agriculture and to our method of life if the climate changed.
Mr. John Rankin: Look at the coal we would save.
Sir J. Hutchison: It would mean an immense change in a hundred directions.
I want to say just a word about the cost of nuclear power, to show how wise the Government are being—and, indeed, the country over all; I am not making any particular claim for Scotland—in getting into this nuclear power industry as soon as possible. I believe that the second cheapest electric power will be nuclear power. It may even beat hydro-electricity in the long run, because, at present, dependent on the amount of credit that is assumed from the sale of plutonium—which is rather a matter for speculation at present—nuclear power can be produced at from 43d. to 65d. per unit.
The coal, or thermal method of producing electricity costs, for the same load factor, about 52d. per unit. We are,
696
therefore, already within striking distance of having nuclear power as cheaply as thermal power. Undoubtedly, to my mind—and in the minds of those who are much better able to guess what the future holds in this matter—the nuclear method will certainly be able to reduce its present costs.
Is it, then, surprising that the world is excited by the fantastic possibilities now opening up before us, and that at a meeting in Paris, when we were discussing this sort of thing the other day, most of the discussion turned on nuclear power? Is it surprising that I urge my right hon. Friend to keep these thoughts in the forefront of his consideration?
I should like to know whether any Scottish Minister is particularly concerned with these nuclear power problems. To whom are we to put Questions on the development of nuclear power stations in Scotland? Is it the Minister of State? Or is it one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They are already overloaded with work, I know, but they must recognise that this is not a side-issue for Scotland, but will ultimately be one of the bedrocks upon which our industry is founded. I urge on my right hon. Friend to offer to one of his Joint Under-Secretaries of State the responsibility and duty of keeping abreast of affairs in a very complicated field.
Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word about peat—an old and happy, or, perhaps, not so happy hunting ground of mine in the past. It is seven years since I originally got an Answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) that this subject was to be gone into. Something is now coming out of the mills of government, which grind very slowly, and I am glad to see that peat has now, to a certain extent been milled.
The station at Altnabreac is apparently making some progress, but may we know what the soil is like which has been uncovered there? I ask, because that is one of the great potentialities. Not only may we have our closed or open gas turbines generating electricity—which, on its own, would not be a paying proposition—but if, after removing the peat, the soil underneath can be turned into fertile agricultural soil we get the best of both worlds. I should, therefore, like my right hon. Friend to tell me what sort of soil

697
has been uncovered at Altnabraec. Has the dewatering plant proved successful? I gather from the White Paper that it has. And where and when will the closed cycle gas turbine plant be erected?
Finally, I should like to turn to the problem that has, so far, been exercising so many minds in this debate—the location of industry. The new town plan is a good one, but I think that it has been admitted on all sides that if we are to set up a new town we must plan to have industry there, and not make the new town just an area for dwellings. That is one of the problems with which my right hon. Friend is concerned at Cumbernauld. They have succeeded there in attracting the Burroughs Adding Machine Company. That is a splendid triumph, but one swallow does not make a summer, and that one factory will not provide work for all those whom it is planned to settle at Cumbernauld.
Last year, I pressed my right hon. Friend to take a new look at the powers which he possessed and at the general policy for the distribution of industry. I thought then that the time had passed when one should automatically assume that, whatever be the circumstances in the normal part of Scotland, our endeavours must be to attract all new industry to the Development Areas. I think that that time has gone. That is shown by the unemployment figures; there is little difference between those figures in the Development Areas and in the rest of Scotland. I urged my right hon. Friend to take powers so that, whenever circumstances arose, and there was a special need of the kind of which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) has spoken in the case of Glenrothes, he should be able to deal with it.
I am not sure that he has those powers now, but I understand that a review is taking place. In all this I find myself in very exalted company. At that time I was in the company of the Scottish Council, but we are now joined by a Select Committee of this House, which seems to recommend very much the same procedure as we have been advocating. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Government will take powers to allow them to attract industry to the areas where it will bring the greatest good to the country.
698
Under the previous plan they did a lot of things. One of the most popular and most important was the construction of factories all ready for a concern to move into on a rental basis. That, more than anything else, was one of the things that attracted industry, and if the Government cast away that weapon they will have great difficulty in attracting industry to Scotland. Scotland has certain disadvantages in that respect, but it has certain advantages, too, and one of the things that played a great part in attracting industry was the possibility of an industrial concern being able to walk into a ready-made factory and pay a rent, and so not have to find the capital.
Only the other day a firm which wanted to extend in Scotland was offered the following attractions by Northern Ireland. It was offered a factory, suitable for its purposes, at 9d. per square foot. It was offered a grant of 33⅓ per cent.—in money—for the plant which it proposed to put in; and it was offered those facilities for ten years free of all rates. What an offer! How can my right hon. Friend expect to attract industry to Scotland if that is the sort of bait which is being dangled in front of industry in order to get it to go to Northern Ireland?
My right hon. Friend will be forced to do something, unless he is prepared to let Northern Ireland fill up over a year or two, and then Scotland, England and the rest can come in for what is left over. I was going to say that I hope my right hon. Friend will take some such steps; I am sure that some such steps will have to be taken, and any review which is now going on can only result in the sort of thing which I have been advocating being adopted for the whole of the country.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: The last few words of the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) were, particularly if he gave thought to what he was going to say, amazing. All of us are aware that this was a very fine discriminatory investment action on the part of Lord Chandos, a gentleman who has always stood for the principle of non-discrimination. I am one of the many who believe that this talk of investment being indiscriminate, of the Bank Rate being indiscriminate, is sheer

699
nonsense. There has always been discrimination by institutions and, indeed, by Governments in their treatment of individuals. This is a case of discrimination.
This is our problem now, as it was the problem of Wales and of Scotland, before the war. I am astonished to find that I am now attempting to make a speech which is very much like a speech I made over thirty years ago. It is telling exactly the same story. The President of the Board of Trade gave us statistics—we have had many statistics this afternoon—showing that employment in Scotland is higher and more factories have been built.
These statistics are, no doubt, very fine, and they give an effective reflection of many things. It may be said that the position in Scotland in 1956 is better than it was in 1954, but it is a poor show in the middle of the twentieth century that, after all our education and technological development, there is not some improvement in resources in any part of the United Kingdom.
What we have to consider in the United Kingdom as a whole is this: are the industries of Scotland, or, indeed, is any part of the United Kingdom, getting a fair share of the investment which is vital in any community in order to achieve a balanced and happy social life? We have heard very little about investment in Scotland. The hon. Member for Scotstoun mentioned research and the application of research. The application of the results of pure research is investment. It is no use anyone telling me that there are manufacturers, big or small, in England, Scotland or Wales, who are unaware of engineering and technical research; I just do not believe it.
While talking to a gentleman a few weeks ago, we had before us two machine tools, one priced at £2,000 and the other at £22,000. The one was a well-known machine tool, which operated before the war; today, as I said, it cost £2,000, but before the war it was worth between £800 and £1,000. I know it well. That company has sold six of those machines to British manufacturers. That machine is a pre-war, 1936 model, with a bit of chromium plate on it and with the index-
700
ing a bit more distinct, a manually operated machine. Three of the £22,000 model have been exported, and not one has been sold on the home market.
That may sound all right, because we want exports, but any Government which follows a policy of dear money in matters of investment—this so-called nondiscrimination policy—frustrates the British engineering industry from establishing the latest means of production on which technical advance has developed and puts that industry at a disadvantage in competition with foreign companies which seem to be able to get the credit to acquire the most up-to-date machinery.
We had from the benches opposite last night a demand for investment by the Colonial Development Corporation in all sorts of social and economic situations within which industry could develop. If there is one part of the United Kingdom which needs extensive social investment to attract industries which will then employ men of high technical knowledge, Scotland is that part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was telling me of a company which came to Lesmahagow, which said to the local authority, "If we bring our factory here, we shall want four-apartment and five-apartment houses, with garages, for our workpeople, because we shall bring with us people who will be earning £20 to £25 a week." We train technologists and technicians in Scotland, men with ambition, and they look for employment not only where they can get high remuneration, but where they can get high quality amenities.
This problem of investment is probably the most important problem facing not only Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it faces the whole of Europe. Investment is becoming very costly indeed. The President of the Board of Trade said that he did not want to paint too rosy a picture of Scotland. The picture he painted, of course, is one of current production for consumption. That can present a rosy picture for the present, but we must never eliminate from that picture the fact that that current production and economic activity is now being consumed and that there is a vital need for a large part of that current economic effort to go back into industry for reinvestment and extension.

701
The story in Scotland, as I have known it and have learned from reading and discussion, is that the greater part of reinvestment there has come from companies which are world-based, not Scottish-based or even English-based; it has come from world-based companies such as General Electric, Burroughs and International Harvesters, companies with huge financial and physical resources outside Scotland. Scotland is the home of insurance and banking, yet no one there seems to be prepared to finance Scottish enterprise.
I am not like some industrialists I know, who loathe the sight of an American company because its standards are so good. I want to see these industries coming in, but I do want to see natural investment within Scottish industry itself going on. It must go on. If it does not, the results will be very serious. There are those who believe that automation will have no effect on the shipping industry, for example. I do not believe that. One of the biggest factors in the cost of a ship is the time factor; time is one of the most important elements, the time on the berth. One cannot measure the capacity of engineering plant by the amount of cubic feet it occupies, or by the storage capacity of its building. Its capacity is measured by its technical efficiency and by the cubic capacity which it builds.
One of the most important factors in the cost of a product is the time it takes to turn the raw material into the finished product. The reduction of this time factor requires investment, very heavy investment. The new eleven-stage unit for producing an engine block costs £250,000. The old machine requiring 13 hands to operate it cost £49,000. That is the measure of the difference in capital cost.
To get new investment in these areas, we cannot leave it to private enterprise. I am not condemning private enterprise for this; do not misunderstand me; it is a very costly business today to invest on the scale required in these chemical, clothing and engineering processes. I very much doubt whether we could expect the average enthusiastic small or young businessman or engineer to risk all his resources in such a hazardous enterprise as putting down plant on a modern scale to compete with modern
702
established industrial plants. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) probably knows something about it, because he has "had a go". I understand. I wish him the best of success, but I think he will agree that it is a very expensive business.
Not enough has been said about investment. Every good farmer on a sizable farm knows by his knowledge of the land that a proportion of his crop every year must be put back into the soil to maintain and even to increase its fertility. He sees that, annually, that element from his production is put back into the earth to ensure that when he dies and his son takes over, the soil will be at least as good as, if not better than, when he took it over himself.
What has been happening in British industry for forty years? Banking and insurance do not put money into Scottish industry. Those who control finance in Scotland do not attempt to enter Scottish industry. One can see the figures of the outflow from Scotland into unit trusts in London. The Scottish investor puts his money not into Scottish industry, but into insurance and banking.
The initiative of the investor, about which we hear so much, has gone. I admit that it is not so easy to get in on the industrial wagon or on the industrial production train as it was thirty or forty years ago—I have been in engineering too long not to know it. What happened between the wars, and still happens now, is that the equity shareholders of modern industry, like most people engaged in industry, do not act like the good farmer.
If times are good and profits are high, they want every bit of the profits that they can get. They want to reap the lot and they do not want to plough back. That is happening today, and the symptoms of it can be seen everywhere. An article some time ago in The Times, which mentioned this very fact, said that as a generation we were too prone to take out of our current effort the maximum that we could draw and not to think of leaving something back for the next generation.
I remember a remark made many years ago by a great orator. It might have been the late Mr. Lloyd George or possibly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). I was very young and was greatly impressed by it. He said that we are not the owners

703
of the earth on which we spend the normal span of three score years and ten, but are only the tenants of it. We are here just for a little while and we have to pass it on to a generation which follows. Therefore, we should be careful what we do with it, and we should see that in extracting the wealth and using the earth's resources we do not create a barren waste and leave nothing to the generations that follow. We should develop and expand it, as a parent seeks expansion for the sake of his children.
Before the war, the shipping industry refused to expand and develop, so the Government of the day provided a subsidy to help it to do so. They gave the subsidies first to those who agreed to undertake scrappings and then to those who did not. Those are the people who believe in the philosophy of non-discrimination. Why should we not have some discrimination today?
The workings of modern industry and commerce demand that children can do arithmetic and can read and write. I have no doubt that had they been left to their own resources, millions of parents would never have sent their children to school, and industry would never have had the great human capital to manipulate the industrial machine. Therefore, we had discrimination and we compelled this capital for the future to be educated to operate the machines. If it was right to introduce compulsion in that direction, surely the time must come when action must be taken to ensure that industry and the economy is adequately supported in investment for future production and for an expansion in technology. If not, we shall be left behind in the race.
All over the world, Governments are taking action. They are being discriminatory in helping all kinds of industries to develop their technological powers, and we must do it here. We are doing a little in the way of research, but we are not doing enough. Equity shareholders of large industrial concerns, must curb their demands upon companies, and so also should certain directors in their expenses. I believe that a good deal of extra investment could be undertaken by not calling for some of the expenses that are called for today. Too much money is flowing out of industry and not enough is going back into it.
704
I always have a strong theme concerning the shipbuilding industry. I remember one of Cobbett's essays, in which he said that people were prone to sow seeds of plants from which they could pluck fruit, and were not sufficiently conscious of the fact that they should plant trees, although it might be a century before their descendants obtained the fruit. It is our duty to think of these things. Parents think of them for their children. Why should we not think of this as a national as well as a parental concept?
In shipbuilding, the position today is very good. The capacity is there and there are plenty of orders on the books, but with the extension of prefabrication, the possibilities of automation—an ugly word and difficult of definition—and the spread of all these techniques, the industry must be prepared to use initiative. This may mean the curbing of shareholders' demands.
I have no objection if directors tell equity shareholders that they cannot get any money for the next ten years because it is necessary to provide prefabrication shops and extend the area around the berths. Unless this is done, the shipbuilding industry will be out of date as against the yards in America, now lying idle, which have been expended, developed and technologically equipped and in comparison also with yards in France, Hamburg and Japan. Our shipyards are busy and the berths are full, but the capital investment which is vital if the industry is to hold its own in ten or fifteen years' time is not being provided.
The same is true of the steel industry. Hon. Members may know that it costs £60 to £100 million and requires four or five years work to put down a strip mill. Light industry—even Burroughs or the International Tractor Company—may be dependent upon increased capacity for strip sheet production. The decision to put down a strip mill has to be taken, and somebody must take it. If the decision is not made and a strip mill is not put down in Scotland, when the slightest recession lessens the demand for strip metal many of the light industries of Scotland, which are extensions of other light industries, will close down in favour of the light industries nearer the actual centres of production.

705
I hope that the Secretary of State will really look at these problems, and especially that of the present flat Bank Rate for the whole country. Whatever the purpose for which money is required, the same fiscal policy applies to the City of London and to the overdeveloped as well as to the underdeveloped areas, and it simply does not work out. No bank manager operates in that way. In his dealings with commerce, he uses discrimination when dealing with one institution or customer as against another.
This attitude of the Government, this refusal to be live partners in the development of our economy and the distribution of economic activities for the sake of a balanced economy beneficial to the community, and also, perhaps, for reasons of strategy—though I have not much faith in them these days—and ultimately to achieve the real ends of all economic activity, the happiness and well-being of the people, must be changed. Unless the Government, any Government of this country at any time, take an active part in creating investment to maintain the development and the momentum of the development of the economy, all our high ideals will come to nought.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. J. C. George: This is the first debate on Scottish industry in which I have had the honour to participate. I have been interested in watching the efforts of hon. Members opposite to paint black a picture which they know perfectly well is white. A curious illustration of that was given by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). He so illustrated the Scotland I know that I did not recognise it, so grim was the scene he painted.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) likewise took a gloomy view, and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said that the present state of affairs was a poor show and talked about a recession. I do not recognise Scotland from the picture as they painted it. Most of us are fairly happy about the position. It has not been brought about by any one Government, but by the wise policy of starting the Development Areas many years ago. That policy has borne fruit, and the position in Scotland is not one for great anxiety. We can never be com-
706
placent, and can never rest, but need we paint black what is, in fact, a bright picture?
I thought that the debate would take a course different from that which it has taken. We have heard the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East mention automation. I thought that perhaps the Government and the Opposition leader would deal with that subject, especially as this debate is about the future of Scottish industry. I have been thinking of the future of Scottish industry in the light of the majestic changes which have taken place, and it seems to me that we in this House may not for many years longer be able to talk intelligently about Scottish industry unless we first of all become students again.
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member is just leaving a very interesting argument. He was making adverse criticisms about the manner in which problems have been placed before the House. Do I gather from him that he suggests that the problems my hon. Friends have placed before the House do not exist and will not exist in the future for Scottish industry? Are not those problems real problems? Did not my hon. Friends present them with the facts? If they did, why does the hon. Member dismiss them so airily and say that they do not exist at all?
Mr. George: I by no means dismiss them airily, but I thought my right hon. Friend dealt with them forcibly. I was merely mentioning that not enough mention had been made of automation.
"Automation" is a word which frightens many of our people. There is a whole dictionary of new words being compiled in this country, words which very few of the old and very few of the young comprehend. How many of us know exactly all the meaning of such terms as "fissile" and "non-fissile" materials, chain reactors, isotope, cyclotrons, and so on? All these mysterious new words are coming into daily use, and we have to understand them if we are to speak with reasonable knowledge and some authority upon the future of Scottish industry.
In the past changes in Scotland were relatively slow and did not occur violently. Today, everything moves very much faster and we, Members of this House and people outside, are in danger of not

707
being able to understand the complex changes which are taking place in industry, and of becoming mere repeaters of reports and of what we read in the Press. That is a great danger, and it arises because we have difficulty in understanding the new terms, the new word "automation", and because of that the new word "automation" has struck fear into the hearts of the people of our country.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East mentioned automation, which causes some alarm, and before the trouble which we see occurring in the Midlands today comes our way in Scotland we must try to get our people to understand what this new word means, clearly to understand all that is meant by the process, and also its limitations. If we do we can remove some of the terrors which have been aroused by extravagant newspaper treatment of the subject.
What is automation? We have for years, calmly and without worry, watched mechanisation proceed to do thousands of heavy tasks, lifting them off the shoulders of men, and doing them by mechanical contrivances. In the process of mechanisation, people had to transfer to other jobs, but it all took place so quietly that it passed almost unnoticed. Nevertheless, by this means great benefits were conferred upon our people, their labours lightened, their standard of living raised steadily. Lately, the word "automation" has arrived and has become mixed up in people's minds with George Orwell's terrifying picture of what the world may be like some years ahead, and, consequently, fear has undoubtedly been instilled into the hearts of many of our people.
The word "automation" has been defined by that very able scientist Mr. Fred Woollard, in the Financial Times supplement on automation last week, and he defined it as follows:
"Automation is the system and method of making processes automatic by the use of self-controlling, self-acting means for performing operations in industrial and commercial undertakings."
Mr. Rankin: Quite clear.
Mr. George: The essential difference between the mechanisation which we accepted quite happily and the automation which we seem to fear is expressed
708
in the words "self-controlling, self-acting."
The present troubles we read of in the motor car industry seem to confirm all the fears, but, in reality, if those troubles are examined closely, we shall see they have little to do with automation.
Let me try to get this new friend of men—not foe of man—into proper perspective. Automation is comparatively new in this country, but it has been going on longer in the United States of America, and its effects have been studied closely by a United States Congressional committee. That committee listed the scope of industries likely to be affected and came to the conclusion that, in the end, only 8 per cent. of those employed in industry in the United States could possibly be affected by automation. That is an authoritative report on this new arrival in our midst, and it does not paint a picture of nation-wide chaos and upset.
Mr. Bence: This is a very important matter. I have seen this report talking about 8 per cent., but let the hon. Member continue his reference. That figure of 8 per cent. is of people in American industries who will be affected directly, but there is a larger percentage of people who will be a little less affected. The effects reach outwards.
Mr. George: Yes, but there are beneficial effects of automation, and that figure of 8 per cent. referred to people who would be directly affected and might have to take other work with less rewards.
The authorities in the United Kingdom who have been keenly studying the matter estimate that not more than 10 per cent. of our people will be so affected. If this be so, then the problem of automation will not be a problem of unemployment, but a problem of re-employment. We must remember that automation has been brought about by the new electronic controls and other devices, and they have to be designed, manufactured and supervised, so that, if automation does mean a change of employment for a percentage of the population, it is quite certain that the effect of automation will be to lower the costs of production.
In my view, the majority of the benefits which flow from automation would be passed to the consumer. We should then be able to counteract competition

709
from countries with low production costs, such as Japan, and, with the ever-increasing need in our own country as a result of a rising standard of living, more and more goods would be produced and more work would be available for everybody. Automation in full swing will not bring about a time when men are running about Scotland looking for jobs. I believe that with automation we shall be looking for men to man industry and produce the goods.
Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Member not agree that if these things which he has been visualising are to be achieved it would demand a form of control in industry which his Government do not accept?
Mr. George: No, I do not accept that at all. I have every confidence in industry, as governed and controlled today, to handle automation, keeping in mind, as it has always done, that industry is intended for the public benefit.
Mr. Bence: The hon. Member should tell Mr. Lord that.
Mr. George: No matter how we in Scotland would like to wrap ourselves in nationalistic tartan we cannot contract out of world conditions. Other countries will adopt automation and inevitably we must follow suit.
Mr. Bence: When the Bank Rate presses?
Mr. George: In today's debate the hon. Member very rightly and strongly urged upon us the importance of technical education. A few weeks ago I spoke in the House on technical education and urged the Government to ensure that a new and imaginative era in technical education in Scotland should be achieved with all speed. I will not repeat what I said then except to urge the building of new schools and the reconstruction of the old colleges.
I should like to underline to the Secretary of State for Scotland my plea that he should give second thoughts to the proposal I made in that debate that the central institutions in Scotland, including the Royal Technical College, should have independent powers to grant degrees so that the status of their graduates might be raised. I laid great stress on that and pointed out how social status means a great deal in the life of a man and his family. Whilst it is recognised that an associateship of a technical college equals
710
a university honours degree, no one would say that in social status it carries anything like the weight of a B.Sc. with Honours.
Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member may have created a slight misconception by what he has just said. The Royal Technical College, in Glasgow, is part of Glasgow University from the point of view of a degree. Students at the College take the B.Sc. degree at Glasgow University.
Mr. George: I have pointed out before that for a thousand years the universities have had the monopoly in awarding degrees. I ask now that these central institutions, distinct from universities and unconnected with universities, should have their own right to award degrees. This would encourage people in this new age of technical education. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the matter some thought.
It is not enough for us to provide the schools and the teachers in this new technical age. We must go further. The Government should try to point out with clarity to the employers, the trade unions and the parents the part which they can and must play if that great mass of people in Scotland who are conscious that their fathers and grandfathers were hewers of wood are not to believe that they also must look forward to a future in which they will be hewers of wood. The employers, the trade unions and the parents should point out to the children that there is a bright future for them if they enter into this new era in which technical education and science can so alter their lives and the life of the country.
There is today a regrettable reluctance on the part of employers and perhaps even in the part of apprentices to take advantage of the day-release scheme. It does not give us much hope for the future, but we must not be disheartened. Only 9 per cent. of apprentices in Scotland take advantage of these day-release classes. We must have a campaign in Scotland, reaching right to the board rooms, to point out where the advantage to industrialists lies in offering the opportunity to these young men to better themselves educationally in the course of their employment.
Mr. James McInnes: Perhaps it would be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to take

711
action to the extent at least of having a conference with industrialists to encourage them to grant these facilities.
Mr. George: That would be a splendid idea and could not fail to produce some results.
I should have liked to have compared the position of technical education in Russia with the position in the United Kingdom. I had the opportunity of saying something about it in the debate to which I have already referred. We may not think of Russia as becoming our competitor on whom we must keep an eye, in case she goes too far ahead. I believe that on a broad front Russia has discarded arms as a mean of fighting for domination in the world. I believe that she is putting in their place a vast increase in the production of technicians, technologists and scientists and is out to conquer the world through science. We must watch her. If we study the remarkable growth of technical education in Russia, and the remarkable results which have been achieved and compare those with the meagre results in this country, we shall have cause to pause and think.
Mr. Bence: We shall never answer the challenge by putting up the Bank Rate.
Mr. George: Someone today said that some people have water on the brain, but somebody seems to have the Bank Rate on his brain.
Starting with almost nothing in 1936, Russia produced in 1954, 680,000 trained engineers and 53,000 graduates, of whom 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. were women, while in this country we have produced only between 2,000 and 3,000. The difference is staggering. We must spare no effort to bring about the new era of technical education and to make it effective in the shortest possible time.
I should like to say a few words about the change in the situation relating to Development Area factories. This is of exceptional importance and we in Scotland are seriously concerned about it. The first phase of revolution is past, that is, the phase when we built factories which required large labour forces. We have only a minor unemployment problem in the Development Areas. We do not look for the day when we have no unemployment, because on that day the
712
country would be stagnant. There must be a moving force looking for jobs.
We have built large factories to cater for industries requiring more than 1,000 employees. Now we must pass to another phase and I submit that there must be reconsideration of the prohibition on the building of factories. Factories should continue to be built, even if it involves charging a low rent, in special circumstances. I view the next stage as being one not of building large factories for 1,000 or more employees, but of building throughout the counties and the small county towns of Scotland factories employing between 50 and 100 workers.
It might be said that concerns of such a size would not attract industries from overseas. I go to the United States every year and I have been talking to industrialists over there. I am also assured that the Scottish Council has been doing the same. There are many willing to come over and engage in industrial concerns employing between 50 and 100 workers, for instance, in the new electronic field where the product has a high conversion value, where raw materials costing £I can be converted into goods worth £100.
That is the kind of industry we want to encourage in Scotland in the years ahead. Those factories might be sited in areas where industrialists would not normally go. Therefore, we want to retain in Scotland the right, if we need it, to assist by way of cheap rents, or by other forms of subsidy, in places where industrialists would not of their own volition set up such factories. In this way, we could make a real attack on that intractable 2½ per cent. of unemployment, so I hope that thought will be given to this suggestion.
In passing, I would mention to my right hon. Friend that this prohibition does not appear to extend to all spheres of local government. For instance, I understand that in one town of England—I cannot mention its name, because I have this information in confidence—the council has just completed the building of a large new factory, complete with overhead cranes, and has let it at a much reduced rent to an incoming firm. That confirms the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) that inducements are still being given in England and Ireland to

713
bring new industries to particular places, so why should we be without this in Scotland?
Mr. McInnes: Discrimination.
Mr. George: Now I want to look at the most important part of Scotland's economy, namely, the future of our power and energy requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun mentioned the atomic field and made certain observations on atomic energy in the future. The prosperity of any country depends in direct ratio on the amount of electrical power it consumes. We have always been told that American prosperity is so much greater because the American worker has three times more power at his elbow than our workers enjoy.
What are the plans for the future, as set out in Command Paper 9737? We find there that the energy producing industries in Scotland, coal, gas and electricity, are scheduled to spend an enormous amount of money in the next ten years for a country of the size and population of Scotland. Without going into too much detail, I would point out to the House that, by 1965, £185 million will have been spent on coal, £46 million on gas, and another £400 million on electricity, that is on hydro-electricity and conventional electricity; that is, a total of £631 million will have been spent between 1949 and 1965 on the production of energy in Scotland.
That does not take any account of the new expenditure, which we read about yesterday, on an atomic power station somewhere in Ayrshire, with a second one to follow. It takes no account of the expenditure on Dounreay, or Chapel Cross. In fact, £700 million will be spent in the next ten years on conventional power, on hydro power and on power from atomic power stations. As I calculate, from this there will be an enormous increase in the electricity available in Scotland.
We have been told that in our country we should cater for doubling the demand for electrical power every ten years, but the schemes put forward by the South of Scotland Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board seem to me to cater for a 90 per cent. increase in the production of power within about eight
714
years. If we add to that the output from the new atomic power stations—perhaps 800 megowatts—which will be in operation, the first by 1961 and the second by 1965, it will be found that we are catering for vastly more power than Scotland itself will ever require.
I want now to look at the whole question of energy requirements and energy plans in Scotland. With respect, I feel that sometimes Government Departments do not wake up to changes quickly enough. Sometimes they know of changes which are taking place, but go on as if nothing were happening. Changes are taking place rapidly in the field of energy—apart from coal, which I will not deal with today because I believe that, as we have appointed a new Coal Board and a new Minister of Fuel and Power and as they have a new coal plan, they must have a chance to prove themselves over the next year or two.
I turn to the energy controlling setup of Scotland today, which is a curious one. We have the South of Scotland Board, which is busy with vast new conventional power plans but is also toying with milled peat and more hydro. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is planning far ahead with tunnels and dams and roads and housing, and is experimenting with peat winning and peat burning, with open and closed cycle gas turbines and with windmills. On top of that the Atomic Energy Authority is operating at Dounreay and Chapel Cross. Both of these places will yield power. Dounreay will probably yield 100 megowatts and Chapel Cross 200 megowatts.
So we have three authorities operating in Scotland today, and in my view the control is too scattered. Changes are taking place too rapidly, with such wide consequences that we cannot allow these organisations, especially the South of Scotland Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, to follow their own road. I believe that we should now take steps to combine those two authorities, so that we can direct their concepts along the proper road.
It seems to me ridiculous that at one and the same time there should be experiments with uranium and atomic energy and with peat. The heat released from peat is probably 500 million times less than the heat we get from atomic

715
energy. I may be wrong, but I think that we must bring these institutions and schemes together, so that they can be operated with an overall picture of advances before them for the real benefit of the whole of Scotland.
The power requirements of our country are of great moment. We are not talking any longer about atomic energy in the future. The Report of the Atomic Energy Athority, issued yesterday, stated:
"A year ago, nuclear power appeared, for most countries, to be a possibility in the remote and indefinite future. Now it is a matter not of conjecture but of dates and comparative costs."
We should not drive tunnels and build dams and coal-burning power stations long after the time-table, if properly drawn up, would have stated that they should stop. Atomic energy is coming, so no longer do we want to build majestic power stations and in ten years' time maybe have them silent and the dams empty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun spoke of the dream that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board would buy nuclear power to pump water. Of course it will. That is the way we shall get the best results. But pumped storage is the key to 24-hour working of nuclear stations. It means a merging of that Board with the South of Scotland Board. At the moment they are selling power to the South of Scotland Board and buying it back again. The South of Scotland Board is buying and selling power to and from the Hydro-Electric Board. Now they may be further mixed up with pumped storage schemes.
The time has come for a unified authority for the whole of Scotland. Indeed, I go further and say that the entire plan for our fuel and energy needs to be supervised, otherwise we may make grave mistakes and be condemned by future generations. Not only that, we are advancing in all three kinds of power. So far as I know, there is no correlation between our three sources of power and no certainty that they have a common goal. Some method of correlation should be devised quickly, even if it is done by the Scottish Office.
It is essential that the three industries should view the future with full knowledge and in an expert manner. For example, I believe that gas is on the way
716
out. Someone ought to decide now whether or not gas should go to the new towns. The gas and electricity people in the North of Scotland are fighting each other for business. The whole picture is confused and ought to be studied quickly to ensure that in the future we are not condemned for over-developing any of these industries upon which the future of our country and people so much depends.
7.1 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I agree with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). I hope that Ministers will pay attention to many of the points which he stressed, and particularly what he had to say about technical education.
I do not agree with him on one point. He seemed to advise my hon. Friends, and perhaps workers in general, not to contract out of world developments. Our real fear is that the present Scottish Ministers will make it impossible for Scotland to keep up with world developments. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) made the kind of speech he did. The hon. Member for Pollok said that my hon. Friend painted as black something which was really white, but my hon. Friend gave facts and figures to show that the picture which Scotland will present in future, if steps are not taken now, will be black.
Mr. T. Fraser: I was speaking on the basis of the Report.
Miss Herbison: What my hon. Friend had to say was based on the Report and other Government statistics, and that is why I said he gave facts and figures.
I want to take up another point with the hon. Member for Pollok. He made a plea which I made during the Committee stage of the Gas Act. He wants the Secretary of State to bring about coordination in the three fuel industries in Scotland. I hope the Secretary of State, or possibly the Minister of Fuel and Power, will do something about that. The hon. Member for Pollok may not have supported the nationalisation of the fuel industries, but had those industries not been nationalised, there would have been no possibility of the co-ordination about which he spoke. It is indeed good that the Labour Government did something about it, in spite of Tory opposition.

717
Despite the rather glowing picture of Scotland painted by the President of the Board of Trade, I want to deal, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, with what I consider to be some of the grave problems facing our people. I propose to show that our present Ministers and Government are either unable or unwilling to face the problems. I accuse our Ministers, the Cabinet and the Government of either complacency or incompetence. I may be nearer the truth if I say there is a combination of both.
From what was said by the hon. Member for Pollok, and from part of what was said by the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison), it is clear that there will be no future for Scotland until we have a Government which believes in planning, which knows that a decent future for Scottish people can be achieved only if we plan fully our economic resources. I refer not only to the planning of our present economic resources; we must plan to ensure their expansion in the future. Judging by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade today and speeches in previous debates, I see no hope of that being done by the present Government.
I find in the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland something which I knew already, that great new developments are envisaged in the Scottish coal mining industry. It is about the only industry in which the Report envisages great new developments, and I would stress that it is a nationalised industry. Those developments in the coal industry represent a contribution to our country's future prosperity, but they give rise to human problems which have to be faced by thousands of miners and their families. There is not a sentence or even a word in the Report to indicate that the Secretary of State is in the least aware of the intense human problems which must accompany the development of the coal industry.
In reply to a Question, the Minister of Labour and National Service told me that on 1st January, 1947, when the mines were nationalised, 13,200 miners were employed in the central east area of the National Coal Board in Scotland. Today there are only 12,200; in that one area of Scotland 1,000 miners fewer are now employed in the mines. If we add
718
those who have left as the result of pit closures in other parts of Lanarkshire, the number is very greatly increased.
Does the Secretary of State know what has happened to those miners and their families? Does he know what will happen to the 6,000 who, according to the present Coal Board plans, will be leaving the Lanarkshire coal fields in a few years' time? Does he know how many of the men who have left found work in other coal fields? Can he tell me how many of those who found work in other coal fields returned to Lanarkshire? Does he know why they returned? Can he tell me how many of them could not be found work in collieries in the developing area and are today lying on the unemployment scrapheap?
These questions and the answers to them cleary indicate the human problems about which I have spoken. If the Secretary of State is really interested in the well-being of our people, he will know the answers to those questions, and if he knows the answers, he will realise that I could not couch in too strong language the indictment that can be made against him and the Government.
Until the advent of the Labour Government, mining areas in Scotland were, in the main, single industry areas. In spite of the difficulties which they faced after the war, the Labour Government brought thousands of new jobs to the Lanarkshire mining area. What is happening now? My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) has raised this matter, which I am about to touch upon, time and time again in debates in the House. Those miners from Lanarkshire for whom, when the pits close, the Coal Board can find jobs are expected to go to Fifeshire, away from an area to which we have brought some diversification of industry to an area which, if nothing is done for it, will be a single industry area, which, all my life, I have deplored. It is because nothing has been done for Glenrothes and the other mining areas that some of our miners have had to go back, for the sake of their families, to Lanarkshire.
When I think of the further 6,000 miners who are expected to go there in the next few years, I dread to think what will happen to their sons and daughters. It is only by planning, as the Labour Government did, that we shall make

719
worth while this great development in the mining areas. I have said before in the House that there is more than one method of direction of labour, and I do not want to see happening to the mining families in Fifeshire what always happened to the mining families in Lanarkshire—the sons for the pit, whether they wanted to go there or not, and the daughters for domestic service That is the grave danger which is facing that area of Fifeshire, if something is not done for it. That is all I want to say about the developing area.
I want to refer now to my own area, a declining area. I have given the figure of the number of men who are no longer working in the Lanarkshire pits. What will happen in a few years' time to many of those pits? Are the Government trying to do anything about them? Not a thing. We get most ineffective answers from whichever Minister is questioned. They tell us, "We are doing our best; we are trying to interest people"; but the one thing which this Government can do they will not do.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Pollok and the hon. Member for Scotstoun stressed something which I have stressed for years in this House. We did get a factory, a brand new bright factory in one of the big mining villages in my constituency. Until a few weeks ago it was employing about 400 women. That brand new factory is lying idle today. Cotton was produced in it. I will not in this debate, because there is not time, adduce once again all the arguments that hon. Friends of mine from Lancashire have given for Government intervention in the cotton industry. Time and again there have been debates on the cotton industry. Time and again the President of the Board of Trade has been warned what would happen to that industry if the Government did not take action. My people in Lanarkshire are suffering today from the inaction of the Government in regard to the cotton industry.
That cotton factory employed women and girls from the surrounding villages. From an Answer to a Question today to the Minister of Labour and National Service, I found that there are 259 women on the register of the Shotts Employment Exchange who are unemployed. In answer to a Question last week which I put to the Minister of
720
Labour and National Service, I was told that there was little likelihood of those women finding work in the surrounding area. I am wondering whether the Government have a definite policy on this matter. I find, on page 6 of the Report, these words:
"The supply of women for domestic work of all kinds was not more plentiful than in recent years, …"
This is one of the few fields in Scotland in which we have a shortage of workers. Does the Government want these young women in that area to become domestic servants, as they always had to be in the past before we had a Labour Government which took action against it. It is not surprising that I should have these doubts because of the number of years that I have tried to get the present Government to do something in this matter.
I want to turn to the general figures of unemployed. In May, 1956, in Scotland there were 51,800 unemployed, 2·4 per cent. of the insured workers. The average for 1951 in Scotland was 2·2 per cent. I wonder how the President of the Board of Trade can still say how much this Government have done for Scotland in the light of these figures? I find that in Wales the figure is 18,000 unemployed, 1·9 per cent. of the insured population. In Wales it was 2·4 per cent. in 1951. So I would say to our Scottish Ministers—seven Scottish Ministers in all looking after the interest of our country—that our unemployment is a little greater in percentage than it was when Labour left office, whereas Wales, with no bevy of Ministers to safeguard its interests, has done better than Scotland.
When we look at the London South-East region we find that there are 37,400 unemployed, 7 per cent. of the insured population. These are important figures because we must compare them with the industrial building that is going on. Again I went through the monthly Digest of Statistics from which I got these figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton quoted them in other forms. In the nine months from June, 1955, to March, 1956, Scotland, with more than three and a half times the number of unemployed in proportion to its insured population compared with that of London, had 8 per cent. of the whole British and United Kingdom factory building which was approved. London had 23 per cent. of

721
the factory building approved in the same time.
London, in spite of what the President of the Board of Trade is trying to tell us—what a huge area London is, what a mass of people London has—had a smaller number of unemployed and a smaller percentage of unemployed than Scotland; yet London is getting three times the new factory space that Scotland is getting. If I were a Scottish Minister, I should hide my head in complete shame at that result. The President of the Board of Trade, as my hon. Friend said has to give industrial development certificates for this new building. The right hon. Gentleman has some control, but he has not exercised it.
Lanarkshire has 3·2 per cent. unemployed and parts of that area have been left with no help whatever. The right hon. Gentleman told us—I am sure that his hon. Friends heard him—that he made no apology for economising in expenditure at the Board of Trade. He made no apology for not doing something about the planning of Fifeshire and Lanarkshire. When petrol stations and luxury buildings are being built everywhere, and the right hon. Gentleman sees the income of the nation being used for that purpose, he does not apologise for being unable to find the wherewithal to provide factories. Nor is there any apology from the right hon. Gentleman when we are told by the hon. Member for Scotstoun about the great incentives given in Northern Ireland to attract industry. It seems to me that many people in Scotland will feel that the President of the Board of Trade owes them a very great apology.
Has the Secretary of State given any consideration to using Shotts, Hartill, Newmains and Cleland, which will soon become a distressed area, as one of the areas to take the overspill from Glasgow? I have heard about the important firm which is going to Cumbernauld. Of course, if we have a new town, it is almost certain to attract new industry. It is a long time since I asked the Secretary of State to treat this area as a new town. I should like him to tell me whether he has given any thought to that request over the years, and what are his conclusions.
I wish to ask, also, whether the right hon. Gentleman will have a discussion with the Coal Board to ensure that no
722
pit is closed where coal can reasonably be worked. I wish him to have discussions with the President of the Board of Trade on this question of factory building. But I am afraid that he will fail with the President, because the President takes pride in economising, whether that economy helps people or not. It would probably be better if the Secretary of State for Scotland went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and indicated to him what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It seems to me that if we can get answers to some questions which we have posed there may be some hope. But I am afraid that the only hope for Scotland is for us to "swipe" this Government out at the polls, and to return a Labour Government.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Douglas L. S. Nairn: I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber to hear a good deal of the debate, but I felt it my duty to go and sample that product of Scottish industry which is on offer in the House today and which is earning us so many dollars.
I should like to find out from the Secretary of State for Scotland something about what is happening in Scotland regarding the building there of a steel rolling mill for the delivery of light steel strip. This matter has been discussed for a long time and the discussion seems to have gone round in a circle. The people who might build the mill say that there is not sufficient demand for steel strip in Scotland, and that a mill is not justified. On the other hand, until there is such a mill we shall not get the necessary industries in Scotland to justify the provision of one.
This matter has been brought to a head at present by the new price list recently issued by the Iron and Steel Board. In various Development Areas new businesses have been set up which are using cold rolled steel strip. At the time when they were set up there were various charges for delivery. In the area of central Scotland to which I wish to refer, the delivery charge was 5s. a ton up to recently. But in the latest price list, which became effective on 7th May, the price has gone up from 5s. to £3. In the North of Scotland it has gone up from 30s. to £5. When we realise that £3 a

723
ton is about the amount of the wage which has to be expended on a ton of this steel in order to process it, we realise what a big jump this increase represents.
I wrote to the Board of Trade, and I must thank the Minister of State for his speed in giving me a reply which I received before this debate. In the letter which I wrote it was suggested that there should be a uniform delivered price throughout the whole country. Steel strip is a raw material and unless we have a uniform delivered price, it is quite obvious that all the industries which are based on the major industry will be concentrated round the producing areas in South Wales or the Midlands. The reply I received from the Board of Trade said that the effect of uniform delivered prices would be
"that, particularly in times of shortage, makers would tend to restrict their delivery areas and withhold supplies from consumers at a distance."
I do not think that is really likely to happen. Many industries in this country have uniform delivered prices, and I have no information to make me conclude that if there was a uniform price, delivery would be made only to people near the mill.
We have to consider what will happen if there is not a uniform delivered price. Some of the producers of rolled steel strip have alternative factories in the south, and because of this enormous charge, they will move away from Scotland and possibly close the factories there. I do not know exactly what powers the Government have. I know that prices are fixed by the Iron and Steel Board. But if the Government can do anything to help, I think that they ought to take action. After all the Government encouraged these people to go to the Development Areas. Having gone there in good faith they suddenly find the delivered price jumping from 5s. to £3 a ton.
Another curious thing which I do not understand is this. The letter from the Board of Trade states:
"The main producing areas are South Wales, the Midlands and Sheffield, and the Iron and Steel Board assure me that the revised zonal extras together with the carriage element included in the basic prices do no more than reflect the average cost of carriage…"
724
It also states:
"It would also result in steel consumers in Scotland paying higher prices for iron and steel products such as plates and heavy sections made in Scotland."
The increase in price applies only to one thing, cold rolled steel strip. The alternative is rerolled steel products, and the new price list which was issued on the same day, shows that the delivery charge for that remains at 5s. Culturally, Scotland, England and Wales are three different countries. But industrially they are one, and we must treat them as one if Scotland is to keep her full benefits.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who opened the debate, said that London was getting greater encouragement than Scotland. That is what happens when we treat them as two countries. If we are to prosper, Scotland, Wales and England must be treated as one. That is the surest way to make certain that Scotland gets her fair share and is treated in the same way as the rest of the country.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. David J. Pryde: I was very pleased inded that the representative of the Board of Trade was present when my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) so ably outlined the position of Scotland, because if the debate affects any Government Department that Department is the Board of Trade.
I put only one question to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when he was Prime Minister. I asked him if he would consider bringing the activities and responsibilities of the Board of Trade in Scotland under the Secretary of State for Scotland. He replied that he would first look at the Report of the Royal Commission and see what the precedents were. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would be very pleased to go to Edinburgh in that capacity, because I think he has some connection with Scotland. Apparently, the present system is still to dominate our future in Scotland.
While I do not disagree with the assertion that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton painted a black picture of Scotland, it can be said with truth that he gave Scotland the position which we in the mining industry feel to be the right one. Government supporters and the

725
President of the Board of Trade, who struck the note, spoke as though it was all a case of—as we say in Scotland—
"Live auld horse and you'll get grass."
It was a case of hope and of living in hope but the housewife in the West Calder area, in Polbeth, Addiewell or Limefield cannot feed her family on hope. She must have coin of the realm. The position as indicated by other hon. Members, is in the reverse order.
If we go down to Corby on a Saturday night we might think we were in a part of central Scotland, and if we went to the town of Dalkieth in the centre of my constituency on a Saturday night we might imagine that we were in Hamilton, in Lanarkshire. Let me show how the process works, in reverse. In my constituency we have lost, during the term of the present Government, a paper mill which used to house the famous Polton Mills championship band. The mill was part of Messrs. Wiggins, Teape, and made the finest writing paper in Scotland. It is no more, and the factories upon which we depended so much for our livelihood, although they are still standing, are working part-time. As economic units that they are doubtless living on their capital.
If that were all, it would not be so bad but a subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries closed down at Roslin, and the workpeople are scattered as far west as Ayrshire. On top of all that comes the closing of the shale oil industry in West Lothian and part of Midlothian. The workers are now being scattered to Midlothian and into England, if it can take them. The National Coal Board tells us that it cannot accept redundant labour from Scotland because it expects to get plenty of experienced miners who have been working in the motor industry.
In the district where my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and I were brought up we were realists, because we knew that the only people who survived were the quick—all others are dead. We looked at the matter from the point of view of land, mines, railways, factories and workshops, and took our keynote from them.
Some Government supporters apparently live in a fool's paradise but I warn them that all is not well on the Scottish land. There is a murmur from our people on the land. If Government supporters care to peruse that document mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for
726
Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), the Digest of Scottish Statistics, they will realise that there is a recession on the land in Scotland. It is typical of our statistics.
There is much to be done on the land and in the mines. We still believe that coal will remain King Coal, irrespective of all that can be produced by way of reactors, etc., with the exception of hydroelectric power, which has accomplished something marvellous and has improved the country. Perhaps it would be good for the country if one system supplied the whole of Scotland with electricity. I commend the Hydro-Electric Board for its activities in the past, but I should like it to make progress with the electrification of the whole of Scotland.
I was glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade outline some of the difficulties of the National Coal Board, and the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), who apparently knew something about the industry. There are hon. Members who take a delight in denigrating the National Coal Board. A year ago I heard a Manchester Member on the Government benches complaining, wailing and moaning about the huge amount of capital that has to be invested in the industry. He should have taken the trouble to peruse the document published by Sir Charles Reid. He would then have known that private ownership of the coal industry ruined it to such an extent that there is not a pit in the great County of Lanarkshire which can be sunk as an economic unit because the coal that is left is in the pattern of Hitler's Nazi flag. There is not a coal deposit that would pay for the sinking of a deep pit, and we shall have to depend upon deep shafts being sunk in Midlothian and Fife.
Make no mistake, although the mining charter of the Esk Valley goes back to 1210 there are still vast reserves of coal in Midlothian. The Valley of the Esk is a geological phenomenon. There are forty-one workable seams. The National Coal Board has its difficulties in this direction. There is a Mining Subsidence Committee, and I understand that a Bill will be coming forward which I shall view with considerable interest. Midlothian will be very much affected, in a very restricted area.

727
There are vast areas in Midlothian that could be used under the Distribution of Industry Act. The Calders area was scheduled in 1946, ten years ago, yet Westminster has very religiously neglected it, and nothing has been done. I should like to know what the President of the Board of Trade is going to do about that. He wanted to attune his ear to Scotland. I should tell him that two songs could be sung. Scotland could sing "God Save the Queen", but if something is not done—and done quickly—I warn this House that she may turn her attention to other words:
"To arms! to arms! ye brave!
The patriot sword unsheathe,
March on! march on! all hearts resolved
On liberty or death!"
That is the position in Scotland.
Scotland went through the mill in 1921 and again in 1926; she is not going through it again. Some of our people in England are doing what we did in 1926. They unfortunately are faced with the position of 1926. A year ago I warned the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that we were facing 1929 at that time. This country has gone three years backwards and is now facing 1926. It is with deep regret that I see our people treading the same paths. I do not want our people to strike, I want them to stay at work and to put the onus on the Government of the day. It is up to the Government to solve the industrial problems. That is what Governments are for—to keep the wheels of industry moving.
In Midlothian the Coal Board has some problems, as it has in most other areas. One large colliery producing 1,780 tons of coal every day has had its accounts "in the red" for a year. That is not so easily explained. When I investigated the matter I found that there is a stoop 200 yards from the bottom of the shaft with a great seam of 7 million tons of coal. If the colliery were given the liberty to extract that coal it could add another 1,000 tons a day to the output but because the seam is under an ancient monument the Board is compelled to try to pierce the famous, or infamous, Sheriff Hall fault, or dyke, which splits the coal field, in order to prove that ground.
There is a nice little problem for the people who denigrate the coal industry
728
and the National Coal Board. Is it to extract the 7 million tons near the bottom of the drift and ruin that ancient monument? The ancient monument is New-battle Abbey College, the ancestral home of the Kerrs of Lothian. Or is the Board to continue spending money which has got to be obtained from the other workers in the coal industry? That is the crux of the problem. Should the Board continue to prove Sheriff Hall and keep Newbattle Abbey College intact? It is not my problem but the problem of the Government, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, but it shows some of the difficulties with which the Coal Board is faced.
From the benches opposite I heard a Conservative Member boasting that he could do better himself. There are two Scots on the National Coal Board at Hobart House who could tie him up in figures and smother him in coal—Dr. William Reid and Sir Andrew Bryan—the Chairman, James Bowman, would only smile. I am certain my old friend James Barbour would read the hon. Member a homily on the nonsense talked in the British House of Commons about the Coal Board.
I liked the remarks of the hon. Member for Pollok, who said he was prepared to give the Coal Board a chance. We should remember that it is taking over a job of a Herculean nature, which has never been realised by the people of this country. It has to fill in the gap between the production of coal and the production of a new motive power. But it can be done. In my constituency three railways could be pouring coal into the Edinburgh area every day if the purse strings at Westminster were loosened. That is what is wrong; Scotland is not getting the money to reinvest and make herself an economic unit.
The hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) said last year that miners at the coal face were producing more coal in 1939 than they were last year. That was a demonstration of what Tory Members do not know about the coal industry in Scotland. In 1950 the method of ascertaining the amount of coal produced at the coal face was altered. Under private ownership in 1939 only the men who actually worked at the coal face were taken as the divisor of the output produced, but in 1950 a new method of

729
ascertaining was put into operation by which the other men who work within 20 yards of the coal face are taken into account as the divisor. It would be well if the hon. Member would read the pamphlet published by Hobart House. It costs Is., but it would keep him au fait with the industry. It is grossly ridiculous to go down a pit without a light, and that pamphlet would give him a light. He would then understand that it is necessary to keep up-to-date in the coal mining industry.
The hon. Member mentioned that we have the assistance of a great amount of machinery, but I should tell him that coal is a wasting asset. If in 1945 a shaft had been sunk at King's Cross Station and was worked every day the coal face now would be at the other side of Lambeth Bridge and money would have to be spent to convey the coal from the coal face to the shaft at King's Cross. Some people do not understand that. One may go into an engineering shop and see a lathe at which one's grandfather worked, and go into a weaving shed and see the loom at which one's grandmother worked, but when one goes down a pit to look at the coal face one discovers that every day in the week it becomes 40½ ft. to 6 ft. further from the shaft. That will continue until the big new units come into operation, and the retreating coal face will become the technique in the industry.
So much for coal. We have accomplished much in transferring men from Lanarkshire to Fife and the Lothians. That has been done with the co-operation of the local authorities, and we should remember that co-operation. The recent squeeze at the Treasury has put a stop to that. Miners from Lanarkshire cannot build houses but still have to be dependent on the local authorities for their housing.
On the question of factories, the President of the Board of Trade mentioned Australia. I agree that Australia was one of our markets, but surely it is possible to get other markets? Is it not possible for us to open up in Africa and the Latin countries of South America or in India, or are we cut out there by American capital? Compare how much capital is at the disposal of the American
730
Government for reinvestment purposes. It has 63 million workers equipped with the finest machinery which science can put at their disposal. We have 23 million workers and old techniques. We cannot compete so well. America runs Canada financially, and the Latin countries of (South America, India, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. I had a nephew home from South Africa three weeks ago. He was looking for mining machinery because he is in the mining industry. He told me that there is every sign of American capital in that country. Recently a loan was floated and it was subscribed within an hour. Those things count. The factories in the Esk Valley are suffering from the neglect which is typical of our treatment in Westminster.
I will repeat what I have said before in the House. We shall not make Scotland an economic unit until we build the two bridges—over the Forth and over the Tay. Moreover, we need a road round Scotland. We have 500 miles more of coastline than England and Wales, and for defensive purposes alone we need that road round Scotland. We need it in order to make the glens live again. It is only when they have fast transport connecting them that they will live again.
It may be said that the roads will have to be blasted out of the mountainside, but there will be plenty of unemployed before long to do this work. It may be said that our people are not doing badly in shipbuilding at the moment, but we must always look to the future, and soon we shall be meeting the full blast of competition from both Germany and Japan. People will then wonder who won the war. The country which loses the war generally does best afterwards. France did so in 1873; she lost the Franco-Prussian war but she recovered more quickly than did the victor.
The picture which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton has portrayed is true in every detail. I am not a painter. I am simply a materialist who sees the bird in the hand and knows that it is worth a whole flock of birds in the bush. I ask the Government to take heed of the little stanza which I quoted, because I remind them that people will not be kept down as they were kept down in years gone by.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. H. R. Spencc: As a contrast to the almost universal attack which has been made upon the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade, and the officials who run our industrial affairs—
Mr. T. Fraser: No.
Mr. Spence: —I should like to say a word in praise of what has been done by the Government in the north-east of Scotland during the last three years. To listen to many of the comments which have been made, one would imagine that the Secretary of State was callous and did not care, that the President of the Board of Trade was similarly minded and that there was no interest shown in St. Andrew's House in how trade and industry were progressing in Scotland.
Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Member bear in mind, as he is praising the Secretary of State, that in the north-east of Scotland the percentage unemployed is 5 4, which is the highest in any area of Great Britain?
Mr. Spence: I am dealing with my own constituency and I am also thinking of the work of the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the Scottish Office in helping us with some of our problems in the North-East in the last two or three years. I have found that all three Departments work very happily together and take the greatest personal interest in the schemes which we have tried and have made succeed in the Buckie area.
Mr. Fraser: We all agree with that.
Mr. Spence: It is untrue that the Secretary of State is callous and indifferent to the unemployment position in Scotland.
I listened with particular interest to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He referred to the tremendous contribution which has been made by the whisky distilling trade to our dollar exports. There is no getting away from the fact that it has been a wonderful dollar earner for us. In his comments he referred to the fact that the distilling trade was building a number of new bonded warehouses. That is true, but it points to a significant state of affairs: the production of whisky each year for
732
the last seven years has exceeded the consumption very considerably.
The normal maturity age for putting whisky on the market is about seven years and we shall now begin to see more whisky becoming available for sale. I wonder whether the Government are keeping an eye on this, because they may have to use various means to open up additional markets abroad to dispose of the whisky. The distilling trade naturally want to stay on full production, for it is economic and efficient to do so, but at present we are not selling all we distil.
That is all right at the moment; it is going into the pipeline. When the pipeline is full, however, I hope that the Government will take whatever steps may be necessary, such as arranging a token import of certain dollar goods, to enable us to obtain larger sales abroad of this wonderful dollar earner which stood us in such good stead both during the war and after it.
I now turn from that aspect of our industrial affairs to the speech by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who drew the attention of the House very forcibly to the need for providing reserves to acquire future plant and equipment in our factories. I entirely agree with that, but I do not agree with the implication behind his remarks that the money which should have gone to reserve has been taken out of the business by the shareholders. The greatest shareholder in all businesses today is the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he takes out of business more than any group of shareholders.
I hope that when we are considering the question of our industrial future two points will be borne in mind. One is the granting of an increasing initial allowance on new plant which has been purchased and the other is an increase in the rate of Income Tax deductions for obsolescence.
Mr. Pryde: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that someone—I do not know who it is and I am not interested in that at the moment—is getting out of the product of industry more than ever before? Is it not true that the amount returned in wages and salaries to the wage-earners is also more heavily strained than ever before?
Mr. Spence: That is a hypothetical question and not one which I can answer off the cuff, but I would say that there is no doubt that enormous sums are taken out of every industry annually by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in taxation and that this tax burden is the biggest headache which industries have today when they are considering how they are to finance their future and still pay their taxes.
I was referring to the need for a larger initial allowance and a higher rate of allowance for obsolescence. I stress the need for this especially in cases where fast-running machinery is involved. The rate of obsolescence there must be greater and I believe that it would be a good thing and for the eventual benefit of industry if a revision were made in our tax law rather on the lines of that in Switzerland where a 10 per cent. writeoff is allowed every year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) made a very interesting speech, in which he dealt with the queston of setting up new factories in the more remote towns and areas of Scotland, not necessarily in the main industrial centres. He made a very good point indeed when he emphasised that the prime product in these factories must be one with a high conversion factor; it must be valuable in relation to its weight and able to stand the high tariff charges which are involved by industries in remote areas.
Another thing which must be borne in mind when considering a new development of this kind is that the type of product should be one which demands a high degree of manipulative skill. That would be the justification for setting up these factories in areas where there is a labour force prepared to undergo the lengthy and necessary training, and to make the products over the years. One has only to look at the towns in the North-East of Scotland to see how many businesses have been built up by making a specialised article. The scheme suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok could go a long way to softening the hard core of unemployment in Scotland.
Mr. Rankin: It would need assistance.
Mr. Spence: Of course it would need assistance, and that assistance should be forthcoming. I was very happy to hear
734
what my hon. Friend had to say about the interest that a number of industries are showing in coming to these parts.
The House will know of my personal interest in a variety of industrial concerns, and one thing has not been said, I think, that should be said. The quality of the products made by our workpeople is unequalled in the world. In Scotland we can offer a standard of production, of good and reliable work that is quite unsurpassed anywhere. For that reason we should not be shy about asking outside people to bring their industries to our country. They will find there the workpeople who will give them satisfaction.
There has been, and still is, a failure on the part of people generally to realise the immense contribution that industry—and in that term I include agriculture—makes to our standard of living. It is the ability of industry to produce, the ability of our work people to convert raw materials into finished products that gives us our standard of living. In the educational world, I think, there is not the appreciation there should be of the satisfying and interesting life there is in industry. I hope that there will be an improvement in that direction. We should all pay a tribute to the people who are our primary producers, and let the high place they enjoy in the esteem of the nation be known.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: When I heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) start his speech by saying that he proposed to speak in praise of what the Government have done in his area, I felt relieved, because I then knew that he would not deliver a very long speech. As a matter of fact, I do not know how, in that mission, he managed to carry on for even 11 minutes.
The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George)—and I am sorry that he is no longer with us—appeared to regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) had not dealt with automation. The strange thing is that, so far as I have been able to discover, the Government's Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland for 1955 does not use that word at all. If the Government themselves do not see fit to use the word, or to refer to it in any way in the

735
Report, it is not remarkable that my hon. Friend did not refer to it.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Pollok seemed to think, automation is not unique. We on this side know that the replacement of men's labour by tools or by machines is a process that has gone on almost from the beginning of history, and that all that is happening now is that the new methods are becoming more complex. The important point, which the hon. Gentleman did not seem to emphasise sufficiently, is that when introduced into industry, these techniques produce more goods, but those who have helped to produce those goods do not participate in the increased consumption which should follow.
That is what causes discontent, and the fear, which is much alive today, that the push-button method, which undoubtedly will come, will result in the displacement of workers in industry, unless the Government of the day are prepared to exercise the control and planning necessary to ensure that labour which is displaced from one job is absorbed in some other occupation.
That, of course, is of peculiar interest to those who represent Scottish divisions, because the level of unemployment in Scotland is far too high today. The Report tells us that on 12th December, 1955, 49,920 people in Scotland were out of work, a percentage of 23 which has persisted throughout this Government's period of office. It was, in fact, one of the lowest percentages in recent years, because at the beginning of January last year, the number of unemployed was 65,853, not far short of one-and-a-half times the figure of August of last year, which was the lowest point reached.
Such figures give us food for thought, when we compare this 23 per cent. with the 1 per cent. for the whole of Great Britain. In the Scottish Development Area it is 24 per cent. and in all the other Development Areas throughout the country, it is 19 per cent. It is on this very high level of employment in our country that we should be chiefly concentrating to see what can be done to reduce it.
At present, there is a demand that conscription should be abolished and the Armed Forces run down. The Report tells us that last year 18,150 men were posted from Scotland to Her Majesty's
736
Forces last year. If conscription were abolished, would those 18,000 young men who would be released simply be added to the number of unemployed? The Report says that the shortage of skilled workers still persisted throughout the past year. The Report of the Minister of Labour and National Service for 1955 says that there are provisions to satisfy the demand of skilled labour which is in short supply in industries of national importance, and that, during 1955, 6,400 men and women in the United Kingdom completed courses which qualified them to take their part in reducing this skilled labour shortage.
The position which then eventuates for Scotland is this. First, there is a shortage of skilled labour, and, with that shortage, there is now a force of 43,256 unemployed. In the Report we are told that, to deal with that problem, 213 schemes were certified for the Development Areas which ultimately may employ 10,000 people. The date at which all those 10,000 may be employed is not indicated. In the Ministry of Labour Report we are told that there are training schemes for 6,400 people to meet these demands. That is the United Kingdom estimate. What the figure for Scotland is, I do not know, but it may be about 1,000.
If these provisions could be operated concurrently, 16,000 people would be catered for. Of these 43,000 people, 27,000, admitting that some of them are unskilled, of course, could be trained, according to our purpose—evidently agreed to by the trade unions—so as to make up the deficiency in skilled labour. Yet the Government leave 27,000 out of this great mass of human beings entirely outside their provisions. It is clear to me that we are bound to condemn the Government on that score alone, inasmuch as their planning to deal with this problem is totally inadequate.
We are told further that there are 6,769 men in Scotland who have been out of work for more than a year. How many of those have been out for two or three years? We are informed that 3,371 of the men unemployed for this length of time were over 50 years of age. In view of the fact that labour is needed, and there are these 6,000 people out of work for a year at least—how much longer is not indicated—are we to take it that these men over 50 years of age are fit only for secondary labour? If that is the case,

737
then, again, it shows that the plans of the Government for light industry in Scotland are not meeting the needs of our time.
When we talk about planning at this particular time, because of its interest for one part of Scotland, the City of Glasgow, we should have a word tonight on what is happening at Cumbernauld. There is to be an attempt to move a large part of the population in the West of Scotland, in Glasgow and other parts, to a new town. Without industry, that new town is bound to fail of its purpose. What planning is going on? Has the development corporation had any meet-tings at all? Has the Minister any idea of the plans which are envisaged to provide industry for this new town as it comes into being? Without industry, it will not, in my view, succeed in its purpose at all.
May I now ask a few questions about Scottish exports? There has been a reference to whisky, and we know what the exports of Scottish whisky are. We know what the exports of Scottish coal are. Why is it that we are given no idea, so far as I have been able to follow the Report, what the shipbuilding exports from Scotland amount to. This is a very considerable United Kingdom export, one of our greatest. For 1945, £531/2 million worth of ships were exported, and for the first six months of this year, up till the end of June, the value relatively was even greater, at £46,599,000. What is Scotland's contribution to that? That is an important point, in view of the tendency within the shipbuilding industry for this creeping paralysis of unemployment to penetrate.
For the figures of work in hand, I turn to the current issue, for June, of Lloyd's Register Shipbuilding Returns. In Aberdeen, there is a fall in work in hand of 3,300 gross tons, compared with June a year ago. In Glasgow, there is a fall of 24,000 gross tons. In Greenock, there is a fall of 27,000 gross tons. In Dundee, there is an increment of 9,000 gross tons. In Leith, the figure is steady at the same level as last year, 57,900 tons.
I agree that one does not want to over-paint the picture. I am giving these figures, which indicate a trend, and they must be noted, because of the steel position, which is now down to the danger level. The Weekly Shipping Journal for
738
5th July had this to say about steel supplies in shipbuilding:
"The deliveries of plates and sections to the shipyards have been running well below the quantities called for by the large building programmes in hand."
That indicates a situation which cannot, of course, be ignored. I emphasise again that I do not want to do with regard to shipbuilding what the hon. Member for Pollok seemed, in my view, wrongly to say we were doing, that is, blacken the picture. We do not want to create the feeling that deliveries cannot be met on the dates fixed. Deliveries are quite safe; but the steel position in Scotland, particularly the East of Scotland, is now almost at danger level.
I want to ask the Secretary of State whether it is possible to release more steel. I ask that because, at the end of 1954, there were 808,000 tons of steel unallocated. At the end of 1955, the amount of steel which had not been allocated was 1,433,000 tons. I suggest that we seem to have something in the "bank" as regards steel, and the fact that we now have more unallocated steel, about 600,000 tons more, than we had at the end of 1954 seems to indicate that, to help the shipbuilding industry in Scotland, it might be possible to release more steel from our accumulated reserves, without in any way damaging our future position.
I should like to say a word concerning aircraft. We congratulate British Euro pean Airways on what has been done in Scotland and we want to congratulate all those who work for B.E.A. and have contributed their quota to the excellent service now being provided between Scotland and other parts. We welcome that advance.
Again, however, I must look at the manufacturing side of the industry. From January to June this year, Britain exported completed aircraft to the value of £39,887,000. In the corresponding six months a year ago, our exports were £18,846,000. That is a remarkable increase, yet Scotland has not had a penny of it. None of this work has contributed towards reducing the unemployment problem in Scotland. I am dealing, of course, with completed aircraft and not with accessories, on which work is going on in Scotland. I have complimented B.E.A. on its general progress, but the

739
important thing is that Scotland is getting no part in the productive side other than as an accessory.
The Government have done practically nothing about that. When the Labour Government were in power, they used their influence to ease the industry away from the Home Counties, where it was—and still is—largely concentrated. The Labour Government got it as far as Preston, in the North of England. Since the Tories came to power, however, to the best of my knowledge they have brought no influence to bear on the industry to continue its expansion northwards.
Certainly, something has been done about the Pioneer and the twin Pioneer, but how much? I am not seeking to be biassed in what I say and I admit that something has been accomplished with the two Pioneers. How much Government money was put into that Scottish project? We know that almost £1,000 million of public money has been poured into major aircraft construction. That is contributed by the people of Scotland as well as the people of England, and yet Scotland have not shared, as they ought to have done, in the production side of the industry.
When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, perhaps he will tell us what the slight increase in the total labour force employed in aircraft manufacture amounts to in terms of personnel. Even in the Report, the Government do not place any great emphasis on what they have done by way of encouragement to help that industry to move into Scotland. They only claim that a slight increase has taken place in the total labour force.
I hope I can say that in this series of debates we are all concerned with the health, wealth and happiness of the people of Scotland. It is our duty, on this side, to consider where the Government fail in achieving those three aims and it is our business to point out their failings and to suggest as best we can how they might be remedied. I hope that we have not failed in our part. We hope that the Government in what they are doing, about which we have many doubts, will be more successful in the few years that remain to them than they appear to have been in the last four or five. All the time, we on this side will seek to hasten the day
740
when a Labour Government return to power and do the things that we are urging upon the Government tonight.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: When I listened this afternoon to the address by the President of the Board of Trade, I was reminded of a sumptuous publication produced recently by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). It is a very large publication, the size almost of a newspaper, beautifully coloured and describing in glowing terms just what, as the Council sees it, is happening in Scotland. The Council talks of the new industrial revolution, produces beautiful pictures—such as a picture of Dounreay—and gives the impression, on the basis of the selected examples, that all is well with Scotland.
We can make comparisons with almost any country, and by seizing on our examples we can certainly show that there have been considerable improvements over a number of years. That has been done in the publication. I am not condemning the Scottish Council (Development and Industry)—far from it. The purpose was to "sell" Scotland, and the publication of which I have been speaking is going abroad to present as attractive a picture as possible and to encourage investment in Scotland. Nevertheless, the picture which is painted in that publication is very different from the picture which emerges from a more comprehensive study of the facts.
It is my intention to try to reinforce some of the arguments of my hon. Friends to show the actual picture of Scotland. It would be easy to deal with Scotland on the basis simply of one year back. If I have a criticism of the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland, it is that it deals with the present year and one year back. We can get nothing useful out of that kind of publication. Before we can understand what is happening, we must be able to look back over a period of years and to see the trends. That comparison of trends is the very thing that is denied us by the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland. So far as it is valuable in giving that information, one may as well lay it aside. It is necessary to gather together a number of such documents and compare their findings.

741
It is true, too, if we consider Scotland in isolation, to be able to say of many things, "Look at the improvement in Scotland in 1955"—compared with Scotland at such and such a date. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said, we should expect at this time improvements in any country. So there have been improvements in Scotland, but what is important, I submit, as has been said time after time by my hon. Friends, is that we should judge trends, to see how Scotland fares by comparison, for example, with the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly England and Wales, and that is what I propose to do.
Let me first take up one or two of the things that the President of the Board of Trade said. He told us that there had been an increase in employment in Scotland in 1955, compared with 1954. He said there had been an increase in employment in certain selected industries. Let us take the comparison further back. Let us take 1948 as our base year. I am taking my figures from official sources, from the Digest of Scottish Statistics. If we compare the total working population of Scotland in 1948 with the total working population of Scotland in 1955 we find there has been an increase certainly, but what has been the increase? I shall not burden the House with all the figures, which are there for hon. Members to examine if they want to. I will content myself with giving percentages. Thus the increase between 1948 and 1955 is 1·4 per cent.
That is an increase of about 34,000 people in the total working population of Scotland. In England and Wales there is a very different position. There has been an increase there during the same period of time of 1,390,000 people or 5 per cent.; so the comparison is 1·4 per cent. as against 5 per cent. My calculation is that if Scotland's total working population had increased at the same rate as that of Great Britain—I am leaving Northern Ireland aside—we ought to have had an additional 83,000 people in our working population.
Truly, as my hon. Friend said, Scotland's unemployment problem is being solved in England and Wales, particularly in the south, around London and the Midlands. We in Scotland are constantly losing our people, and the best of them.
742
The net loss each year is about 20,000. We have recent figures showing the number of workers who have moved over the Border.
I am concerned with Scotland and Scotland's share. I am speaking here for Scotland, as my hon. Friends have sought to speak for Scotland, and we on this side of the House would be failing in our duty, and Ministers would be failing in theirs, if we or they were to fail always to think in terms of how Scotland is faring in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom, if not, indeed, in relation to other countries.
The President of the Board of Trade made much of what had been done in industrial building, and suggested that Scotland has had a fair share of that. What we are concerned with is the trend, and if we take the years from 1952 to 1955 we find—what is very important—that the average percentage, over those four years, of approvals in Scotland, of the total amount of industrial building, was 6·7 per cent. That was substantially below what anyone must agree is a fair share for Scotland. When we consider the amount of industrial building started in the same period we find that the average percentage for Scotland was 7·2. The percentage of completions is higher, but completions tell us in part what was decided in an earlier year. Completions work out at 9·5 per cent.—higher, but well below what anyone would have to agree is a fair share for Scotland. Thus, judged in terms of what is being built for the future, Scotland is lagging behind.
That is what emerges from almost every aspect of Scottish industrial life. Scotland is lagging behind. Scotland is a declining country. Scotland is being emptied of its people and Scottish capital is being drained away. I agree that that is not being done spectacularly. Many good works are going on, but looking at the picture as a whole, that process of draining capital and emptying the country of its people is proceeding year by year, taking 1948 as the base year and the period from that year to 1955.
The President of the Board of Trade spoke of the importance of the basic industries. The speech of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) was highly appreciated on this side of the House. It was a delightful and excellent speech in many respects, except that he made

743
the point that he could not recognise the picture of Scotland that was being painted by Opposition speakers. I could not recognise the picture that the hon. Member was painting. It is easy to say, for example, that there are large sums which we hope will be expended on fuel and power over a number of years. That might or might not happen, and even that will not mean very much unless we relate it to what has happened elsewhere.
What has happened from 1948 to 1955? I need not dwell upon the subject of coal. The hon. Member for Pollok knows the position. We can only hope that it will be righted. In 1948 Scotland's share of coal output was about 10·8 per cent., and by 1955 it had fallen to 10·2 per cent. Let us take some of the fuels which are less well-known. The hon. Member for Pollok seemed to enthuse very much over electricity. There has been a very extensive building up of the output of the Scottish electricity industry. According to my estimate, the build-up from 1948 has been 52 per cent., a very creditable development indeed, but not nearly as good as that of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mr. George: The figure is 61 per cent.
Mr. Lawson: In my estimate the figure is 52·3 per cent. for the period 1948–55, United Kingdom development has been 72·4 per cent. over the same period, which again brings out the fact that Scotland tends to lag behind. In 1948, according to my calculations, Scotland had a generating capacity of 9·9 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. By 1955 that had fallen to 8·7 per cent.
Where we agree that there has been development, it is the case that there has not been enough to maintain Scotland's relative position compared with her position in 1948. The same has applied to gas, of which the hon. Member for Pollok seemed to think less than he did of electricity. Scotland's share of 8·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom output in 1948 had fallen to 7·7 per cent. in 1955. There has been an increase in production over the years of little more than 9 per cent. compared with an increase of over 20 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. In that, as in other matters, we have the same tendency on the part of Scotland to fall behind.
744
I am not in a position to give the same percentages for oil production, but a White Paper published in 1955 stated that there was a substantial reduction in the throughput in Scotland. We are told that the refineries in Scotland processed 2·35 million tons of crude oil during the year, or some 695,000 tons less than in 1954. Why? It was not because less oil was being consumed, because if we take the word of Mr. Murdoch, the Chairman of the Scottish Board for Industry, in 1955 Scotland used 21 per cent. more crude oil than in 1954. So Scotland is using substantially more crude oil but is refining substantially less. Why? Because refineries have been opened in Aden and Australia, and Scotland's share is drastically cut.
We must remember that the refining of oil is not done by a Scottish company. As the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East said, it is carried out by a world-based company. If, therefore, any sacrifices are to be made, it seems that Scotland will make them. All hon. Members will agree that there was a substantial cut in that period. So much for fuel.
These are the developments which we see over a period of eight years, showing a trend, but let us take the all-important steel industry, about which the President of the Board of Trade said so much and which is so vital for Scotland. Anyone who knows Scotland—not those people who think in terms of tartans and whisky—thinking what Scotland is famous for, thinks at once of steel and ships. How does Scotland fare in terms of steel production? One would have expected, since steel is so important for the life of Scotland, that she would have rapidly expanded her steel production, but that is not the case.
I hesitate to give the totals because I appreciate that people do not normally carry those figures in their minds, so I will give the percentages and say that the totals are to be found in either the White Paper or in the Economic Survey. In 1948 Scotland's share of the steel production in the United Kingdom was 15 per cent. I am not choosing the brightest year because in past years she had a larger percentage than that. By 1955 that percentage had fallen to 11·8. That was a substantial fall, as everyone must agree, in that so-important item in Scottish industrial life. According to my calculation, if Scotland had maintained her ratio

745
she would have had to produce around 633,000 more tons merely to maintain the 1948 ratio.
By what percentage did Scottish steel production increase? By approximately 100,000 tons over the period, or 4·5 per cent. But by how much did the United Kingdom total of steel production increase? It increased over the period by 4,892,000 tons—almost 5 million tons—or, according to my calculation, around 32·8 per cent. If we were to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, the increase in English and Welsh steel production would be substantially more than the 32·8 per cent. I have mentioned.
In this connection it will be found that Scotland's share has decreased severely, but that is not the worst of the matter. There is a plan for steel which has been produced by the Iron and Steel Board. I have a copy of it here. In that plan for steel are the estimated figures of output for 1958, for the United Kingdom and for Scotland as well as the various districts. The total estimated for the United Kingdom is 22·2 million tons for 1958. Scotland is given 25·5 million tons. That sounds a lot but again measure that as a percentage of the total, and what emerges? It emerges that Scotland, even on this plan for 1958, is still further down than in 1955, getting about 11·4 per cent.
My calculation is that, if we were even to maintain the 1948 ratio, we should require to be allocated at least another 780,000 tons of steel. This includes the Ravenscraig scheme, and the plan for the allocation of capital. Under this plan, Scotland, whose industry used to produce well over 15 per cent., has been allocated capital for 1953 to 1958 to the extent of 10·9 per cent. Wales has been given 29 per cent., and the North-East Coast 24 per cent. We agree that there have been developments in Scotland, but there are bigger, more rapid and more productive developments elsewhere. The result is that we are sliding behind. Scotland should be given a better deal.
We know how the shortage of steel has hindered Scottish industry. We hear about it on every hand. I have quotations which I will not bother to give the House because they are well known. I should however, like to take an instance from my constituency, where there is one of
746
the biggest and most progressive engineering works in the country. The chairman of the company recently went to America. I quote from the Hamilton Advertiser:
"Because of a shortage of steel supplies in this country, the Motherwell Bridge and Engineering Co., Ltd., is switching some of its work to the United States.…. Mr. Miller"—
the chairman—
"said that the firm was only getting 70 per cent. of the steel it required."
That is one example; there are many others. Although this industry is supposed to be making such great progress, the effect in Scotland is that we are slipping further and further behind.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) spoke of the need for a strip mill, for which many are pressing. There seems no doubt that, unless strip steel is available to us at the United Kingdom price level, Scotland will be severely handicapped in many respects. However, whether we have a strip mill or not, the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he is at all concerned with Scotland's welfare, must insist that Scotland is given a fair share in the steel industry and allowed to achieve at least the 15 per cent. ratio which she had in 1948. The right hon. Gentleman must do that if he is prepared to stand up for Scotland. Has he any influence with the Iron and Steel Board and its policy? The Government have, and presumably he has. Consequently, he has a duty to fulfil, if he is not to preside over a declining Scotland.
The President of the Board of Trade told us how important shipbuilding was to Scotland, and I intervened at that point partly to indicate that we agreed with him. What is the shipbuilding position? We are driven to the conclusion that, at best, Scottish shipbuilding is static. I do not deny that there have been improvements, but its output is static, for it produced little more completions in 1955 than in 1948. Actually, the tonnage output was substantially lower in 1955 than in 1919.
Figures published in Lloyds's List show that between 1948 and 1955, there was an increase of 11,071 gross registered tons, or 2·2 per cent. That was the extent of the increase over that period. I admit that if we look back over the years we find a certain rise and

747
fall, but in some years we were very substantially below the 1948 output.
Can we say the same thing about the manpower in the industry? The right hon. Gentleman appeared to give the impression that there had been a big stepping-up of the manpower employed in the industry. That is not so according to my information which is taken from official sources. If we examine the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland we find that in 1948 the industry employed 46,000, excluding those employed in Government establishments. In 1955, it was only 40,800, which was quite a substantial drop. There was more total output, it is true, but there was a drop in manpower. At the best we can say that this industry is static.
The industry in the United Kingdom is perhaps not much better, but it is a little better. The output in the United Kingdom went up by about 9 per cent. over a period when completions in Scotland went up by 2·2 per cent. The share that Scotland enjoyed fell from little more than 40 per cent. to little more than 38 per cent. over that period. I apologise for giving percentages, but I think that that is the easiest way of making matters clear, and we surely want to get these matters clear.
When we turn to the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry, what do we find, compared with Scottish shipbuilding? The United Kingdom shipbuilding industry again, at the very best, can only be described as static. It is not maintaining its position in the world. It is perhaps maintaining its output but it is maintaining only that level of output in a world which is rapidly increasing its output. In 1948 the United Kingdom share of ships completed was 48·8 per cent. and by 1955 it had fallen to little more than 26 per cent. of a much larger world total. The United Kingdom total remained very much the same—a little more, but only a little more.
The United Kingdom output of completed ships between 1948 and 1955 increased by 9 per cent. Over the same period, the output of foreign yards went up nearly three times or, according to my calculation, by 187 per cent. World output over that period was slightly more than doubled. Whereas in this greatly
748
expanding market for ships over eight years the market for ships has doubled we fare no better than a 9 per cent. increase and Scotland fares no better than a 2·2 per cent. increase.
Yet the President of the Board of Trade tells us that the basic industries are important and are doing very well in Scotland. That is rosy picture painting; it is avoiding the realities. I am not suggesting dishonesty, I am suggesting that there has been a failure to look back over a number of years—of taking the year that went before and not giving any serious consideration to this matter over a series of years.
I now turn to Scottish industrial production. These figures are taken from the Monthly Digest of Statistics and the Scottish Digest. I hope to give as representative a picture as I can. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, the index for the total output of all the industries is 25 per cent. up on 1948. Everything is included. Twenty-five per cent. up may appear very creditable in that short period, but in the United Kingdom it is 37 per cent. up. Again I say that if we separate Scotland from England and Wales we shall find that it is substantially more than 37 per cent. Over the United Kingdom as a whole it is 37 per cent., and for Scotland it is 25 per cent.
Regarding the total manufacturing industries, we have been told that we were going ahead rapidly. In the total manufacturing industries the figure is 29 per cent. up, compared with 42 per cent. up for the United Kingdom. Let us consider some of the industries in which Scotland is supposed to excel—engineering, shipbuilding and vehicle building. Those are industries for which Scotland is world famous. For engineering, and vehicles in that category, Scotland has increased output by 38 per cent. For the United Kingdom the figure is up by 50 per cent.
In engineering, shipbuilding and electrical goods the figure for Scotland goes up by 44 per cent. which is I agree substantial, but the United Kingdom figure goes up by 54 per cent. In respect of vehicles alone Scotland's increase is 56 per cent. but the United Kingdom figure is 72 per cent. up. Nothing could be clearer or more damning than those figures. If we take chemical and allied trades which includes oil refining—because there is no

749
other category in which it can be put—the position is that the figure for Scotland has been stepped up by 25 per cent. and that for the United Kingdom by 77 per cent. The works at Fawley are larger than those at Grangemouth. Work goes on in Scotland, but Scotland's share has declined. Scotland lags behind.
Textiles are a happier feature. In textiles we are up in comparison with the United Kingdom; the figures are 32 per cent. against 15 per cent. That is understandable when we consider the great progress made, for example, with jute. But in clothing we are down in comparison with the United Kingdom. The paper and printing industries are well known industries in Scotland and have been for years, but the figure there is 22 per cent. as against 69 per cent. for the United Kingdom. So we could go on. I agree that in building and contracting Scotland is slightly ahead of the United Kingdom, but in respect of gas, electricity and water, which are basic to the economy of the country the figures are down—40 per cent. compared with 53 per cent. I apologise for throwing these figures at hon. Members, but one cannot understand the position without having them in mind.
That is how industry in Scotland is faring. But it is not merely a question of industry of Scotland, it is also a question of the new generation growing up in Scotland. It is not merely how we have stood over the years, but what we are doing for the future. When we find men such as Baillie Herbert Brechin, an Edinburgh bailie who is very far from being a supporter of Labour policy, but is rather one of the moderate or Conservative baillies—a man very well-informed on educational matters and a Governor of Heriot-Watt College—describing Scotland as a backward nation in technology, it is a matter for concern.
We also find the baillie saying that Scotland has always prided herself on her educational traditions and industrial craftsmanship, and it is a thought that makes one apprehensive that not only does Scotland lag behind England, but in this field, compared with the Soviet Union, Scotland is an underdeveloped and backward nation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Pollok would agree, because that is substantially what he said himself.
750
I put it to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they are concerned with the educational affairs in Scotland, they should be concerned that in technical education certainly, and no doubt in the state of education generally, we lag behind. We remember the point made by the hon. Member for Pollok in this connection, regretting the failure of Scottish youth or of Scottish employers to utilise the educational services. Because Scotland lags behind England and Wales in this connection, we find Lord Strathclyde, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, asking the Scottish Council to establish an inquiry, and asking why Scottish employers are not achieving results which are being achieved in England and Wales. The Scottish Council, a voluntary body, has been asked to find that out for the Government. Surely that is a job for the Government, yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) says, they are "passing the buck ". The very existence of the Scottish Council is, one might say, proof of that state of affairs, showing that it is necessary to have this voluntary body trying/to attract industry to Scotland.
What is wrong with the native Scot? This is a pregnant question, and I will deal with it as far as I can. The Scotsman newspaper likes to pontificate on the affairs of Scotland and likes to appear as the voice of Scotland. Yesterday it had a leading article which was quite critical of Scottish Socialist Members. I will not go into details, but it said that the Conservatives had certainly done much more to eliminate the worst evils of remote control than had the Scottish Socialist Members.
I put it to the House that it was not the gentlemen in Whitehall who emptied the glens, not the gentlemen in Whitehall who sterilised the hills or who, for years, have been bleeding Scotland of its native capital. It was not the gentlemen in Whitehall who have been driving Scots out in search of jobs elsewhere. It was Scotsmen. Scotsmen suffered from Scotsmen. It was Scotsmen who burned the roofs over the heads of fellow Scotsmen and turned the Highlands into deer forest and later into bracken wastes. It was not the gentlemen in Whitehall but Scotsmen—not that I would say that we should leave the gentlemen in Whitehall

751
out of it altogether. I long ago heard it said that a capitalist in a kilt was no better than a capitalist in trousers. We have suffered over the years from that.
Let me take as an example the vast sums of capital controlled in Scotland by the big insurance companies. I understand that there are thirteen Scottish insurance companies, all of them strong and well established, and some conducting business on a world-wide scale and commanding funds totalling over £500 million. I wonder how much of that money tends to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East said should be done—re-fertilise the soil, put back into industry what has been taken out and ensure that the seed potato is not destroyed. How much of this £500 million is invested in Scottish industry. I ask the Secretary of State to make inquiries about that. I see no reason why we should not be told.
Scotland is well known for its investment trusts. I understand that there are about seventy Scottish investment trusts quoted on the Stock Exchange, and that they control investments of about £200 million. How much of that is in Scottish industry? How much of those funds initially were taken out of Scotland and invested in remote corners of the world? I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am not wearing the kilt, but I agree, when I think of these gentlemen in Edinburgh, that Scotland has suffered very much under their guidance and control. I am not talking of St. Andrews House, but of the Writers to the Signet and other such people who control these matters. The same applies to Scottish bank funds of over £1,000 million.
This is the picture of Scotland. It is a picture which in many ways, measured against the past, can be described as prosperous; measured against other countries it is a picture of steady decline. The position is so serious that we, as representatives of Scotland—and I agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House should be concerned—must see that something definite comes out of this kind of debate not, as so often happens, that we do much talking and nothing is done. The points that I have raised should be considered.
752
I would ask the Secretary of State himself to demand an immediate resumption of industrial building in Scotland. He should use his best efforts. We admire the courage of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We might differ from him, but we think he has courage. We want to see him go to the Cabinet and fight for Scotland in this connection. I ask him to see that Scotland gets its share of steel. It is beyond dispute that Scotland's share of steel production is steadily contracting. The Secretary of State is the man with the power, and it is up to him to see that Scotland gets at least the 15 per cent. share that she had in 1948, and substantially more, but which she is not getting and which it is not intended she shall get, according to the plan.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to cause an inquiry to be made into the uses of Scottish native capital. Let us look at the number of wills: in terms of property, Scotland has substantially more than its share. Let us have a number of these wills looked at over a period of years to find what proportion of the wealth of Scotland is owned abroad. Let us know how Scottish investment trusts and others are investing in Scottish industries. If we had some of this information we might be able to restore the balance and see that Scotland generally stands where it did.
9.2 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The debate has covered a wide field and has dealt with many of our affairs and problems. Whether one has agreed with all their views or not hon. Members, have, very naturally and rightly, had at heart the future of Scotland, Scottish employment and the industrial development of Scotland.
I am sure that the House is—and, certainly, I am personally—most grateful to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for his speech this afternoon. It gave us much valuable information. This is the last of our Scottish debates on Supply. We have, on the Floor of the House and in the Scottish Standing Committee, already covered a number of subjects, for instance, agriculture, forestry, housing, education, and roads, while the other evening there was a long debate on the fishing industry. All

753
these subjects are referred to in the White Paper which we have before us. It may suit the convenience of the House, and be the right thing for me to do, if I try to answer some of the questions that cover different ground from what was covered in those previous debates.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) repeated more than once that Scotland was lagging behind. That was the theme of his speech. I must confess I found the picture which he painted rather a gloomy one. On the other hand, I heard my right hon. Friend's speech referred to as painted in bright colours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whitewash."] There is certainly a difference of outlook in viewing these matters, as my right hon. Friend himself said, according to the side of the House on which we happen to sit. It is difficult to give a picture which will satisfy all. I will, therefore, content myself by saying that I hope the picture is not too bad and that I certainly have had to witness worse.
A number of points were raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell and he asked me several questions. He spoke of oil refining, a subject with which I would like to deal later. He referred to the necessity for improving and increasing steel production, as did, also, my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn). I am fully alive to the importance of these matters. I am sure that my hon. Friends would sincerely welcome a steel strip mill in Scotland, but, in the first place, it is a matter for the steel industry and the Iron and Steel Board. I am sure that hon. Members who raised the matter are fully alive to its importance and are most anxious to see it established in Scotland. So far as advice, or even pressure, is possible I will certainly do my best to assist in that direction.
The hon. Member also asked about how much of insurance companies' and investment companies' funds are invested in Scotland. I know that he would not expect me to answer that offhand, but I should imagine that if we got the balance sheets of those companies we would find in them lists of how their funds are distributed.
The House will not expect me to go over all the matters of Development Area
754
policy, with which my right hon. Friend dealt at some length. I noted the views of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who complained about the policy at present pursued by the Government and said that Scotland's share was not as much as it should be today. I also noted the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George), who said—I hope I am interpreting him correctly—that in the Development Areas unemployment is no longer a problem today.
He advocated that new plans should be drawn up to build factories, perhaps smaller factories, dependent on the size of the burghs and areas in which they were needed. All I can say at this stage is that a Select Committee has been examining the estimates of the Development Areas, and has made a number of recommendations about the working of the industrial estate companies. I have noted the views expressed today, but, naturally, I cannot anticipate the considered reply that the Government will give to the Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) said that Kirkcaldy now has considerable unemployment. I have been into the question since the hon. Member spoke. The figures show that there is a shortage among men, only 06 per cent. unemployment in the Kirkcaldy and Leslie area, but there is some unemployment—26 per cent.—among women. Reference has been made to the Scottish Council, to which I and my hon. Friends are most grateful for all the work it does. It has been investigating the need for light industries to employ women in that area.
The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) which does such admirable work, was set up by the predecessor to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor is, unfortunately, no longer with us. My hon. Friends now assure me that it was set up before the war. I was also asked about the position of Rosyth dockyard, which is well known to me, and the locality of Donisbristle. Hon. Members will find a Written Answer from the Admiralty on the subject at column 47 in yesterday's HANSARD.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked

755
whether the Shotts and Hartill area could be considered for Glasgow overspill. The Clyde Valley Planning Committee has considered that area, but has not recommended it at the present stage for this purpose. We are now considering Cumbernauld and other places where extension can most conveniently be done, as this is a matter of urgency.
In the time available I should like to turn to one or two points which have not been dealt with to any extent in the debate, and no doubt in doing so I shall answer some of the other questions which have been put. I must refer to our position in the export markets, the importance of which cannot be overestimated. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, has taken a very strong personal interest in this drive, and I should like to express my gratitude to him and his officials who visited Scotland this summer to discuss problems with men on the spot.
The Government wish to help in every way that they can. They do assist, because exporters' risks can be covered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The Board of Trade has established commercial offices in various parts of the world and these can furnish our manufacturers and industrialists with the most up-to-date information about markets and about the economic conditions in the countries to which they are posted. Nevertheless, the best course is for a visit of the manufacturer himself to the customer abroad. Nor can the Government themselves provide a substitute for good advertising done by individual firms or trade organisations.
Ever since the war the Scottish Council has given us a most valuable lead in this connection. The new chairman, Lord Polwarth, to whom I extend my best wishes, has just returned from a visit to the United States and Canada with the secretary, where he has made useful contacts and obtained a lot of valuable information. The Council this year produced a very successful publication entitled "Industrial Scotland" for overseas distribution. This publication has had a very good reception.
In connection with the export drive, I should like to say a word about the Films of Scotland Committee, originally a pre-
756
war body, which was revived with Scottish Office assistance in 1954. Under the Chairmanship of Sir Alexander King, who is a most energetic gentleman, it has already produced a film on the Edinburgh Festival which has been distributed to many parts of the world. Other productions include one on forestry, and another on life in the Orkneys. It is now working on a film about hydro-electric power. Scottish industry is becoming increasingly interested in this work.
This film industry, naturally, has a most important bearing upon another side of this drive to which I wish to refer—the tourist industry, which is very important today. It is growing fast—it is comparatively new, really. The receipts from the tourist industry in Great Britain for 1955 are estimated at £110 million, which is more than five times the figure of ten years ago, and more than the whole of our motor car exports in terms of foreign currency.
A third of the tourists came to Scotland and, with the addition of the English and Welsh visitors, they really do form a very valuable help, especially to the rural areas. One might say that tourists are to the rural areas what the heavy industries are to Clydeside. As the Chairman of the Crofters Commission pointed out the other day, there is no freight charged—they pay for their own transport—which makes it the ideal industry for the rural areas.
I should like to express my appreciation of the propaganda put out by the British Travel and Holidays Association, and also of the work of the Scottish Tourist Board, which is in close contact with Scottish societies all over the world. The Board prepares attractive material for distribution by the Travel and Holidays Association and, wisely, concentrates on seeing that visitors to this country are properly received, and arrangements made for them to get advice as to accommodation, transport and so on.
It is estimated that 600,000 tourists visited the Highlands last year, which is the highest number ever recorded. It is, of course, an attractive part of the country, and while I realise only too well the difficulties in that area, to which hon. Members have referred, in connection with agriculture, roads, and so on, this is, at any rate, a new source of revenue which is bringing real benefit.

757
The provision of fuel and power is of vital importance. It is, indeed, the life blood of all industry both in England and Scotland. It is, therefore, of vital concern to us all. My right hon. Friend referred briefly to the National Coal Board's plans, and I should like to add just a few sentences. It is generally agreed, I think, that after the war the coal industry in Scotland was in need of a relatively higher degree of reconstruction than was needed in other parts of the country. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power said the other day, as far as we can see coal will be essential to us for many years to come.
The plans of the Scottish Division of the Coal Board are very far-reaching and, indeed, ambitious. They have been described in White Papers, but the object is to increase the production of deep-mined coal to 26½ million tons by 1965, which would be an increase of 22 per cent. Without such a development programme, output would have run down in that year to about 15 million tons. This necessitates, of course, new pits, and five out of 14 new collieries are being sunk in Scotland.
Mr. T. Fraser rose—
Mr. Stuart: I have only about five minutes left to me.
Mr. Fraser: I was about to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to use his remaining five minutes to say a word in reply to the speeches made from these benches? Would he say something about the progress made in Scotland relative to the progress made in Great Britain as a whole?
Mr. Stuart: I have been answering some of the points put from the Opposition benches. I did say, at the outset, that as my right hon. Friend had covered at considerable length the policy of the Government on the question of Development Areas—
Mr. Fraser: I did not say Development Areas.
Mr. Stuart: I am now talking about some industries that are running down, very regrettably—shale, for example—and of things that are taking their place. Coal is by no means a new industry, but I was just referring to the fact that in view of the run-down in certain parts of
758
Scotland, new pits are to be sunk. Further, in relation to Highland difficulties I was calling attention to the fact that the tourist industry was bringing new revenue into that area, something which is quite a new development.
I had wished to refer, also, to our electricity development and the nuclear station which the South of Scotland Board announced that it would set up in Ayrshire, the aim being to produce 300 Megawatts by 1963. Then there is the big station at Kincardine, to produce 720 Megawatts, and the 60 Megawatt station at Barony, in Ayrshire, which, for the first time in Scotland, will convert into power something which was hitherto unusable, namely, washery slurry.
All these things go to show that we are endeavouring to save coal, to economise in the use of coal. Indeed, I might mention that since the beginning of this year eleven large industrial users of coal have changed over to oil burning plant and reduced coal consumption by 19,000 tons a year. One hon. Member asked whether the recommendations of the Fuel Research Committee were made use of. Of course they are being made use of, but it does take time; industry cannot suddenly re-equip and remodel itself with new plant. I merely mention those eleven concerns where there has been a saving.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) and other hon. Members referred to developments in the North of Scotland. I should just like to say that we are pushing ahead with peat development at Altnabreac, because that may be a valuable coal saver. The work of construction has been finished, and the closed cycle turbine will be producing by June, 1957. There have been some hitches in construction, but, this being an entirely new project, that could not perhaps be helped.
I am sure that the House will agree that the picture which my right hon. Friend painted this afternoon of the position in 1955, and in the current year, does not give ground at present for immediate or serious concern. I would put it no higher than that. New industries are developing; employment is good. The Government will, and must, encourage developments on new processes in order that they keep up with the modern world, because of all the changes we see around us. We are in a period of great

759
change, and, as a Government, we shall continue to do our best in this direction in the general national interest
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments' Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57
  CLASS I

    CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE
    Question
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS II

    COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS III

    HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS IV

    EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS V

    HEALTH, HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS VI

    TRADE, LABOUR AND SUPPLY
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS VII

    COMMON SERVICES, (WORKS, STATIONERY, &c.)
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS VIII

    AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS IX

    TRANSPORT, FUEL, POWER, AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  CLASS X

    PENSIONS, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

  ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE. 1956–57
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,
  put and agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1956–57
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,
  put and agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1956–57.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,
  put and agreed to.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1956–57
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,
  put and agreed to.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1956–57
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,
  put and agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS

    REPORT [25th July]
    Resolution reported,
    That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, the sum of £2,474,380,552 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. H. Brooke.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2)
  Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven and to appropriate the further supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 166.]
  AGRICULTURE
  Agriculture Act (Part I) Extension of Period Order, 1956 [copy laid before the House, 28th June], approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

  INTERNATIONAL TIN COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 17th July.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Surely we are to have a word of explanation about this important matter from somebody on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: Where is the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
  9.35 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): This Order is one which, I think, will commend itself to the House generally. It is designed to give the necessary immunities to the International Tin Council. That Council has been set up in this country for the purpose of establishing a buffer stock which will—or it is hoped will—provide stability in that important international commodity. If one is to invite an international council to establish itself in this country it is not unreasonable that, for the purposes of Income Tax and privileges, the members of the Council should be given the ordinary diplomatic immunities which are accorded to members of international councils of this kind—I think that the Wheat Council is an example in point—and which are reciprocally granted to our nationals in other countries.
  From time to time these matters have, I know, been debated in the House, and have sometimes led to controversy, but I feel that the House may well take the view that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that London should be the centre of a great international council such as this. Malaya is one of the principle producers of this commodity. London historically is the centre of the international tin market. I think it would be a loss to us if the International Tin Council were not established here. In the negotiations which led to its establishment in London it became clear

  763
  that unless we could extend the ordinary diplomatic immunities we should not have this privilege.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I know the House admires the resourcefulness and the ingenuity of the President of the Board of Trade, and I am sure that his hon. and right hon. Friends will congratulate him on the way he has stepped into the breach tonight, but it certainly is most unusual that a Motion of this kind, generally sponsored by someone from the Foreign Office, should be explained by the President of the Board of Trade.
  This is, as the President realises, I am sure, essentially a Motion arising from international obligations, and one of a sort which is sponsored, as a rule, by the Foreign Secretary. It is very difficult for my hon. Friends and me, who want to put a number of questions to a representative of the Foreign Office, to find that that representative is not in his place.
  I do not quarrel with the President of the Board of Trade. We have the greatest admiration for him, in the various duties he discharges arising out of his office, but I feel—and I have had occasion to say this before—that it is a little hard on the right hon. Gentleman that he should have to become the handyman of the Government, to deal with all kinds of miscellaneous duties, and that he should be expected, at very short notice—
  Mr. Hoy: Without notice.
  Mr. Fletcher: Yes, without any notice at all—to step into the breach, without any preparation, and unexpectedly have to speak to this Motion, which he was not prepared to do. I have no doubt that in due course an explanation of the matter will be given—
  Mr. Hoy: And an apology.
  Mr. Fletcher: —and an apology by someone from the Foreign Office. I must say, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, that this is not exactly how we expect Ministers from the Foreign Office to treat the House. A number of us have been waiting here a long time in anticipation of the kind of debate we often have on matters such as this.
  The President of the Board of Trade says that it is logical for the International
  764
  Tin Council to be located here in London. I do not quarrel with that observation at all. Obviously, the International Tin Council must be located somewhere, and I am inclined to think that it is just as well for it to be located in London as anywhere else.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: In Glasgow.
  Mr. Fletcher: It might well be more appropriately located in Glasgow. The President of the Board of Trade might bear that in mind.
  We on this side of the House always scrutinise Orders of this kind with a great deal of care. We have had occasion to express the view in the past that there has been a tendency to introduce a disproportionately high number of Orders of this kind conferring diplomatic privileges of one kind or another on an increasing number of people. While we all wish to respect international obligations, I do not want the President of the Board of Trade, or the representatives of the Foreign Office, to think that there is no limit to the patience of the British public about the way in which an increasing number of peoples are relieved from the ordinary legal obligations of the people who live in these islands.
  There are one or two very special and unusual features of this Order which make me feel that we should be given some explanation by the Foreign Office. I notice, for example, that Article 3 states:
  "The Council shall have the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, other than taxes on the importation of goods, as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power."
  As far as I am aware, that is a form of words for which there is no exact precedent.
  The President of the Board of Trade invited us rather to assume that members of this Council would have complete diplomatic immunity. As far as I understand, that is not the case. This Order is not intended to confer the same kind of complete diplomatic immunity as is enjoyed by other people. It confers exemption from certain obligations—something less than full diplomatic immunity. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should explain to the House, so that the public may know, why this Order is so different in

  765
  kind from other Orders of a somewhat similar nature which we have been asked to approve in recent months.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I should like, first, to know whether the Order applies to Scotland, and, secondly, to ask a question about Article 3, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has just referred. My hon. Friend did not ask what are the exemptions to which reference was made. He quoted the article which states that the Council shall have
  "the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, … as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power."
  Is it not a fact that those exemptions vary and that some sovereign Powers have one set of exemptions and others another set? Should not that article be clarified in such a way as to indicate which foreign Powers are referred to and which set of exemptions and reliefs? It is not at all clear, either in the Order or in the Explanatory Note. The Minister should make that clear before we deal further with the Order. More particularly, I repeat that I should like to know whether the Order affects Scotland and, if so, how.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): I am sorry that I was not here when this discussion began. There was no discussion on the previous item on the Order Paper. I am not saying that as an excuse, but that was why I was not here.
  I do not quite follow the question of the hon. and" learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) about Scotland, because this Order applies to the International Tin Council and not to Scotland.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I can well understand the Minister not being able to follow my question, because apparently the whole Government Front Bench were taken by surprise by the speed with which this Order was reached, I do not want to embarrass them in any way, but the House should have some explanation, so that we know what we are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East referred to Article 3, which provides that:
  766
  "The Council shall have the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, … as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power."
  What foreign sovereign Power? My point is that these vary. Some sovereign Powers have one set of exemptions and reliefs—
  Mr. Speaker: The intervention of the hon. and learned Member is longer than his speech. He is really making a second speech, which is not in order.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Sir. I rose to make these observations, which you are good enough to describe as a speech, because the Minister said he did not understand the questions I put to him in my first observations, and I am endeavouring to clarify them.
  Mr. Speaker: With great respect to the hon. and learned Member, I do not think that he was clarifying them at all.
  Lord John Hope: To help the hon. and learned Gentleman, may I tell him that this Order applies to the International Tin Council, wherever it be. I hope that that will help him.
  The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) asked me about Article 3. The answer to his question is that this agreement not to levy taxation is an agreement which holds by general international usage. It is not correct that it is used in some cases and not used in others. It is universal. I think that was the question he had in mind?
  Mr. E. Fletcher: I hope I shall not be trespassing on your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if I, like my hon. and learned Friend, try to explain to the representative of the Foreign Office, who, unfortunately, could not be here when his business was called, the points which are troubling us on this matter. He has asked me to repeat what I have said. I will willingly do so, provided, Sir, that I am within the bounds of order. I thought I had explained the matter fully, and I apologise to hon. Members who were present for repeating what I said. For the benefit of the Minister, what I was saying was that this Order is of a totally different kind from other Orders which this House has been asked to pass, and it seems to me improper that the Foreign Office should treat it as a matter

  767
  of no consequence and come here without any explanation as to why it is in a totally different form from other Orders conferring diplomatic immunity which in the past we have been asked to approve.
  Mr. J. C. Forman rose—
  Mr. Speaker: My understanding is that the noble Lord has the Floor of the House.
  Lord John Hope: I am not sure as to how far back the hon. Gentleman is referring, but the reason is that this Order is an attempt to meet the wishes of the House, which have been expressed strongly on many occasions, that these immunities should not go as far as they have gone in the past. That is the explanation, and I hope that the answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Forman: Could we have your assistance, Sir? The occupants of the Government Front Bench do not seem to be very clear on how this matter affects Scotland. Could we have the assistance of the Scottish Office in order to clear up this point, because so far we have not had it cleared up?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that this Order stands in the name of any Scottish Minister. It seems to me to be a United Kingdom one. I do not think that there is anything particularly Scottish about it. I do not see any Scottish Minister volunteering to speak on the matter, so I will put the Question.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 17th July.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

CIVIL DEFENCE (REFRESHMENT ALLOWANCE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
9.50 p.m.
Mr. Ron Ledger: The matter which I wish to raise tonight is that of a grant to local authorities to provide refreshment of some kind for Civil Defence trainees. I appreciate that there is already a grant of 5s. per trainee per year for recreational purposes. I am not concerned with increasing that grant. I am concerned with a grant which would enable a local authority to provide cups of tea free of charge for trainees. Although the matter arose in my constituency, and all the correspondence on the subject is between the Romford Borough Council and the Home Office, there is bound to be some national interest in the outcome.
I have three main reasons for raising the matter. The first is that the Romford Borough Council is concerned in it and has a responsibility. The second is that I feel that a principle is involved in the matter. My third reason arises out of a paragraph in a letter dated 12th December, 1955, which I received from the Home Office. It was the unanimous decision of the Romford Borough Council that I should be asked to intervene with the Home Office. There is no division whatever on the subject within the local authority; it is no way a party issue.
The Romford Borough Council has enrolled and trained a greater number of Civil Defence trainees than any other sub-division in the eastern region. It has been exceptionally successful. No one will underestimate the value of the work, because Civil Defence will be in the front line in any future conflict, a tendency which was apparent during the last war.
A considerable amount of expense is involved in obtaining Civil Defence recruits. There is very unfair competition from the Special Constabulary and the Territorial Army. Special police receive an allowance for subsistence while on duty, which is about Is. 6d. per tour of duty, and Territorial Army recruits receive a bounty. A Civil Defence

769
volunteer can obtain a subsistence allowance only if he is on duty for three hours or more, and then only if he lives at least five miles from the training centre; training periods are normally two hours only.
In its consideration of the matter, the Romford Borough Council has been guided to no small degree by a county council Civil Defence Circular, No. 18/1954, which makes the point that training conditions should be as comfortable as possible and that refreshments, if required, should be supplied at a reasonable cost. The question that faces me and the problem that faces the Council is who is to finance the supply of these refreshments if they are required. Moreover, who is to bear the loss if these refreshments were supplied and were not fully taken up. These are problems with which I am bound to concern myself in dealing with this matter.
I think that the Home Office is well aware of the fact that many of these trainees go straight from their work to their training instead of going home. Therefore, instead of getting a meal at a reasonable hour, 7.30 p.m. or 8.0 p.m., they do not get a meal until about 10.30 p.m. So it is reasonable to expect that they will get some sort of refreshment during this training. Normally, they do not want sandwiches, buns and cakes. What they want most, and what I think most British people like in times of stress, or when they are a bit on edge, or their nerves are overstrained, is a cup of tea. In my opinion, the way in which this cup of tea arrives is very important.
On this point, I come to the question of my personal feeling that a principle is involved, and coupled with it there is a paragraph in a letter which I received from the Home Office. I think that it was extremely unfair and ungracious to write a letter of this kind to me. The paragraph reads:
"We should have to go to ridiculous lengths to ensure that they"—
the volunteers—
"were not out of pocket at all as a result of their joining the Civil Defence service, and I am sure that the majority of volunteers would not expect us to do so. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect volunteers who are away from their homes for less than three hours to pay for any refreshments they want."
770
One can say to a volunteer, "You can have a cup of tea if you pay for it", and he will continue to be a volunteer and to take the training, and, should a war come, he will respond far better than we might expect him to; but I think that we have a duty to encourage these volunteers in the belief that they really are doing an essential job. We should encourage them to believe that we think that they are making a sacrifice of time for the good of the community.
It is essential that we should do this, and we do not have to do it by trying to compete with the Special Constabulary or the Territorial Association by giving large sums of money or any other inducement. The way we can most effectively do this is to have a cup of tea available if they want it and not have to ask them, when they have had it, for their 2d. or 2½d., or whatever is costs.
There is another point which arises on this which may have escaped the attention of the Home Office. I am thinking of 5th and 6th May, when a big exercise was held in the Romford district. In Civil Defence exercises these days, military and naval forces are playing an increasing part. On this occasion, it was a joint exercise with the Regular forces. In this case, as indeed in any of these cases, where it is a Civil Defence exercise, the local Civil Defence acted as hosts to the Service personnel.
As there were no funds available to provide a cup of tea during the day, it so happened that the Civil Defence officer had to pay for one out of his own pocket. I think it is imposing too much on the good nature of the trainees and their officers to take it for granted that they will give the Service personnel the refreshment denied to themselves and meet the cost out of their own pockets. I think that the Home Office might well follow the example of that Civil Defence officer who obviously had to study the cost of this, but, nevertheless, did not hesitate—
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. Hughes-Young.]
Mr. Ledger: It would be a good idea if the Home Office followed the behaviour of the Civil Defence officer

771
and decided that they would be good hosts and see that these funds are available.
There are problems. The Home Office made it clear to me that the question of finance is involved. But I suggest that 2d. a head at a training meeting would hardly increase the financial problems of the Government. Without knowing the figure I should imagine that the total would be lost in any miscalculation that the Government may make on expenditure in almost any other Department. I disagree that this matter would be difficult to control. The Civil Defence Committee of the Romford Borough Council has to make a return of attendance to the county council. Why should not that return be the basis for the grant of 2d. per head for these trainees?
The Home Office also argue, "Of course, when we have given this amount, they will want more money." But out of the 5s. per head per year already granted, a supply of cups and other crockery and kettles and teapots have been bought. They have all these things and what they want now is the Home Office to cover the cost of the cups of tea. I believe that the expenditure on this could be controlled. It is no argument to say that there would be no limit, because a grant is already made.
If we worked on the basis that something cannot be given because it is not known where the demand would end, we should not make a grant at all or give anything to anyone. I suppose that the Government meet such demands in other Departments and the amounts are greater than they can afford. I believe that in this case it is a genuine demand for just 2d. par head per trainee for each training session. There is no intention to ask later on for the money for sandwiches, or cakes, or a three-course meal.
It has been made quite clear to me that these people feel that the most important thing is that the officers and the local authority should have some way which they can show to the trainees that their services are appreciated. Here is an opportunity for the Home Office, without being involved in too much expense, to relent a little on the previous decision and say that it is prepared to
772
make this grant. The permanent officers would feel that their job was appreciated and would be keener to carry on with the work of recruiting trainees and offering the best facilities possible. I think that they would feel that their services were appreciated, and that the job was worth while. Even if they are doing so well that they cannot do better, they will feel that they are meeting the need to an even greater extent if they see that there is some recognition from the Government.
I ask the Under-Secretary to give this matter further consideration and to try to see his way clear to grant this very small concession. I ask him to say to every Civil Defence volunteer throughout the country, not just in Romford, "You are doing a really grand job; we very much appreciate what you are doing and we want you to go on doing it." I asked him to bear in mind, too, that we are thinking of recruiting for the future. All these things will be affected by this very small, but to those concerned very generous, gesture. I ask most sincerely that this concession may be granted the consideration which it warrants and for which I have asked.
10.6 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): A cup of tea holds a unique place in our national life. In many places and on many occasions it has come to be regarded as indispensable, and I think that no one with any experience of the Services, of industry or of office work will treat a request for a cup of tea lightly. I am certainly not going to do so in response to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) tonight.
In addition to its stimulating properties—I understand that medicinally it is a stimulant whereas alcohol is a sedative—it is a social lubricant and a most welcome addition to all social occasions, particularly in the evening. That, I think, is one of the factors which the hon. Gentleman had in mind. Of course it is true that Civil Defence volunteers are giving their services for nothing, and moreover they are training at a time when such refreshment is especially welcome, probably for the majority after an evening meal or tea, but nevertheless at a time of day when a cup of tea is welcome.

773
I accept that providing a free cup of tea might seem only a small token of appreciation for their efforts. That was the point which the hon. Gentleman ended by making. For these reasons it may well be said that it would be niggardly to refuse, but there are one or two factors which, quite naturally, the hon. Gentleman did not stress which I think it is fair to take into account in assessing the balance.
First there is our Circular 8/51, which makes provision for social and recreational facilities—that is crockery and cooking utensils, purchase or hire of equipment for entertainment or sports but excluding food and beverages. There is under that head an allowance of 5s. each year in respect of each volunteer in active membership of the corps. Local authorities are authorised to spend on a specified scale, and 75 per cent. of what they spend ranks for grant. I may add that good use has been made of that not ungenerous concession.
In the second place, subsistence rates are paid for an absence, from door to door, including travelling time. On these lines, subsistence for more than three hours is half-a-crown, for more than five hours, 3s. 6d., and for more than ten hours, 6s. 6d.
These rates are now being reviewed, and we are reviewing the cases that do not at present qualify; and among other things we shall have in mind the case of the man with whom I have much sympathy. This is the volunteer who goes to his Civil Defence training direct from his work because he has not time to go home for a change, a wash and a meal, and who may not get home until three hours later. The hon. Member probably had that man in the forefront of his mind. In the course of reviewing those rates we shall see that that man is borne in mind.
In the third place, fares are reimbursed. I do not want to make too much of any of these three factors, but it is fair to set them against what the hon. Gentleman has said about the obligation under which we all lie to these volunteers who give so freely and generously of their spare time. All these things go some way to meet the out-of-pocket expenses which are unavoidably incurred in all voluntary service. To that, the cup of tea may seem a modest and
774
trivial addition. The cost to the individual is trivial but to the taxpayer it is not quite so negligible.
I do not want to make overmuch of statistics, but it is a fact that the training of a volunteer takes 50 hours. Reckoning 25 two-hour periods, at 2d. a cup of tea each time, the cost would be 4s. 2d. For 100,000 volunteers, that would amount to £20,000, which is not a sum to be sniffed at. That is not the limit. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about Romford being satisfied with a cup of tea and undertaking not to press the matter beyond that, but the hon. Gentleman cannot speak for all those who would be involved in any arrangement or concession that might be made here.
There are circumstances in which a cup of tea might appear rather niggardly. My recollection of the N.A.A.F.I., where, incidentally, the soldier has to pay for himself, is that the normal requirement was "tea and a wad". A biscuit, sandwiches or a slab of cake, whatever one may say about the future commitment, goes well with a cup of tea. Experience of dealing with matters of this kind shows that an allowance of 2d. or 3d. might not meet the case and might not be generally acceptable. We might soon be told that 6d., 9d. or more per head for each appearance at a training session would be the least that could be decently offered. I am not attributing that to Romford but there would, of course, be others involved.
We must also think of the man who does not like tea, or whose tastes have corrupted in the United States of America and who prefers coffee. I sometimes think that there are occasions when cocoa is equal to either, and there may be others of the same school of thought.
It is difficult to relate suggestions of this kind solely to the Civil Defence Corps. It is true that not all the voluntary services have the same problem. There are differences of obligation and different training methods. It would be difficult to make arrangements for Civil Defence personnel only. The line if thinly drawn between them and other services. It would not be difficult to reach a point at which the taxpayer would be contributing to the cost of quite substantial refreshments. In my opinion that would not be justified.
Mr. Ledger: Could the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the other services which would be involved? That caused me a little concern. I could not bring to mind other voluntary services doing a similar job which might want to make a request of this kind.
Mr. Deedes: I do not want particularly to mention names because it would then look as if I were associating them with requests for similar arrangements, but if the hon. Member considers the various badges which one sees at Civil Defence parades and the services which co-operate with the Civil Defence Corps, he will know the kind of movement that I have in mind. I do not want to mention them by name because it would be thought that I was associating them with this request.
A solution might be to shorten the subsistence period from three hours to two hours. That has been considered, but it has many drawbacks. My feeling is that it is a question of drawing the line, and hard cases can always be quoted on the other side of the line. It is not easy today, when the inclination to do something for nothing is perhaps less strong, to decide
776
how far it is right and proper entirely to reimburse or seek to reimburse the volunteer for all his efforts. With public money we have to strike a line between meanness and extravagance.
I do not disagree with what the hon. Member said about showing appreciation for the splendid national work that these people are doing. All that is perfectly true, and it may be that a cup of tea would be a big factor in helping morale and showing gratitude. I think we have struck the right line. I am reinforced in my view by the fact that, although the suggestion has. been made from several quarters, it cannot be said that there is a really strong demand for this concession. While we shall enter on this review bearing in mind the points that I have mentioned and which the hon. Member has in mind, we cannot see our way to accepting the proposition as he has advanced it tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Ten o'clock.

AGRICULTURE
  Long-Term Support Assurances (Discussions)
  Long-Term Support Assurances (Discussions)
  Farm, Horeham (Ploughed-in Barley)
  Farm, Horeham (Ploughed-in Barley)
EMPLOYMENT
  Departmental Staff, Scotland (Economies)
  Departmental Staff, Scotland (Economies)
  Fife
  Fife
  Contracts of Employment
  Contracts of Employment
POLICE
  Pay Awards
  Pay Awards
  Traffic Control, London
  Traffic Control, London
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence (Women's Voluntary Services)
  Civil Defence (Women's Voluntary Services)
  Shops Act, 1950 (Amending Legislation)
  Shops Act, 1950 (Amending Legislation)
  Prisons (Capital Works)
  Prisons (Capital Works)
WALES
  Administrative Devolution (Report)
  Administrative Devolution (Report)
  SECURITY (CONFERENCE OF PRIVY COUNCILLORS)
  SECURITY (CONFERENCE OF PRIVY COUNCILLORS)
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (MINISTER'S LETTERS)
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (MINISTER'S LETTERS)
EDUCATION
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Fox Hunt Incident, Durham
  Fox Hunt Incident, Durham
  Art Schools
  Art Schools
  Lip-Reading Classes
  Lip-Reading Classes
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Staffing Position, Hull
  Staffing Position, Hull
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Former Indian Services (European Pensioners)
  Former Indian Services (European Pensioners)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Pharmaceutical Goods
  Pharmaceutical Goods
  Census of Production
  Census of Production
  Industry (Investigation Commissions)
  Industry (Investigation Commissions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Arts Council (Grant)
  Arts Council (Grant)
  Retired Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Retired Civil Servants (Pensions)
MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES
  National Gallery
  National Gallery
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Male Population (Statistics)
  Male Population (Statistics)
  Sight Testing, London
  Sight Testing, London
FUEL AND POWER
  Oil-Pipeline System
  Oil-Pipeline System
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Staging Facilities, Pakistan
  Staging Facilities, Pakistan
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Aircraft (Development Costs)
  Aircraft (Development Costs)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Recruiting by Engagements
  Recruiting by Engagements
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Rugby
  Rugby
TRANSPORT
  Driving Licences (Renewal Reminders)
  Driving Licences (Renewal Reminders)
BRITISH ARMY
  Mrs. Monica Shipman (Press Council)
  Mrs. Monica Shipman (Press Council)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  3.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message front Her Majesty The Queen signed by Her own hand. It is as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that the International Organisations (Immunities ties and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order. 1956. be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.
  "I will comply with your request."

  RUGBY CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
  CHERTSEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

  THE KARIBA HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government why preferential treatment should not have been given to British civil
  302
  engineering contractors tendering for contracts such as the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme in Rhodesia, which could not have been undertaken without some of the money provided having emanated in the first instance from the British taxpayer.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the contracts for the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme were put out to international tender by the Federal Power Board. This development could have been carried out only through the participation of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, who subscribed £28 million out of the total of £80 million. The Bank's normal practice is to insist that contracts for which they provide part of the finance must go to international tender. From this general policy we do in practice gain a great many, dollars from different parts of the world. Moreover, it is not normally the policy of Her Majesty's Government to insist on tied loans, because it gives a had example to other countries, and on the whole we stand to gain most by encouraging the general practice of open international tender. It is clearly to our advantage in the long run that the great advantages of the Kariba Dam should be available to Rhodesia at the earliest time and at the lowest cost.
  In this particular case, while the Italian contractors have gained one major contract, substantial sub-contracting will take place in this country which, together with the £5 million contract for turbines, generators and transformers, is the most valuable part of the contract from the point of view of our home economy. We may regret the specific result of this contract. but open international tender is a practice from which we believe we have far more to gain than to lose.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the fullness of that reply. In view of the concern widely held about this matter, and since his reply is based on the assumption that lower-paid salaries and wages of contractors of other countries operating in British territory will enable them to obtain low-price contracts, I would ask him whether there could not be some review of the policy which he has outlined for projects for which only a part of the sum is being

  303
  provided by the International Bank. May I also ask him whether it is correct that, out of the £28 million subscribed by the International Bank towards the total of £80 million which he quoted as being available for this contract, £10 million is provided by British sources; so that the amount is £18 million on £80 million—I repeat, £18 million on £80 million—and the tender is won by a foreign contractor because of the lower-paid salaries of the personnel employed in the execution of the contract in British territory?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is correct in saying that, of the £80 million, £28 million was supplied by the I.B.R.D., and of that, of course, £10 million was sterling releases.
  LORD BARNBY: I thank the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would simply say this to the noble Lord. We are living in a competitive world, and if we think we can live in a closed economy, I am sure we shall find, in the long run, that it will not work. In the long run, it behoves us to see that our efficiency makes up, as it can do over a wide field, for the better standards in wages and conditions of labour which exist in this country.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will the noble Earl make it widely known that the Government have abandoned the principle of Imperial Preference?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that is outside the Question I have been asked to-day.

  SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AT ATOMIC PLANT
  3.12 p.m.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received full information of accidents in atomic energy plants in Canada and in the United States of America; whether any of these accidents have occurred in breeder plants like the one in Caithness; what new safeguards against
  304
  such accidents have been adopted in the light of practical experience during the past year; and whether atom plants in this country are covered by insurance.]
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, information on accidents in atomic energy plants is exchanged between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the corresponding bodies in the United States of America and Canada. During last year an experimental breeder reactor in the United States was accidentally allowed to overheat and sustained some damage. I understand that there were no injurious effects outside the installation.
  The Authority have incorporated in their fast breeder reactor in Caithness all the safety devices which their knowledge and experience suggest are necessary. With the growth of this experience. critical surveys of the precautions are constantly being made and modifications introduced. Some such modifications to the design have been made during the past year. The Authority are almost wholly financed from monies voted by Parliament, and they follow the practice of Her Majesty's Government in not insuring their plants.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his very reassuring answer to the Question.

  AIR COMMUNICATION WITH MOSCOW
  3.14 p.m.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received an assurance from the Soviet Government that they are not discriminating in the matter of direct flights between Moscow and the capitals of other countries, against our nationalised corporation and in favour of the private companies of other countries; and what stage the negotiations have reached with the Soviet Government about direct flights between London and Moscow.]
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the only air lines operating to Moscow from outside the Iron Curtain are the Scandinavian air line, S.A.S., and the Finnish air line, Finnair. Last May the Soviet Government also issued an invitation to the American air line, Pan-American Airways, to discuss the establishment of services to Moscow. In November of last year, British European Airways entered into negotiations with the Russian air line, Aeroflot, and an inter-line agreement was reached by which the two air lines are enabled to sell through-tickets which will be valid on the air line of the other operator. Last month an invitation was issued by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet authorities to discuss the possibility of the establishment of a direct link between London and Moscow. Although a formal reply has not been received by Her Majesty's Government, we none the less hope that these negotiations will take place shortly. In these circumstances, it is. I think, premature to make any comment on possible difficulties, referred to in the early part of the Question, which have not yet arisen and which I see no reason to suppose ever will arise.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, will he agree that an arrangement for joint working of a route between London and Moscow, and between a Russian company and a British air corporation, would be no substitute for direct flights between London and Moscow? Will he also urge upon the Soviet Government— I am not asking him to do so to-day, but when he thinks the time is right—that to deny to a British air corporation facilities which are now being granted, as he tells us, to two other companies and which have been offered to a third company, would be discrimination which would be justly resented in this country?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's point, but I think he is going a little far. What I have said is that air lines from the Scandinavian countries and from Finland are operating. Their relations with the Soviet Union have always been very different from those of the other Western European Powers, and, so far as I know, no other Western European Power has yet arranged the organisation of a route; nor do we know that that is to happen. So
  306
  it will be seen that at the present time these matters are all in the future. I would agree, however, with the first part of the noble Viscount's question—namely, that it would be much more satisfactory to have a direct link, rather than a link running through two lines through some European country.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, whilst everyone, I think, appreciates the admirable work done by our air department in this matter, would the noble Earl address himself to one of the obstacles—namely, the possible intervention of the West German Government in their attempt to boycott the East German Government in regard to the airfield at Schönfeld?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the elements of that question strike me rather as being related to foreign policy, and not strictly dealing with the subject of airlines. I am not aware that there is any substantial difficulty of that. kind which would prevent a direct link between London and Moscow.

  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

  VALUATION AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  3.18 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything that will hold up the passage of this important Bill— indeed, I think the sooner it appears on the Statute Book the better for Scotland as a whole. At the same time, there is one point, and one point only, upon which I should like to make an appeal to

  307
  the noble Lord the Minister of State for Scotland, and that is the recommendation made by the Sorn Committee about the payment by the Exchequer of 50 per cent. towards the cost of setting up the valuation machinery which will become necessary under this new Bill. I am aware that when this matter was raised on the Committee stage in another place the Secretary of State said—and I now quote from Column 164 of the Report of the debate which took place on the 6th March of this year:
  "I make it clear that if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had the job it would be cheaper because the cost would he carried by the Exchequer grant and the general taxpayer. I do say I can hold out no hope of its being paid by the Government. or of 50 per cent. being so paid if the matter were retained in the hands of local authorities. It had always been a local authority function and it was the Government's view that if local authorities preferred to retain those functions they would have to continue to pay. I said there was the alternative of the Inland Revenue."
  The noble Lord will be aware that in their Report the Sorn Committee tabulated four reasons why, in their view, it was necessary and important that this matter of machinery should be proceeded with. With your Lordships' permission I will read out those four reasons, in order to make clear their importance—they appear in paragraph 83 of the Report:
  "The solution that we recommend to this question is:
  (i) that provision should be made in administrative schemes to be prepared by local authorities for the employment of full-time qualified assessors with adequate staff in all parts of Scotland; (ii) That local authorities unable reasonably to support such appointments by themselves should combine; (iii) That a Central Advisory Council or Board, including local authority representatives, should be appointed by the Secretary of State to assist him in the supervision of these arrangements and (iv) that an Exchequer grant of 50 per cent. should be payable by the Secretary of State on the cost of approved valuation staffs and their expenses."
  I believe that I voice what is a quite definite feeling among members of assessors' staffs in Scotland when I say that, owing to the fact that under this Bill they will all terminate their employment on the passing of this Act, and new appointments will be made of qualified assessors' staffs of a smaller number of valuation areas than at present exist, and also because existing valuation areas have
  308
  the feeling that they are being put to a good deal of trouble and expense, and see no hope of recovering any of the expense which they will incur, there is a real danger that there may be a hold-up in introducing this new machinery.
  It seems to me that if we are to ensure the smooth running of this very complicated machinery which is to be set up there should be some form of encouragement from Her Majesty's Government, at least to the extent recommended by the Sorn Committee. One knows, of course, that the amount of collected rates meets only about one half of the total expenditure of local authorities, the remainder, or the greater part of it, being money paid by the Exchequer in the form of grants and so on. Her Majesty's Government have already been in the habit of paying 50 per cent. of the cost of preparing electoral registers, and therefore I fail to see how Her Majesty's Government can say, as I believe they have said, that now to make a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant towards the cost of the assessors' set-up would be creating a precedent. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that in fact Her Majesty's Government are already doing this with the electoral rolls, so that they would not be creating a precedent. Even if they were, however, the advantage to the Exchequer through the effect upon equalisation grants resulting from this better system of valuation in the long run would result in a saving to the Treasury, so that there would be no loss. At the same time Her Majesty's Government would be encouraging the new assessing area groups to go ahead with the setting up of their administrative machinery without this feeling of obstruction or annoyance.
  I know that in this House, because of the somewhat antiquated view that your Lordships cannot be trusted to spend public monies and that that must be left wholly to another place, one cannot move an Amendment which would involve payment of monies, but I would ask that, so far as he can, the noble Lord should bring before the Secretary of State the representations that I have submitted, to see whether, by some means or other, even at this late stage, he cannot persuade those in charge of the purse strings to meet this very small additional expenditure and thereby, in my view, help to

  309
  smooth the running of this new and valuable piece of administrative machinery.
  3.27 p.m.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken raised this question on the Second Reading debate, and at that time I replied, in the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that in view of the choice that had been given to local authority associations and the choice they had made between continuing the service as a local authority service or having it transferred to the Inland Revenue, I did not see why, when they chose that it should remain a local authority service, the Treasury should be involved in paying a grant in that connection.
  The noble Lord has to-day stressed the advisability of paying such a grant in order to smooth the work of setting up this new scheme. I cannot possibly believe that local authorities, which are highly responsible bodies, would endeavour in any way to hold up the working of an Act of Parliament which has received great support both in this House and in any other place and which is admittedly of very great value to Scotland. Therefore I do not think that argument hears much weight. There is nothing that I can add to what I have previously said in regard to the representations of the noble Lord. As he has said, the matter was fully considered in another place, and the reply of the Secretary of State has been quoted by the noble Lord. I cannot hold out any hope that at this date it would even be possible to make any alteration in the Bill as it now stands, although I. will, of course, see that the representations which he has made this afternoon are conveyed to my right honourable friend.
  3.29 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to note the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the representations of my noble friend Lord Greenhill will be conveyed to the Minister. I fully agreed with the recital of the financial restrictions upon your Lordships' House but I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Greenhill in regarding those restrictions as antiquated. In fact, those of us who have seen their relevancy do not wish to be placed in the category of those who take that view. The point raised by
  310
  my noble friend, in what seemed to me a reasonable speech, would be a great help, in that if there is to be delay through inadequate arrangements for the appointment of the new assessors, because of finance, or if only a limited number of candidates come forward on what local authorities can offer, then perhaps the representations of Scottish local authorities might at least be considered by Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords. The point with regard to limited numbers of candidates coming forward does not, I think, arise, because, so far as can be seen at this moment, the question is rather one of sufficient openings for the number of gentlemen already in post. It may be that they will not all have the necessary qualifications. I do not think that the question of delay on the part of local authorities should be given any weight in this argument, because I am sure that no responsible body such as a local authority would act in any way contrary to the will of Parliament.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  SANITARY INSPECTORS (CHANGE OF DESIGNATION) BILL
  3.32 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I at once say that I have the honour to be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, and to that extent I have an interest. On the other hand, I also have the honour to be one of the Vice Presidents of the Association of Municipal Corporation; and, as your Lordships know, Municipal Corporations employ sanitary inspectors. This Bill comes to us from another place and was sponsored by Sir Wavell Wakefield, who, of course, sits on the Government Benches. It passed through all its stages without opposition until the Third Reading when, it is true, sonic discussion arose. Perhaps, however, your Lordships will allow me to say that in this discussion the Bill was supported by Mr. Blenkinsop, who in the Labour Government was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and who therefore would know

  311
  the mind of the Ministry upon this matter at that time.
  Quite briefly, there are four main reasons why I venture to commend this Bill to your Lordships. First, the change of designation was recommended by the Working Party in its report on The Recruitment, Training and Qualifications of Sanitary Inspectors. The Chairman of this Working Party was Sir John Maude, who I need not tell your Lordships was a distinguished civil servant. The other members were Dr. Beattie, principal medical officer of the Ministry of Health; Dr. Burnett, medical officer of health, Preston; Mr. Lewis, senior sanitary inspector, Pontardulais Rural District Council; Mr. White, who I believe had some connection with Civil Service organisations; Mr. Williams, chief sanitary inspector, Coventry, and Mr. Fuller, Ministry of Health, Secretary.
  This Working Party was assisted by a very distinguished steering committee, and I suggest that it would be quite true to describe it as an extremely able and competent body of men, with a wide and varied experience of local government problems. I think it would be quite fair to say, too, that the Working Party was in no way weighted in favour of sanitary inspectors. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote just three short extracts from the Report that was made. This is the first:—
  "The word 'sanitation', it is said, though, as a matter of etymology, it means the same as 'health' has in popular parlance come to be connected with drains, sewers, water closets and the like, and to bear that restricted meaning: and this, it is argued, leads to a quite inadequate and partial view of the wide scope of the work of these officers."
  The second quotation is:—
  "Again, the Sanitary Act of 1866 and earlier Acts bearing similar titles were replaced by Public Health Acts and both in the language of the Legislature and elsewhere public health 'has replaced 'sanitation' in this connection. And while the meaning of 'sanitary' has become narrower the scope of the sanitary inspector's duties has broadened and the word has thus become something of a misnomer. For this reason we consider that the case for substituting 'public health' for 'sanitary' in the designation has been made out and we are in favour of this change."
  The third quotation is:—
  "We recommend, accordingly, that the present designation should be replaced by that of 'Public Health Inspector'."
  This Report was presented in 1953, so that no one can claim that the men con-
  312
  cerned have pressed your Lordships and others with undue haste to ask for an implementation of the recommendations.
  I pass to the second reason why I commend this Bill to your Lordships—I can state it quite briefly. It is that the officers concerned are strongly in favour of the change. The third reason is that Her Majesty's Government's Ministry of Health support the change. The fourth reason—and this I would urge most strongly—is that in the considered opinion of those whose views are entitled to respect the change will materially assist in recruitment to this essential branch of the local government service which is at present seriously under-staffed. When I recalled the famous letter to The Times of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, on the use, or rather the misuse, of the word "target", I had hoped and expected that the writer of a letter which must have delighted anyone who has some concern for the proper use of words would have supported this Bill. I am sure the noble Lord has noticed the ambiguity that lurks in the term "sanitary inspector". The ambiguity arises from the fact that the word "sanitary" is an adjective; and. if my memory is correct, an adjective is a word that expresses a quality or feature of a person, animal or thing. Need I develop that argument any further?
  Just one further word on another point. There has been, I know, some discussion whether the word "inspector" should be replaced with the word "officer". The Working Party rejected that suggestion, and in my view they did so quite rightly because, after all, these men are part of the staff of a public health department, the officer in charge of the public health department is the medical officer of health, and I am certain that the medical officer of health, for quite good and obvious reasons, would not consent to the title or term of "public health officer". I apologise to your Lordships for taking up so much of your time. I can assure the House that the officers concerned feel most keenly on this matter, and I venture to hope, for the reasons I have endeavoured to advance to your Lordships, that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships and that you will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Burden.)
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has moved the Second Reading of this Bill with his usual charm and persuasiveness, and on every personal ground it would be far more agreeable to me to support him than to oppose him, but I do not think that I can possibly do so. Before this House gives a Second Reading to this Bill, I think that it should be satisfied on three points. I think I can put them most shortly by saying that we ought to ask ourselves three questions;—first, is the old title "sanitary inspector" wrong or objectionable? Secondly, is the proposed new title right? Thirdly, is the matter of such importance as to justify legislation on this one single point? The third question only arises if the answer to the first two questions is Yes.
  Let us consider the first two questions. Is there anything wrong about the expression "sanitary inspector"? The words mean an inspector concerned with matters affecting health. That describes the work of these useful and excellent people concisely and accurately. What then is the trouble? Apparently this: that though the word "sanitary" does in fact mean exactly what is required, an increasingly ignorant public thinks that it means something else—namely, concerned with drains. What is alleged is, in effect, this. Being increasingly ignorant both of Latin and of English, people think, when they hear the word "sanitary", not of health but of sewers. It would be a melancholy thought if years of compulsory education had resulted in our people becoming more and more ignorant of the meaning of words, and if every few years Parliament had to pass an Act to deal with, or pander to, their increasing illiteracy.
  How new and modern is this ignorance? The passages in the report of the Working Party, from which some quotations have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, are all found on page 66. May I say in passing that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if front now on I refer to the civil servants who produced that: report as a committee and not as a "Working Party". It seems to me that a committee of civil servants is rather foolishly described as a Working Party—it suggests that civil servants might collect together as an idle party, which I think is a libel on the Civil Service. As they pointed out on the page to which
  314
  I have alluded, this expression "sanitary inspector" is not a very old one. As recently as 1921—only thirty-five years ago—the Public Health (Officers) Act. 1921, substituted the term "sanitary inspector" for the older title of "inspector of nuisances" for the country generally, though in London the title had been employed since 1891. Have people really become so much sillier since 1921. that they can no longer understand the language of their fathers? I believe that is a slander on our people. The answer, therefore, to our first question is: there is nothing wrong with the expression "sanitary inspector".
  I now turn to the second question: is "public health inspector" right? Let me say at once that I think it is obviously wrong. The verb "inspect" is a transitive verb. You inspect something. If you put some noun before "inspector" the suggestion is that that is what the inspector is inspecting. We can have a weights and measures inspector or a ticket inspector, but, whatever it is that these admirable men inspect, it is not public health. No doubt they promote public health, but they do not inspect it. To do justice to these excellent men, the new term which it is proposed to thrust upon them is not the one for which they ask. If noble Lords will refer to page 66 of this report they will find that the sanitary inspectors objected no less to the term "inspector" than they did to the term "sanitary". The committee—I hope your Lordships will not mind my calling it the committee—backed them in their first objection to the word "sanitary" but turned down their second objection. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that the committee might well have been right in rejecting "public health officer",since that expression might be liable to cause considerable confusion. But at least "public health officer" would have made sense, while "public health inspector" makes nonsense. I think that your Lordships should hesitate before passing into law what is admitted nonsense.
  The noble Lord, Lord Burden, made a moving plea. He said that these men would like the Bill to be passed and would be discouraged if it were not. I find that plea most moving and I should like to help these men. If only they wanted us to do something less than

  315
  exceed the stupidity limit in legislation, for I think that is what they are doing! I wonder whether they are right in their own interests in asking for this change. It really did not help the rat-catchers when they persuaded the local authorities to call them "rodent operatives". I understand that that is the expression used by most local authorities, though I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, to make a slight change, calls them rodent operators. But let us consider the title used by the local authorities. The rat-catcher has become the rodent operative. What is a rodent operative? He is a workman with prominent front teeth in the habit of gnawing—or, more technically, a workman with strong incisor and no canine teeth. I really doubt whether the rat-catchers have done much good for themselves by persuading the local authorities to give them this new title. They have excited considerable public ridicule which is not tending to diminish, but at least it can be said for them that they did not produce a Bill to go through both Houses of Parliament saying that the rat-catcher must in future be designated "rodent operative". lf they had, I think that there would have been a vigorous response in both Houses. It has been said that the Royal Sanitary Institute has changed its name to the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. Why should they not do so if they wish? That change still describes accurately what they are, but, as I have explained, this proposed change introduces an absurdity.
  I think that I must allude to what happened on this Bill in another place, because noble Lords may not have looked up the proceedings of another place. What happened is more understandable to those noble Lords who served for many years in another place, but I can explain it briefly to your Lordships. By, I think, a lucky or unlucky chance, the Bill was never discussed at all on Second Reading. It received a Second Reading on the nod, I think because those who wished to object were not present, or not sufficiently awake.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: That was their fault.
  LORD CONESFOR: Yes, certainly. It went to a Standing Committee, where on the first occasion it was unable to
  316
  obtain a quorum. On the second occasion it did obtain a quorum, but as nobody wished (and I am sure nobody would wish here) to amend the short Bill in any way, no Amendment was made. Therefore, the first discussion on the merits of this Bill took place in the Third Reading debate, which started shortly before ten o'clock last Wednesday night. That was a most remarkable debate. Eleven Members took part: seven were against the Bill, and four were in favour —I believe those figures are right. The division of opinion was by no means on Party lines. Of those who spoke against the Bill, five were members of the Opposition, and two were Conservatives. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that both Mr. Blenkinsop and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Health supported the Bill, but I would invite the attention of your Lordships to those who opposed it. Those who opposed the Bill included several ex-Ministers of the Party opposite, including one name that I think carries considerable weight, not only because he has held high office, but because he admittedly has had a long experience of local government: I refer to Mr. Chuter Ede. I invite any noble Lord who is in any doubt as to the merits of the Bill to read that short debate.
  I venture to put one further point to the House, which no one raised in another place, but which, I think—and your Lordships may think too—is of some importance. This Ministry of Health report, which is the basis of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, made thirty-one separate recommendations. In a Written Answer given on April 29, 1954, the then Minister of Health, my right honourable friend Mr. Iain Macleod, gave this Answer—and I shall read it so that there can be no doubt that I am giving it fairly [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 526, col. 161]:
  "I and my colleagues, who are concerned with the work of sanitary inspectors have now considered the report and I propose to discuss it with the interested bodies with a view to implementing the Working Party's proposals. It should not be inferred that I necessarily accept all the detailed recommendations of the Working Party."
  In other words, the Government of the day gave general approval to those recommendations, which I would remind your Lordships were thirty-one in

  317
  number. Twenty-nine of those thirty-one recommendations did not involve legislation, but two of them did.
  I want to read, first, from a summary of the recommendations, paragraph 307 of the Report, "Recommendations requiring legislation." The first subparagraph says:
  "Evidence of having passed a qualifying examination should be obligatory for all new appointments in England and Wales."—
  and reference is made to paragraph 251, which I will read in a moment. The second sub-paragraph says:
  "The designation of a sanitary inspector should he altered to public health inspector."
  I will now read the passage from paragraph 251, the other recommendation which requires legislation. It says:
  "We have referred in Chapter 2 to the fact that the present basic qualification, the Certificate of the Examination Board, is obligatory in London but is only a condition of grant outside London. We sec no advantage in the continuance of this distinction and accordingly recommend that when a suitable opportunity occurs to amend the statute law on this subject the London. system should be applied to the whole country and any sanitary inspector subsequently appointed should be required to hold such certificate as the Minister may approve. We assume that the certificate approved for this purpose will be the certificate to be awarded to persons who pass the new qualifying examination which we have recommended above."
  In other words, this committee made two recommendations needing legislation: one dealt with the qualifications of sanitary inspectors, which they said should be included in legislation when a convenient opportunity occurred, and the other dealt. with designation. Can any noble Lord in any quarter of the House see any reason at all why you should legislate on designation before you legislate on qualification? Possibly you should legislate on the two together, but that the recommendation dealing with qualification should be ignored while that dealing with designation should be enacted immediately, is, I suggest, not a sensible thing to propose to Parliament.
  If we reject this Bill to-day, as I think we should, it will make little difference to the passage of this change into law, if the other place sees fit next Session again to pass such a Bill. From such consultation as I have been able to have in the short time at my disposal with persons interested on both sides of politics in another place, I believe there are a great
  318
  many in all quarters of that House who would very much welcome a chance of further consideration. I do not think for one moment, if they are given this chance, that they will again allow this Bill to go through without any discussion on Second Reading, and I am certain that Members on both sides in politics will raise the point I have just put before your Lordships, to seek an explanation before they allow this change to pass into law. I am sure that the three questions I asked at the beginning, only two of which actually arise on the facts, arc the questions that any responsible legislative assembly should ask itself before it passes such a measure into law. It is not true that there is any objection to the existing phraseology, other than an alleged public ignorance of its meaning, and it is demonstrably true that the change proposed, which is not that for which these men themselves ask, is illogical and absurd. I beg to oppose.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, as an ex-President of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, which is one of the oldest and largest associations of local government officers in the country, I feel that I should say a word or two on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is quite wrong in a number of the things he has said. As I understand it, this Bill is not inspired by the Sanitary Inspectors' Association; it is a Private Member's Bill, brought forward, I presume, on his own volition by the Member in another place, and passed by the other place without a Division. That is the essential factor which the noble Lord has omitted to mention to this House.
  LORD CONESFORD: I did mention it.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In the Committee—not on Third Reading.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Without a Division at any stage of the proceedings in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, raised three questions. I do not think I need deal with the third, as to the importance of the matter. because he himself has obviously spent a great deal of time in looking into the question. and a quarter of an hour of your Lordships' time—which he is perfectly entitled

  319
  to do. In the opinion of the noble Lord, therefore, the matter is obviously of some importance. The first question the noble Lord asked was whether the present title is wrong. I would respectfully submit to your Lordships that it is clearly wrong, because to-day it does not represent the functions performed by sanitary inspectors. Contrary to the noble Lord's view as expressed to-day, the nomenclature, "sanitary inspector", is something like one hundred years old, and the functions of sanitary inspectors in the old days were entirely different from what they are to-day.
  I can remember when I was a young solicitor being clerk for a short time to a small local authority. The sanitary inspector there earned £3 a week, and he combined with his duties of sanitary inspector those of building inspector and a number of other duties of one sort and another. In those days, the functions were very few. Nowadays they are substantial, and this present Government, I may remind your Lordships, have imposed a great many additional duties on sanitary inspectors under the Food and Drugs Act, the Clean Air Act, and the various Housing Acts, under which they have important duties to perform. I would submit that the functions of these officers nowadays are entirely different from what they were in the old days, and that the present name does not in any way represent the functions which they carry out.
  I would remind your Lordships that quite a number of changes of this sort have been made. Many of your Lordships can remember when we did not have a Ministry of Health, which was formed some thirty odd years ago. I remember the Army book on hygiene, which is now the Army Health Book, or words to that effect. The Institution of Sanitary Officers has changed its name to the Institution of Public Health Engineers. Furthermore, the Ministry of Health, as I understand it, have accepted the position as put forward by the Working Party. I regret the animadversions which the noble Lord thought fit to cast upon the members of a body who sat voluntarily for more than a year.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the last thing I would do would be to cast any animadversions on them. They were
  320
  a most distinguished body. The only words that I criticised were, "Working Party". That expression originally came from the Army, where it had a definite meaning, but to describe a committee of civil servants as "a Working Party" is foolish, because, when civil servants get together to discuss things, of course they are working. They always work. I suggest "a committee" is a better phrase.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: When the noble Lord was a member of the Government in another place I have some recollection of his own Ministry appointing more than one Working Party. My submission to your Lordships is that the present terminology, "sanitary inspector", does not represent the functions carried out by these officers. This Bill is not brought forward by the Association. although, as my noble friend Lord Burden has said, it is wholly approved by them. We do not want to go back to the eighteenth century in which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—if he will forgive me for saying so—lives to some extent. We must move with the times and call officers by the appropriate term which accurately describes their functions. In those circumstances, and particularly as I understand the Government will, in accordance with what the Ministry of Health have said, approve of this Bill, I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I ask him whether he feels that the responsibility of the Government is engaged in the passage of this measure, or does he not think that, having regard to its origin—a Private Member's Bill from another place—and having regard to the character and scope of the Bill, it might be left to a free vote of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the noble Viscount will hear the nature of my comment on this Bill and have an answer to his question. It is the custom, I believe, for a spokesman of the Government on a Bill of this kind to give some guidance to the House as to what the attitude of the Government might be. I cannot escape it on this Bill in particular because in another place my colleague

  321
  in the Ministry of Health gave her approval to the Third Reading.
  On first sight I am bound to say that this Bill offended against the small amount of my classical education which is left. But I cannot help recollecting that our grandfathers' perfectly proper preoccupation with smells and drains led to a narrowing of the definition of the word "sanitary" in the public mind. When my noble friend Lord Conesford asks "Is this word objectionable?", I do not know whether it is objectionable to the general public, but it is objectionable, so we are told, to those who at present are called sanitary inspectors, and they want to alter it. The noble Lord went on to say, as I understood him, that the phrase "public health inspector" is meaningless. I am not so sure. These inspectors inspect masses of meat for instance, and masses of ice cream. I imagine the noble Lord would say that an inspector can inspect a particular individual's health. If the noble Lord had swallowed the meat and an inspector inspected him, then he would be a private inspector of health inspecting an individual's heath. But he has to inspect these masses of products which affect the health of some thousands of people maybe on one given day, and I do not think it is stretching the terms too far to call him a "public health inspector." If the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, can swallow words like "automation" and "breeder reactor" without protest. I should not have thought he need jib at this comparatively modest alteration.
  LORD CONESFORD: May I assure my noble friend that I objected strongly to "automation" in a public speech the very first time I saw it in print.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I conclude that in these modern days there is little to choose between the word "sanitation" and the word "health". Sometimes it is appropriate to use one and sometimes the other. In a month or two, I hope to see the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, come back robust and sunburnt from his holiday. I shall meet him in the corridor and say to him, "How well you are looking." If I said, "You are obviously bursting with sanitation", his agile classical mind would go back to his Virgil, but some of the more technological of your Lordships would be confused and
  322
  think that I had committed some sort of solecism. Therefore, I personally come down, as do the Government, on balance, on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Burden. Sanitary inspectors want the change—they find "sanitary" objectionable. The Working Party recommended "public health inspector", and certain august bodies have changed their names from bodies formerly sanitary to bodies which are now healthy. I think the word, "health" is a good old English word, although it has not a classical derivation, so far as I know. It is sometimes good to see ourselves as others see us. it has just occurred to me, who is Lord Cones-ford or, indeed, who are your Lordships to prevent people from changing their names if they wish?
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  HOTEL PROPRIETORS BILL
  4.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of; the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments and the Commons consequential Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the Commons Reason and the consequential Amendment be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments and the Commons consequential Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Derwent.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Note.—The references are to Bill (122) as first printed for the House of Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]
  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Clause 2 page 2, line 21, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
  Because the Amendment would increase the aggregate liability of the proprietor of an hotel in the case of loss or damage to property brought to the hotel to a figure unreasonably in excess of the existing law.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I rise to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. I regret, and I know that your Lordships will regret, that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, cannot be here to-day to deal with what I hope will be the final stages of this Bill, as he has piloted the Bill so ably up till now through your Lordships' House. Unless the House wishes otherwise, I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of your Lordships' Amendment—it has been argued very fully twice —but I should like to go briefly into the history of this Amendment. When this Bill came to your Lordships first from another place, the maximum liability under Clause 2 of this Bill for an hotel proprietor towards any one guest was £100. That was the figure, incidentally, recommended by the Law Reform Committee and that was the figure which the other place had found to be a suitable figure.
  On the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, moved an Amendment to increase the amount of £100 to £200. This Amendment was resisted by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. It was taken to a Division and the Amendment was negatived by a majority of three votes. On the Report stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, introduced a similar Amendment. It was resisted by my noble friend and again taken to a Division, but this time the Amendment was agreed to by a majority of three votes. So that, when this Bill went back to the other place, the figure of £200 had been inserted in the Bill instead of the original £100. The Commons have now disagreed to your Lordships' Amendment after further debate, and they have stated that they think that £100 was the proper figure to put in the Bill. I would suggest to your Lordships that, as the views of your Lordships are apparently so evenly balanced and as the other place have twice given their view in the same direction that £100 should stay, this is a suitable opportunity for your Lordships to agree with the other place.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Derwent.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as the mover of the Amendment in this House which was carried, I do not propose to ask the House to insist upon the Amendment which we proposed and carried, but I think a word or two is opportune on this subject. This is not a question of high principle; it is a question on which any Member of your Lordships' House is competent to express an opinion when he has heard the arguments. I agree that this House was evenly divided on Committee stage. There was a majority of three against the view of this Amendment. On the Report stage there was the same majority in its favour. The composition of the vote was not a Party one in any sense. I think it would not have been carried at all but for the votes of noble Lords on the other side. It was carried against the advice of Her Majesty's Government and against the very weighty advice of the noble and learned Viscount. I think it is the only time that this House has not accepted his advice in toto. I say that this is a matter upon which we are perfectly competent to express a view and quite as competent as another place to do so. Therefore, on the face of it, there is no reason whatever why their view should prevail. This is not a matter on which the mandate of the country has been obtained. It is a simple issue and we could, if we chose, insist upon having our way. I do not rise in order to discuss the Constitution but I think we should be perfectly within our rights if we said, "We have carried this and we think we are right."
  But I rather resent the language and the atmosphere in which this measure was discussed in another place. Members in another place were asked to reject this Amendment on three grounds. The first was that we did not understand the background—in other words, that we did not really know what we were talking about. I have expressed the view, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that, whatever else one may say about it, the issue was a perfectly simple one. It is not very easy not to understand it, and I am sure that your Lordships did understand it. There may have been a good deal of background, but really the background was quite irrelevant to the decision at which we arrived.
  The second ground was that it was against a recommendation of the Law

  325
  Reform Committee. So it was: but then I hope that your Lordships will often vote against the advice of a committee if your Lordships feel so disposed. After all, we are the legislators. Committees advise us and, generally speaking, we accept their advice; but there are times when we are perfectly entitled to consider their advice and to reject it or to modify it. Your Lordships have taken advantage of this freedom on this occasion and I am sure your Lordships were right so to do. It is very healthy for committees to find that we do not swallow every word that they recommend and that we have a mind of our own.
  The third reason that was offered was that the majority was such a small one. Of course it was a small majority, but, after all, if we do not act on the views of the majority we must act on the views of the minority. I think the fact that it was earned by a majority after further consideration on Report is an indication that this House really wanted this Amendment. I rather deplore the fact that this sort of language should be used about the efforts of your Lordships' House. Within our very limited lights, we try to do our best to act as a revising Chamber, to scrutinise Bills and to put forward our views. The other place is entitled to disagree with us, especially, as I have said, on matters on which it is open to have a different view, but they are not entitled to impugn our capacity or our right to form a judgment. If they had merely said that they took a different view and left it at that, I should have been content to let it go without even inflicting a speech on your Lordships, but, in the circumstances, I feel it right to express my view about the dignity of this House and to assert the right of this House to disagree with the other place if it is so minded.
  4.19 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am sure that none of your Lordships will grudge the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the time which he has most usefully spent in addressing us on this Bill, because I had urged not only my view but my anxiety that Bills that were the result of the work of committees should be placed before Parliament. The last thing I ever wanted to suggest was that Parliament should not give them a very critical
  326
  examination. I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the trouble which he took in regard to this Bill and in examining every part of it. I rise merely to say that I am glad that he is not persisting in his Amendment, because I am anxious that these reforms in the law should come into operation.
  There was only one point which I think was one of substance but which we did not discuss, or at any rate not very fully, in the debate before your Lordships. I think my noble friend Lord Merthyr mentioned the figure in Switzerland as being approximately £83, but the point there is not only that this figure of £100 would bring our law into line with that of most Continental countries and so secure uniformity on this subject, but that the question of uniformity on subjects of this kind is being considered by a committee of the Council of Europe at the present moment. It is a relevant point that this is a matter upon which fifteen countries in Europe are trying to find uniformity. I am sorry that I had not that information when the matter was being discussed before. I think that that may be another reason for Lord Silkin's not only taking the generous course which he has taken to-day, but being satisfied in having taken it. After what he has said, I hope that your Lordships will agree with the Motion of my noble friend Lord Derwent.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORDS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 3, insert the following new Schedule—

  SCHEDULE NOTICE
  LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO GUESTS' PROPERTY
  Under the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956, an hotel proprietor may in certain circumstances be liable to make good any loss of or damage to a guest's property even though it was not due to any fault of the proprietor or staff of the hotel.
  This liability however—

  (a) extends only to the property of guests who have engaged sleeping accommodation at the hotel;

  (b) is limited to £50 for any one article and a total of £200 in the case of any one guest except in the case of property which has been deposited, or offered for deposit, for safe custody;

  (c) does riot cover motor-cars or other vehicles of any kind or any property left in them, or horses or other live animals.

  This notice does not constitute an admission either that the Act applies to this hotel or that liability thereunder attaches to the proprietor of this hotel in any particular case.")
  The Commons agreed to the above Amendment, but proposed the following consequential Amendment thereto:—
  In paragraph(b)leave out("200")and insert("100").
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the consequential Amendment made by the Commons.
  Moved, That the House doth agree with the consequential Amendment made by the Commons.—(Lord Derwent.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BRITISH CARIBBEAN FEDERATION BILL
  4.23 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  GOVERNORS' PENSIONS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  COAL IN0044USTRY BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
  4.26 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, in accordance with our custom I propose to move the Third Reading of this Bill formally; then we can take the Amendments, and make such remarks as we have to make on the general principle of the Bill on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I hope that course is agreeable to your
  328
  Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, at what stage of the proceedings he proposes to answer the question I put to him upon the Report stage in connection with his Amendment to Clause 7. The House will recollect that the noble Lord wished to amend Clause 7, as he then said, so as to make it abundantly clear that the distribution of home-produced products by the Iron and Steel Board was not outside the scope of this Bill. I rather challenged that, on the wording of the Amendment which the noble Lord put down, and he said that he would take it back and look at it. May I ask him when he proposes to give the House the result of his deliberations—now or at some future stage?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it will probably be acceptable to the noble Lord if I try to answer that question in the few remarks that I have to offer on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. The noble Lord follows me in debate, by the usual arrangement, and he can make such comments as he thinks fit then.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That will be quite satisfactory to me.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  Clause 8 [Excepted agreements]:
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "for the purpose of resale". The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 1 perhaps I may apologise to your Lordships for the mere fact that there are any Amendments on the Order Paper at all. The noble Viscount, the late Lord Addison. and our old friend Lord Baddeley, both of whom taught us newcomers back from the war the elementary rules of procedure in your Lordships' House, had an almost pathological horror of Amendments on Third Reading; and certainly I myself agree that they are undesirable. So I apologise. But I can say in mitigation that the Amendments on the Order Paper are all completely non-controversial—they are

  329
  by way of being editorial or procedural, and I think should give your Lordships no trouble, although I make that remark guardedly, because on the last occasion upon which I described an Amendment as being a drafting Amendment, we had a debate lasting forty-one minutes. I have looked at that Amendment again and I still think that it was purely a drafting Amendment. The first Amendment today is concerned with Clause 8, which concerns agreements which are excluded from the Bill, and we feel that the particular limitation to which the Amendment refers in the Bill as it stands is unnecessarily restrictive. This Amendment disposes of it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 7, leave out ("for the purpose of resale").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Cause 24 [Prohibition of agreements for collective enforcement of conditions as to resale prices]:
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the next four Amendments are connected in one way or another—they are by way of being paving Amendments, looking forward to Amendment No. 8, and they are designed tie up certain references to inter-connected bodies corporate and to individuals carrying on business in partnership. The Amendments at lines 22 and 24 are not actually consequential on the Amendment to Clause 26; they are simply improvements in drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 18, leave out subsection (3)—(Lord Mancroft).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 2, line out from beginning to ("contract") in line 23 and insert ("A ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that the noble Lord is right, but it seems to me to be a peculiar thing that on the Third Reading of this Bill, after we have had so much discussion about interconnected bodies corporate,
  330
  the noble Lord should now come and move art Amendment to delete subsection (3)—the very subsection which, on the Committee stage, I myself put down an Amendment to delete. I then heard all the reasons why it should not be deleted. Now the noble Lord has moved to delete it. If the noble Lord's Amendments, Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (I take them together, because they hang together) are agreed to. subsection (4) will read:
  "A contract for the sale of goods to which not more than two persons are party shall not be unlawful under this section by reason only of undertakings by the purchaser in relation to the goods sold and by the vendor in relation to other goods of the same description."
  I believe I have transcribed that correctly. Would the noble Lord tell me in simple language precisely what that means?
  LORD MANCROFT: I will try to tell the noble Lord what we are doing here. The Amendments to which he has referred remove subsection (3) of Clause 24 which contains references to interconnected bodies corporate and to partnerships. As the noble Lord will see, they also remove the last part of subsection (4) of Clause 24, which contains a reference to partnerships, although not to interconnected bodies corporate. The reference to interconnected bodies corporate was omitted because it appeared to be unnecessary, but now that the provisions on interconnected bodies corporate and partnerships are to be included in Clause 26 there seems no reason not to apply them generally to the whole of Part II. That is the reason for this particular group of Amendments.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, all I have to say about the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is that I regard them with great suspicion. This is the 59½th minute of the 60 minutes left for discussion of this Bill, and the general reason given—that you suddenly discover, before the Third Reading. that there was no reason why this particular provision should not apply to the whole of Part II of the Bill—seems to me extraordinary. I still have that rather suspicious frame of mind about the manipulation of the general Report of the Monopolies Commission which Her Majesty's Government have been so

  331
  steadfastly against. Though I still have that great suspicion it is impossible at this short notice to put up any detailed argument. But, frankly, I do not like it.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the only reason why the noble Viscount does not like it is because he does not understand it. As it is very easy to understand I propose to tell him what it is. The clause comes out of the Bill in one place and it goes back in another; it makes not the slightest difference to what is done.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: But that is exactly what the noble Lord said it was not. It was perfectly open to Her Majesty's Government to have made this position clear on the Report stage of the Bill. Unless there is some special arrière pensée in this matter, frankly I do not quite understand it. Apparently the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment and his colleagues have discovered that the Amendment did not apply to Part II of the Bill as a whole and they now propose to make it apply to Part II as a whole. Perhaps we might know exactly why.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very anxious to take the noble Viscount with us because, like all noble Lords, I feel that it is a great pity when these Amendments have to be made on Third Reading and I am sure we shall all do everything we can to avoid that when the next occasion arises. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has pointed out, the real secret is that now that provisions on interconnected bodies corporate and partnerships are included in Clause 26 there seems no reason why they should not apply generally to the whole of Part II. That is the point. I am sorry that we have had to raise even a difficult point of drafting at this stage, but I can assure the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that the Bill will certainly be in no more sinister a state with this Amendment than it was before. With that, I hope that the noble Viscount will allow us to have this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Really—
  SEVERNL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: If Her Majesty's Government put Amendments down on Third Reading they must expect them to be properly debated. These are Government Amendments. If the public interest is not to be protected by proper discussion of Amendments put down at the last moment then I do not think Her Majesty's Government are treating the public fairly.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the House has already discussed this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 24, leave out ("by virtue") and insert ("shall not be unlawful under this section by reason").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 26, leave out from ("description") to end of line 29.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Individual enforcement by legal proceedings of conditions as to resale prices]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the next two Amendments simply clarify the nature of the remedies open to suppliers under Clause 25 of the Bill. They contain no arrière pensée and hide nothing sinister. I should be pleased to explain them at inordinate length to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, should he wish, but I do not think it is necessary. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("breach") in line 33 and insert ("Without prejudice to any other relief which may be granted in proceedings against any person in respect of a breach or apprehended").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 35, after ("fit") insert ("upon proof that goods sold by the plaintiff have been re-sold by the defendant in breach of any such condition").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Supplementary provisions]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  >Page 25, line 45, at end insert—
  ("(2) For the purposes of any provision of this Part of this Act referring to two or more or not more than two persons, two or more persons being inter-connected bodies corporate or individuals carrying on business in partnership with each other shall be treated as a single person.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, strong exception was taken by the Front Bench opposite just now to my speaking more than once on a particular Amendment. Your Lordships cannot stop my speaking on this one. It is a repetition in this particular clause of what is already provided for in another part of Part II of the Bill. and I object strongly to its appearance in Part II at all, for I still have a grave suspicion about what will be the ultimate effect of this particular provision. I have had that suspicion all the way along and I retain it, so I claim the right to say so on the Third Reading Amendment of the Bill.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the courteous way in which he replied to my request for information on the previous clause on which, as I see it, this Amendment is consequential. I feel that it is a very great pity that a note of acrimony should have crept in right at the last gasp. 'The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point that the reason why my noble friend did not see the matter clearly was because he did not understand it. He is far too courteous to come here and make allegations of that description. I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for having met with courtesy all our interrogation on this Bill, even if some of it has been based on abysmal ignorance, because we are not all clever enough to write textbooks on Acts before they are passed. Some of us have to do the best we can to give lively opposition. which the Government Front Bench, all the way through this Bill, I think, have appreciated.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Provisions relating to export agreements]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 34, leave out ("and fourteen") and insert ("fourteen and seventeen").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.40 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I now rise to move that this Bill do now pass and to offer a few valedictory words upon a measure with which I have lived, off and on, for nearly two years, and of which, quite frankly, I am now heartily tired—though I am still convinced that it is a good Bill. I should like at the beginning to join with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in expressing our appreciation to the small band of enthusiasts, from both sides of the House, who have helped the progress of this Bill and taken part in our debates throughout, and who have never flagged throughout the long, sometimes very long, discussions.
  We have certainly improved this Bill and made important Amendments. Some of them, I am sure, wil prove to be of assistance to industry and commerce. They will undoubtedly have helped industrial concerns in preparing their timetables, adjusting their procedure and rearranging their affairs, as many are doing in order to fall into line with the provisions of the Bill. Some of the Amendments have been directed towards the proposed procedure of the Restrictive Practices Court and the conduct of the Registrar. They have, I think, in a large measure simplified the procedure for all concerned. We have not really made any major changes in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, reproved us gently for not giving: the Opposition more concessions. I am afraid that that was not possible, much though we should have liked to have done so. It was not possible for this reason. Most of the more important points which noble Lords opposite have put forward have been fundamental points, and we have not been able to give way.
  I am certain, however, that the noble Lords themselves cannot complain that the matters they have raised have not been most carefully considered. I do

  335
  not think that I have ever heard important Opposition Amendments so meticulously, so fully and so courteously dealt with as they were dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack at the end of the Report stage. On the last occasion on which we were dealing with Opposition Amendments, the noble and learned Viscount again pointed out that upon those which related to important matters of principle we naturally could not give way. That also applies to Clause 21. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, is in his place and I should like to express our appreciation to him and to Lord Baillieu and others for withdrawing their difficult and important Amendments to this clause. We know how strongly the noble Lords feel about the onus of proof, but it would have been a matter of great regret to us if this Bill had left the House for another place with Clause 21 amended in a way that was not acceptable to the Government. I am confident that industry will co-operate in operating this Bill. I should like to emphasise again that there is no odour of criminality attaching to restrictive practices.
  Naturally I regret that the Co-operative Movement feel that the Bill does them injury. I have argued this point with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. and have sought to convince him that that is not so. I will not argue it all over again. If I did, I do not think I should have any more success with the noble Viscount. I would repeat, however, that to injure the Co-operative Movement is far from the intention of the Government. The noble Viscount will not be convinced that the provisions of the Bill do not support the accusation he makes. However many times I say that they do not, I feel that there is no hope of convincing, him.
  My Lords, I turn last to the Amendments to Clause 7, particularly to subsection (1), relating to iron and steel. Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked me during the Report stage whether it was to be understood that the exemption given by the Amendments we were then discussing did not cover any distribution of imported products in the home market. I hoped that I had made the position clear in my original remarks, but apparently that was not the case. Let me try to
  336
  state the position again. What I said was that the Amendments concerned the importation and distribution of imported raw materials and products, and that it was not the intention that restrictive agreements about home-produced raw materials and products should be exempted from the Bill. In other words. exclusive dealing agreements about the distribution of products imported as a common service for the steel industry are exempted from the Bill. This is because the provisions of Section 11 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, cover the distribution of imported raw materials, and it is the object of the Amendments which have been made to the present Bill that there should be no conflict with the Act of 1953.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I put a question and have it treated as a question and not as a speech? Do I forfeit my right to speak again by asking a question? If that is the case—as seems to be suggested—how can we deal with a Bill like this in this way? It is an impossibility.
  LORD MANCROFT: With great respect, the noble Lord will have the right to make a speech in the near future and he can then argue his case and can disagree or agree with me as he sees fit. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor is going to wind up the debate.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And then I shall not have the right to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It is absurd, quite absurd.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House and I will do whatever is required of me. I have attempted to answer the noble Lord's question. If he disagrees with me he can say so as plainly and as loudly as he likes. However, we must leave the matter there—Lord Lucas of Chilworth seems to think we are leaving it in an unsatisfactory state: but I do not think so.
  I will now, if I may, refer to the general principles of the Bill, with which few noble Lords have quarrelled. We regard this Bill as an important development in the industrial and commercial legislation of this country. We regard the establishment of a special judicial court to deal with restrictive practices as the right solution. The Monopolies Commission, as

  337
  your Lordships know, has, however, been preserved and will continue, though of course in a more restricted field, the valuable work which it has been doing in the past. We do not claim that this Bill will result in a sudden and dramatic fall in the cost of living. We do believe. however, that only good can come to the economy of the country if restricted practices are limited to those which can be shown to make some positive contribution to the public welfare. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  4.47 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, on such an occasion as this, and in respect of such a controversial Bill, it is always difficult to approach the final stages. There is, however, one thing that is common to these occasions. When I cast my mind back to the manner in which our debates have been conducted from both sides of the House, I must say, speaking on behalf of noble Lords on this side, that although in the view of many of your Lordships we may have been perhaps unnecessarily combative at times, we cannot complain of the manner in which both Lord Mancroft and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack have dealt with us, however much and however violently we may have disagreed with their views. One must acknowledge the courtesy with which they have treated us and received our sometimes quite indignant remarks.
  By saying that, I do not intend for a moment to forfeit the opportunity of saying during this last and final spasm of the Bill how much we disagree with the whole of Part II of the Bill. It would be unfair and wrong if we did not make that clear. Part I of the Bill, if fairly administered, may bring substantial advantages to traders who have in the past been subjected to discriminative collective agreements, and it may bring substantial advantages also to consumers who have suffered thereby. I hope that Part I of the Bill will so turn out that substantial progress may be made in the direction along which all of us who love freedom in these matters have been hoping to move.
  But when we come to Part II of the Bill I really think your Lordships ought
  338
  not to complain if we express ourselves strongly, for we feel that, instead of relieving the public from the bad effects of discriminatory and restrictive practices. as could have been done if the Government had adopted the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission, the Government are, in fact, instituting a new statutory power to those engaged in restrictive practices as to the final conditions of sale to go to the High Court for special action by way of enforcement. Having regard to the sixty or seventy years of continuous agitation, in which millions of members of industrial and provident societies have engaged, quite apart from other sections of traders in this country, I must say that that is a most disappointing result from the Government after the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission.
  Possibly it has been a fault of mine. in dealing with this Bill, that I have been guided in the main by my own lifelong experience of a movement associated with industrial and provident societies. Naturally, that is so. But do not let your Lordships be under any doubt about the fact that all kinds of other associations are worried about the provisions of Part II. Look at the representations we have had from such organisations as the people dealing with motor accessories, who have been highly concerned about the tendency to compel certain garage owners to sell a certain type of petrol if they are to be able to sell certain types of accessories. Perhaps some of these practices may be caught under Part I of the Bill, if they can be shown to be collective agreements for enforcement, but it may well be that under the provisions of Part II such practices will still continue. Therefore, whilst I welcome the fact that Part I of the Bill may save those people with whom I have had an interest all my life from some of the effects of collective price resale agreements, nevertheless I am disappointed in Part II of the Bill.
  I do not propose to argue the details I have argued before, but I should like to say to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we have gained something from the discussions in this House. I have read carefully the Reports of the statements made by Ministers during discussions in another place, but the actual legal position which might

  339
  be fairly forecast in matters which will arise, especially out of Part I of the Bill and, in some cases, indirectly under Part II, have been made much clearer in your Lordships' House by the opinions—and that is all they can be in the circumstances—expressed by the noble Lords. It would be churlish not to say here that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has given all the assistance he possibly can in this matter. It might well be that a careful study of the opinions which have been expressed in this House will be of value to those who have now to prepare for dealing with the operation and administration of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, outside.
  I profoundly regret that the Government missed the great opportunity they had of taking the biggest step forward in dealing with these restrictive practices which any Government have ever had and which they would not take by accepting in full the Majority Report of he Monopolies Commission. Perhaps the best thing I can say. in answer to the courtesy of the noble Lords dealing with the matter, is that, although one would not dream of voting in such circumstances against the Third Reading of the Bill, I might have been tempted, but for their very great courtesy, to put down what is called in another place a "reasoned Amendment."
  4.54 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I say one or two sentences before the House passes with this Bill? The noble Viscount suggested that he had been a little too combative. On the whole, I am not against combativeness as a principle. I happen to be one of those who thought that, in his own objection to the Bill, his combativeness was inspired by misunderstanding of what the Bill really did and how it did it. I think it is too late to remove all those misunderstandings, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this. Of course, I can understand the complaint of noble Lords opposite that the Government ought to have been persuaded by the policy of the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission to institute a general prohibition backed by administrative machinery. That is a great question of principle about which I think the Parties of this country differ. But when we have said that and admitted that there is a difference between the two Parties on the point,
  340
  I think it is wholly illegitimate to try to mutilate this Bill, which pursues a totally different line of policy, or denigrate this Bill, because it is not mutilated by the introduction of inappropriate bits of imaginary remedies for its major decision of policy.
  The noble Viscount attacks Part II of the Bill. He says that he disagrees with the whole of it. Frankly, I do not think he can disagree with the whole of Part II, if he will only look at Clause 24. If he does disagree with the whole of Part II, he has in fact gone on record as saying that he wants the continuance of trade courts, stock lists and other forms of collective resale price maintenance which are prevented by Clause 24. I know that he really believes the opposite, but he has been violent in some of his criticism and has said a great deal more than he really intends. What he really intends to say, I feel certain, is that he is against Clause 25 because he thinks that it will hurt the co-operatives. I believe that he is quite mistaken about that. It so happens that Clause 25 will hardly touch the co-operatives.
  The position is that before the Bill was passed a supplier of goods was entitled, as between himself and his customer, to insist on a clause as regards the sale price. The co-operatives, neither less nor more than other customers, are bound to keep their contracts. Clause 25 does not interfere with that, either for better or for worse. It says only that if you buy from somebody else and thus become in possession of goods with a notice of somebody else's contract, you must not do that rather doubtful thing—namely, something in breach of the original contract with notice of it. It puts the third party in the same position as the purchaser of a branded article, neither more nor less. I do not believe there are many cases where the co-operatives are affected by individual price resale contracts to which they are not themselves parties. I am convinced that there is a very small minority of cases indeed where the cooperatives are touched at all by the Bill. I would not he surprised at all if there is none.
  Having said that, I feel that a great deal of the combativeness which has been engendered on this Bill has been misguided. Whatever view one takes of the major principle underlying the Bill, it would be inappropriate, having established Part I, which provides for a

  341
  Restrictive Practices Court, to insert in Part II, which is confined to resale price maintenance, a general fiery denunciation of discriminatory practices which renders the Court unnecessary and undesirable. It would make nonsense of what is otherwise a valuable piece of legislation.
  For my part, I should like to say, both to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has taken such an active part in these debates, that I should be the first to recognise the great public service they do by keeping what they describe as a live opposition to measures in this House. I feel that they perform a great and indispensable public service in that way. But they will forgive me for saying that, when a live opposition takes place, it is some measure of the success of its aliveness that it provokes a certain amount of retaliation from the supporters of the Government.
  5.1 p.m.
  LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I should not have arisen but for the remarks which my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, addressed to my noble friends and me for our efforts in regard to Clause 21 of the Bill. I should like to place on record our real appreciation of the courtesy and sympathy with which our efforts have been handled by the noble Lord and by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I would repeat, if I may, what I ventured to say on Second Reading. I regret that we have not been able to persuade the Government to alter Clause 21 as we should have wished. Nevertheless, I have little doubt that those engaged in industry will do their utmost to help in the working out of the measures. Believe me, my Lords, the efficient working and progress of industry in this country at the present tine is far too important to all of us to allow minor difficulties to stand in the way. We wish the Bill success, and we trust that the Board of Trade will carry out its provisions, novel and sometimes difficult as they are, with consideration for all parties concerned.
  5.3 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by requesting that "the usual channels" take serious note of the difficulties that we have experienced in this
  342
  House on two Bills, the Road Traffic Bill and the Bill that we are now discussing, by the Opposition being seriously handicapped, through sparseness of numbers, in their struggle to carry on a reasoned argument upon Amendments that have appeared on the Report stage and Third Reading. Because of our sparse numbers we cannot deploy our arguments in the way the Government side of the House and the Government Front Bench can. There are times when we find ourselves with a single spokesman who has to oppose the whole of the argument for the whole of the case, and when the Government put down long Amendments, major Amendments, Amendments of principle, and even whole clauses on the Report stage and Third Reading of Bills, it does make it impossible to carry on reasoned debate, which I feel the Government Front Bench always desire, and at the same time keep within the Rules of Order. I may have been a hardened sinner in that, but I have always been treated with courtesy and understanding by the Government Front Bench over it. No one wants to breach the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, and perhaps "the usual channels", during this long holiday which I hope will soon break upon us, will give that matter consideration.
  I should now like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a question that I was going to ask of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I have not the slightest doubt that, intricate and obscure though the point is to me, the noble and learned Viscount will give me an answer that will satisfy me, so that I shall not have to break any more rules. I understood the noble Lord, Lord 1Vlancroft, to say that Clause 7 (1), "Restrictions to be disregarded", safeguards the position that the distribution of imported raw materials and products in the United Kingdom does not come outside the scope of this Bill. This is what Clause 7 (1) says:
  "in determining whether an agreement to which iron and steel producers as defined by the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, are part y, whether with or without other parties, is an agreement to which this part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term whether expressed or implied which has been approved by the Iron and Steel Board and by the Board of Trade—
  (a) by which those producers agree to acquire raw materials or other iron and steel

  343
  products as so defined exclusively from a person who undertakes as a common service for the iron and steel industry the importation of those materials or products, or the distribution of those materials or products when imported, or from any person nominated by such a person;"
  I read that to mean that no imported steel product need come within the scope of this Bill —and therefore that its distribution in this country can be subjected to restrictive practices, because it is outside the scope of this Bill—if the Iron and Steel Board and the President of the Board of Trade approve an agreement. If the agreement has to be made, why should those words be in?—because it would !hen come under the Act and have to be a registered agreement. That is what I do not understand. I expect that it is my fault, and that I am completely dense, but I confess that I did not want the Bill to go until I understood it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in opening his contribution to this Third Reading debate, said that he regretted very much that he could not give the Opposition more than he did. I have searched my brains to try to recollect whether at any stage of the Bill he has given us anything at all. I believe that on this major Bill, affecting the whole of the industrial life of this country, both the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the Noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, have been completely stone deaf to anything we have had to say in an endeavour to get them to alter anything contained in this Bill. I think that is a remarkable achievement. I was almost going to say that I should think that if the English cricket team ever wanted two opening "stone-wallers" to defy the attack of anybody, they could not do better than choose the Lord Chancellor and Lord Mancroft: they have certainly "stone-walled" through this Bill with great skill.
  I am not going to fight all the battles over again. Our principal disagreement with this Bill, as my noble Leader has said, really centres on Clause 25. That is where the Government have departed from the advice of the Monopolies Commission. Up to and including Clause 24, the proposals of the Government were more or less based upon the recommendations—some of the Majority; some of the Minority—of the Monopolies Commission. The only real blessing or
  344
  commendation which the noble and learned Viscount could give to Clause 25 was during the Report stage (he will agree with what I am saying) when he said, "It is a small thing, but mine own". Usually, that would commend it to me. But where the Government had "cold feet" at the last moment, and where they ruined all or the majority of the good work they had done right up to Clause 24, was when they did not outlaw resale price maintenance of any kind and make it unlawful to take sanctions against anybody who sold below an advertised price. I listen studiously to every Government pronouncement from the Government Front Bench on any subject, and never one day passes in your Lordships' House when one Government spokesman does not contradict Government policy in this Bill. Even to-day, the noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in reply to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, said—I wrote down the words—that this Government were steadfastly opposed to a closed economy. Could there be a better example of a closed economy than giving, not the Government but individual producers in this country. the right to make a distribution system as rigid and as closed as they desire?
  We have heard a lot about "setting the people free": setting some people free to do things in the future that—I will hazard a guess, here and now—will so revolt the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that amending legislation will have to be brought into this Bill before many years have passed. What has happened already? Organisations are being formed to-day. Private Gestapos and clever lawyers are now devising ways and means by which collective price maintenance can be carried on by driving holes in this Bill. I said on a previous stage of this Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, took exception to it, although I do not think he was being serious—that in my view this Bill creates a lawyers' paradise. I think the briefs will come rolling in to the chambers of lawyers who practise in this branch of the law which I believe, in my ignorance, is the Chancery Division.
  Only yesterday I was invited to pass an opinion upon a serious proposition as to whether it would be permissible under this Bill for an organisation to be set up on the basis of a Gestapo, to go round finding out who was cutting the

  345
  prices of manufacturers who had individual price maintenance agreements. so that they could go to the manufacturers and do the job that some of these price maintenance systems and private courts were carrying on before. My reply was to use the words the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack used on Tuesday, which encouraged me to believe that now Clause 24 is to come into operation, Clause 25 may stand a chance of working in this way. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has read Tuesday's OFFICIAL REPORT. I will not ask him to make a pronouncement upon it now, because that would be unfair. But the noble Viscount is, if I may say so without offence, an expert on this Bill.
  What does the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack say? I am freely interpreting what he said, but I do not think I shall exaggerate. He said that no price maintenance agreement that had not equity would hold water in a court of law under Clause 25 of this Bill. In other words, no producer of an article can take to court somebody who has breached the agreement to maintain those prices unless the producer has himself in equity entered into the same agreement that he will not do the same thing. That will be a novel thing in price maintenance agreements in this country in the future. I feel that all our battles upon Part II of this Bill have been worth while in getting that pronouncement from such a high authority as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
  I do not think I have any more to say. So far as this House is concerned this Bill has had a real investigation, and I wish it well. If it is not unseemly for me to do so, I should like to congratulate the officials, both male and female, of the Board of Trade for the work they must have put. into this Bill before it got as far as being debated in Parliament. Perhaps they have slipped up in some places. I think they have slipped up by putting into Clause 25 the power to control the second-hand markets of the country. But still, that always comes from poking one's nose into something that one knows nothing about; and even Government Departments make that mistake now and again. However, perhaps experience will teach them. With my noble Leader I would once again thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for
  346
  his unfailing courtesy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his share. As I said at the opening of my remarks, I hope that the usual channels will try to lighten our burden a little in the future. If they can do that I believe it will make for more harmonious working in your Lordships' House.
  5,19 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I address your Lordships yet again on this Bill, as your Lordships must be getting extremely fatigued, if not tired, at the many interventions I have made. But I should like to say, first, most sincerely—this is not a mere figure of speech, and I think everyone in this House will understand—how grateful we are to the noble Lords who have taken so active a part in this Bill from the Front Opposition Bench. I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that I am the last person in the world to object when he gets combative or even militant. I do not believe you can conduct anything about which you feel strongly at half cock, and I should like to tell him that, so far as I am concerned, there are no sore feelings left from anything he has said. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think he has won the admiration of us all by the really hard work he has put in on this Bill. He has put down useful Amendments and spoken on them so clearly in the House. It is a great service to your Lordships' House, and I hope he will not mind a speaker in your Lordships' House saying that of him on this occasion.
  With regard to the general criticism of the Bill, I want only to say this, and I want to say it shortly and arithmetically. If your Lordships will take up the Bill as it is now and consider the speeches that have been made, I think your Lordships will see that Clauses 1 to 23 have received the general blessing of the House. Clause 24 as it is now (because the numbers have been changed) is the clause which prohibits agreements for collective enforcement of conditions as to resale prices. That has received the universal blessing of the House. If one turns for a moment to Parts and IV, one finds they certainly have not received any serious criticism. At this stage of the Bill, to be able to say that

  347
  the real criticism and the feeling is centred on one Clause, No. 25—the individual enforcement by legal proceedings of conditions as to resale prices—is a remarkable achievement for a Bill on a controversial subject. I am glad of that fact.
  I shall not go through again the arguments that we have had on Clause 25. I want only to say that collective price maintenance is prohibited under Clause 24. No doubt, people will try to drive a coach and horses through it, but it contains a firm and strong prohibition. It is not so easy when you get a firm and strong prohibition to turn something into an effective piece of machinery which in the end cannot be destroyed. We shall watch it as stringently as the noble Viscount will, and, if we find defects, we shall be glad to reconsider the position. We stand firmly by that prohibition of collective price maintenance and we want no shilly-shallying in its application. But with regard to Clause 25, no one who believes in price maintenance would ever suggest for a moment that individual price maintenance is as easy or effective as collective price maintenance. You are dealing with something much more difficult and you are dealing with it, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, from this point of view: that the only people against whom action can be taken under Clause 25, against whom action could not be taken without Clause 25, are people who know of the conditions imposed at an earlier stage and decide not to keep them.
  I re-state that only because that is the essential basis of the matter; that they know the conditions are there and they decide that they will not keep them. Without Clause 25 it would always be possible to enforce any contractual basis for individual price maintenance, and I am inclined to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that it is difficult to see where the many instances which are expressed in the fears of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will come.
  I have dealt frequently with this point. I want to try to deal with it now very shortly and pass to another point. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had asked me to try to clarify again the object of what I may call the iron and steel
  348
  provisions. May I put it this way? Arrangements for the exclusive buying and selling of imported raw materials and steel products and their distribution as common services for the steel industry—those are the important words: as common services for the steel industry—are exempted from the Bill because under the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, they are under the control of the Steel Board; and if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will have another look—I know it is not a very easy matter—at Section 11, and also at Section 10, of the Iron and Steel Act of 1953, he will see the point that I am making.
  The exclusions from the Bill are, of course, limited to those that are the results of the common services under the Act, and the inclusion of distribution in the clause now in front of your Lordships is due simply to the fact that the agency which buys the imports may, as a matter of convenience, arrange for their distribution to purchasers. But the noble Lord will see that it is limited to the imported goods. My noble friend Lord Mancroft was entirely right when he said that it was not the intention or the effect of the Bill that restrictive agreements about home produced raw materials and products should be exempted from the Bill. It is the point I ventured to put earlier on. The general plan of our dealing with iron and steel is under the Act of 1953. There, the industry is broadly under the control of the Iron and Steel Board and we cannot, by this Bill, though we are dealing with another and important part of the industrial field, alter or worsen the position under the Iron and Steel Act. This part of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has rightly directed our attention is dealing with the common services which are the result of the earlier Act.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What is a common service?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is buying on behalf of industry as a whole.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is it only for users or is it also for makers?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Steel producers or steel users?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not got the point.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Distribution of imported steel joists can be restricted unless it is given as a common service to the steel industry?
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, the other way round.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What does it mean? Does that mean to the fabricators of steel or to the users of steel? Whereas the home produced steel joist must be free of any price ring control.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am most anxious not to say anything wrong through not appreciating fully the technical terms, but broadly the steel industry in this country, as I understand it, imports certain materials and products. Through the operation of the Steel Board—this is what is set out in the Iron and Steel Act—it is possible for them to have common service agreements to buy, so long as they are under the Steel Board and approved or subject to the action of the President of the Board of Trade under Section 11. It may be that from what is bought—whether it be the raw materials or products which are then used in the industry —there may be certain sale agreements of the things bought by the common service. That is the limit of the exclusion; beyond that it is all right.
  My Lords, I hope that I have been of some help. I want to make only three general points. The first is in answer to what my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton was good enough to say. I am most grateful to him, and I hope that he will convey my personal thanks to my noble friend Lord Baillieu for not pressing the Amendment which he mentioned in his speech. I put it this way to the noble Lord. One of the most difficult problems of modern government is something which we are all apt to talk about with great facility and ease in our speeches—the noble Lord and I have said it more than once—that it is the function of the State, so far as industry is concerned, to create the conditions under which industry can function with prosperity and success. That is broadly, I think, what he and I have always said was the function of the State. If we accept that, it means that what the State does must not only he done in fact in order to create prosperity and success. but be understood by the majority of interested people as doing that; and, after the
  350
  gravest consideration of the final form of the Amendment, I felt strongly that it would have been misunderstood by the people who had up to that time appreciated our primary point—namely, of encouraging competition and getting rid of restrictive practices.
  It was for that reason that I could not, compatibly with my conception of what a Government ought to do, accept the Amendment. I want my noble friends to appreciate that that was the reason, and that it was not either because I was being difficult with them or because I imputed to them any motives which they had not got—nothing would have been further from my mind. I state again my reason. I have said that I hope, as my noble friend Lord McCorgnodale of Newton said so clearly to-day, that industry which, through my noble friends, has already in this House blessed the principle of this Bill, will now apply that principle to the general benefit of the country. I am sure it will.
  The other point is a more selfish one, which I have indicated and I ask your Lordships' patience in mentioning it once again. I have the honour to be the transient and embarrassed temporary head of the legal profession in this country. I am aware that my position is transient and temporary, but I am none the less proud of it, as I am sure everyone has been who has held it. I believe that the law, although deeply rooted in the history of the institutions of our country, is not an heirloom which is to be taken down, dusted, reverently considered and placed hack. I believe that the law is as effective a -dynamic force in modern problems as it is soundly based on these historical roots. Therefore, I believe that the law should be brought in to help in the solution of the great problems of a modern State. This is one of the great problems, and therefore the solution which I advance to your Lordships is one which provides for those affected the best machinery for arriving at the truth and reaching justice which the world has so far devised. It is because of that, because I believe that this is not only beneficial and effective in dealing with the problem, bin is an example of the dynamic use of the law. that I am glad to see the Bill reach this stage, arid I ask your Lordships now to pass it.
  On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

  MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  5.38 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be read a third time, I want first of all to ask a question of the noble Lord who has dealt with the Bill on behalf of the Government. But before I do that, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking all those who have been responsible for the Bill right from its inception. My honourable friend in another place was very fortunate, I consider, to have the idea of promoting a Bill of this kind. He was fortunate also in getting support from all sections in another place; and that fortune continued when it came to dealing with the Bill further, because there was real support and help from the Ministers in the Scottish Office. When the Bill came here, the same kind of atmosphere prevailed, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was most helpful. Now we have reached the present stage where the Bill is certain of passing into law.
  This is an important Bill. Its provisions, as they will apply to those who take advantage of them, are most important. The question I want to put to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde is this. Can he say what steps will be taken by the Government or by other agencies to make the terms of this Bill and the new and favourable concessions that it embodies known throughout the country? I put it in that simple way. I think there is a need to give great publicity to what is provided in this Bill, and I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us information on that particular point.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Mothers.)
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should first of all like to express my thanks to the noble Lord for the gracious remarks which he made about my colleagues at the Scottish Office. I hope that what I have to say will give him some reassurance as to the publicity which will be given to this matter. The Registrar General intends to send out immediately to all registrars concerned a circular explaining this new measure and instructing them how to operate it. The Church of Scotland will also be notified about its enactment, so that they may take such steps as they consider
  352
  appropriate. In addition, the proceedings of the Bill have received a good deal of attention in the Scottish Press, and in that way its contents must have become fairly well known over a fairly wide area. Moreover, I have no doubt that the noble Lord's observations to-day will further draw attention to the beneficent provisions of the Bill. I hope that in some way that will reassure the noble Lord that the matter is receiving attention and that wide publicity will be given.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for what I consider to be an adequate answer.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should first like to reply to the remarks which the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, directed at me a few minutes ago. I am sorry to see that he is not in his place. I think the short answer to the query which he has raised is that we shall re-commit Bills, where they are thought to be contentious, wherever possible and whenever we have time. I do not think there is any argument about that. But I feel that there can be no doubt that when we are as pressed, as we have been, it is rather difficult to find time to do so.
  I have to inform your Lordships that we hope to adjourn for the Summer Recess next Thursday until Tuesday, 23rd October. At the same time I would inform your Lordships that we shall meet next Thursday at 12 o'clock noon, when it is expected that we shall have a Royal Commission.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any Business other than the Royal Commission next Thursday?
  EARL FORTESCUE: The answer is, No.

  MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at seventeen minutes before six o'clock.