Sitting of 17 December 1958

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

  Offley Training College
  Mr. Maddan: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, signed by past students of Offley Training College, inhabitants of the village of Offley and Friends of Offley Training College and supported by 830 other signatures.
  The Minister of Education is contemplating closing Offley, the smallest teachers' training college in the country, in 1961, following the introduction of three-year teachers' training courses. The petitioners pray that the College should not be closed, having particular regard to its ability as a small institution in developing wide and individual gifts among teachers and the unique contribution that it makes to our national education in training of teachers who are specially able to instruct children in country schools.
  I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would instruct the Clerk to read the Petition to the House.
  The CLERK OF THE HOUSE read the Petition, which was as follows:
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of past students of Offley Training College, the inhabitants of the village of Offley and friends of Offley Training College.
  Sheweth that the Minister of Education is contemplating closing Offley Training College in July 1961.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Offley Training College should not be closed, having particular regard to its ability as a small institution in developing varied and individual gifts among teachers and to the unique contribution that it makes to our national education in training teachers who are specially able to instruct children in country schools.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Lorries, Germany
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the British Army in Germany is attempting to keep on the road rebuilt three-tonner lorries from the Second World War.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The numbers are diminishing and the last of these vehicles will be withdrawn from British units in Germany before next summer. Some will continue to be used by civilian transport groups until they too can be replaced.
    Mr. Strachey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that no commercial firm in the world would try to keep three-ton lorries dating back to the last war operational on the roads? Does not this seem to be a false economy? Since the matter was mentioned in the Grigg Report, is it not time to get these lorries off the road in the interests of economy itself?
    Mr. Soames: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and we are getting them off the road. As to their usefulness, we are advised by R.E.M.E. when the lorries are past economic repair.

    Missiles (Nuclear Warheads)
    Mr. Mellishasked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied that he has a sufficient supply of nuclear warheads for missiles to be used by the Army in the field; and how many of these warheads are of British and how many of United States manufacture.
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. There are sufficient stocks, but it would not be in the public interest to give details.
    Mr. Mellish: Can we be certain of that? Since we are supposed to be manufacturing the great deterrent, the H-bomb, do we have enough material to enable us to manufacture these warheads as well?
    Mr. Soames: The Question is whether we have a sufficient supply of nuclear warheads for missiles to be used by the Army in the field. The answer is, "Yes."

    Tanks
    Mr. Mellishasked the Secretary of State for War whether it remains the policy of the Army to abolish the manufacture of heavy tanks and to concentrate on medium tanks.
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Mellishasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the development of the new medium tank; and if he will give its approximate weight and speed and its armament.
    Mr. Soames: The tank will be ready for development trials towards the end of next year. As this tank is still on the Secret list, I cannot as yet give the other information asked for.
    Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in 1956 his predecessor decided on a policy of manufacturing a medium tank. Is he now telling us that the trials will not take place until 1959? Why is there such an enormous delay?
    Mr. Soames: It was said in 1956 that we intended to manufacture a tank. There will he many novel things about this tank. It takes a great deal of time, thought, care and effort to design a new tank. There will be many radical improvements, and I do not think there has been an overlong delay.
    Mr. Strachey: Does this mean that both the Centurion and the Conqueror will be discontinued?
    Mr. Soames: We are not manufacturing any more Conquerors. We are still making some Centurions, mostly for foreign purchase. The Centurion will remain in service until the new medium tank takes over from it.

    Motor Cars
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent it is the practice in the Army to send two cars on a journey to ensure that at least one of them finally reaches the destination.
    Mr. Soames: This is not the practice in the Army, save on very rare occasions
    1098
    where special precautions have to he taken.
    Mr. Strachey: Is it not rather strange that in the Grigg Report, which was not challenged and which was welcomed by the Government, this was alleged in paragraph 64? The Secretary of State does not deny that this is a fact. What is the use of appointing an important committee of inquiry unless some notice is taken of its recommendations? As far as I know, nothing has been done in this case.
    Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that no notice has been taken of the recommendations of the Grigg Report. This was one item in it. The Grigg Committee gave the impression that this was taking place, but I have been in some difficulty to trace any examples of double banking in this way. When it is necessary, for instance, to convey a V.I.P. over a long distance in Germany—perhaps some 300 miles—and he is to be there for a couple of days and has many appointments to fulfil and the authorities are anxious that he should be sure of keeping his appointments, and when there is a risk of breaking down on long autobahn journeys, sometimes a second car is sent. However, that is certainly not general practice in the Army; of that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Grigg Committee simply instanced this as a striking example of the very grave deficiencies of equipment, of which it pointed out a list? The Secretary of State says that the War Office is taking notice of the Grigg Committee's recommendations, although in the Government's comments on the Report all they say is:
    "EQUIPMENT
    The Government fully recognise the importance of good equipment."
    That seems a very inadequate notice.
    Mr. Soames: That was what was said in the White Paper which was published with the Report. We went into this in more detail and discussed a re-equipment plan for the Army. I was at pains in the debate not to deny the terms of the Grigg Report that the equipment of the Army left a great deal to be desired, but I must say that I did not deal with this specific point.

    Combined Exercises, Germany (Borrowed Equipment)
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War on what occasions British units in Germany have borrowed equipment from the armies of other countries so that they could take an adequate part in combined exercises.
    Mr. Soames: Apart from an incident last March when a Dutch helicopter was used, I have not been able to trace any occasion on which British units in Germany have borrowed equipment. There are, on the contrary, a number of cases where British equipment has been lent to the Dutch, Belgian and German forces.
    Mr. Strachey: This is not an allegation by me or by this side of the House but appears in the Grigg Report. It seems to be an unfortunate situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman take notice of the general allegation in the Grigg Report, in paragraph 138, in which the overall figures are produced—and they are the important thing—showing that the Army's allocation of production has declined by 65 per cent.? Is not this a most serious situation? These are serious matters which are contained in the Grigg Report which has been put before the House.
    Mr. Soames: Certainly I have taken note of what was said in the Grigg Report. It should not astonish the right hon. Gentleman if I say that we took note of it some time before the Report was published. We discussed these matters in some detail in debate, and I have no doubt that they will be discussed in detail again at the time of Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman has now referred to the proportion of money spent on re-equipment of the Army compared with the other Services, but that is very wide of the Question.

    Civilian, Singapore (Hospital Treatment)
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Miss Jameson, a British ex-Service woman, was charged £189 for treatment in the British Military Hospital, Singapore; on what basis this charge was fixed; and whether he will make a refund of some of the charge.
    Mr. Soames: Miss Jameson was charged the full cost of board and treatment for the period of about ten weeks which she spent in hospital. This was in accordance with the normal scale of charges for civilians who receive treatment in Army hospitals overseas. I am, however, looking into the matter to see whether a reduction is possible in this case in view of the special circumstances which the hon. Lady has communicated to me.
    Mrs. Jeger: I thank the Minister for his sympathetic promise. For the future, will he have consultations with other right hon. Gentlemen with a view to establishing the principle as of right for British civilians to be helped in this way without charge?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir.

    Cyprus (Pamphlet)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War why the political instruction pamphlet issued to all ranks in Cyprus is now being revised.
    Mr. Soames: The pamphlet was written three years ago and requires to be brought up-to-date.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the new edition is to be available? In order to enable hon. Members to measure the extent of the Government's double-think on Cyprus, will he arrange to place a copy of the first edition and of the revised edition in the Library of the House?
    Mr. Soames: If it is the wish of the House, certainly a copy can be placed in the Library. I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member what the date will be, but certainly it will be within the next few months.

    Troops, London
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War in view of the need to maintain a high standard of conduct, whether he is satisfied with the off-duty behaviour of troops employed on public duties in the centre of London; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. About 1,800 soldiers are employed on public duties in London. During the past year fifteen of them have appeared in the magistrates'

    1101
    courts for various offences. This is a small proportion of offenders among a body of troops spending their time off duty in central London. The reports of the provost authorities are favourable and I am very satisfied with the general standard of conduct.
    Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is perhaps a little unfortunate that he has applied a standard of conduct related to the number of convictions? Should there not be a much better standard here? In the view of senior officers of all branches of the Army some of these things have gone on in London far too long. Has he consulted the Commissioner of Police about the behaviour of troops in certain notorious spots in London which I would mention to him privately? Is not this a matter which needs to be kept constantly under review?
    Mr. Soames: Indeed it is, and if the hon. Member has any information contrary to what I have said, I should be delighted to have it.

    Ordnance Depot, Didcot (Horses)
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the date on which the draught horse, Josephine, was selected for service at the Command Ordnance Depot, Didcot, the reason which prompted the commander to make a personal selection of this horse, the date on which it was taken on the Command Ordnance Depot, Didcot, strength, the number of occasions on which it has pulled the garbage cart since being taken on strength, and the last occasion on which it was so employed.
    Mr. Soames: The horse was selected by the commandant, at the invitation of the remount depot, on 18th September. It was sent to Didcot on 1st October. Since the beginning of November it has pulled the cart on every working day and is still so employed.
    Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the horse has not pulled the cart this week? In view of the fact that it was specially selected by the commandant for attributes which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate, will he not consider matching it against le Pretendant two miles over hurdles and perhaps also match it with le Pretendant at pulling a garbage cart at Didcot?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Member must not be too much carried away by his recent appointment—on which we all congratulate him—to the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War what was the date on which a privately-owned horse, Moira, was first stabled and fed at Government expense at the Command Ordnance Depot, Didcot; what was the date on which repayment to public funds was first made; and by whom the animal is owned.
    Mr. Soames: The horse called Moira is privately owned and is on loan to the commandant at Didcot. He pays a stabling charge which was assessed as soon as the horse was brought in on 7th October. Fodder is bought privately. No expense for this horse has ever fallen on public funds.
    Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the 64,000 dollar question? When were vouchers for repayment for stabling and feeding first presented to the commandant? I understand that no vouchers of any kind were presented until my Question appeared on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Soames: If the hon. Member had taken the trouble to come and see me on all these questions about Didcot I could have settled them with him. There has been no question of any vouchers because the horse has not been in stables for a full quarter and the money is paid only quarterly. The day after the horse arrived the War Office land agent visited the place and assessed the rent.
    Mr. Paget: If an officer has the good fortune to find on his establishment two horses for pulling a garbage cart, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the officer was somewhat lacking in officer qualities if he did not succeed in wangling a hunter out of it?
    Mr. Soames: In fact, there are two horses for two garbage carts. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that they are put to good use.

  POST OFFICE

    Road Works, London
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that the road in Nottingham Place, Nottingham Street, W.1, and adjacent streets.

    1103
    was dug up by the London Electricity Board in April and May, 1954, from July to September, 1954, from December, 1954, to April, 1955, and from September, 1957, until January, 1958, and by the North Thames Gas Board in August, 1958, and is still up, what steps he took to coordinate the time for digging up the road in these streets with the London Electricity Board and the North Thames Gas Board, before the Post Office dug it up in January to May, 1956, in April to August, 1956, in July to September, 1956, in March to June, 1956, and from October, 1956, to March, 1957, to avoid the inconvenience to residents, traffic congestion, and unnecessary expenditure on the digging up and reinstatement of the road surfaces.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): Wherever possible the Post Office co-operates with other authorities to carry out its road works with the minimum of inconvenience to the public, and at minimum cost. As the Question shows, the operations in the neighbourhood of Nottingham Place were exceptionally complex. The existing plant was very congested and it would not have been possible to undertake all the works simultaneously without entirely closing the streets. I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend's constituents should have been put to so much discomfort.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will the Postmaster- General, with his tidy and efficient mind, devote some attention to co-ordinating the work of his Department and these other Departments with the same initiative he has shown in his Department? I feel sure that if that were done we should not see this really shocking state of affairs as indicated in my Question.
    Mr. Marples: The Post Office served notice on all the local authorities and public utilities before the work was carried out. We certainly do our best to cooperate, but the ownership of streets vests in the highway authority and only such an authority can do this sort of work. We cannot do it in the Post Office, but I shall certainly do my best to help.

    Premium Bonds
    Mr. Croninasked the Postmaster-General by what means numbers selected by Electronic Random Number Indicating Equipment and found to be ineligible for
    1104
    the Premium Bond draws concerned are rejected.
    Mr. Marples: "Ernie" generates bond numbers completely at random. Some of them may be within large blocks of bonds not yet offered for sale to the public. In this case a device built into the machine suppresses the number. The remaining numbers are individually checked and counter-checked by clerical staff against the registers. This eliminates those unsold, repaid, or held for under six clear months.
    Mr. Cronin: Does not the Answer suggest that the public have been so far misled as to the infallibility of the means of selection? Is it not the case that "Ernie" does not select alone but in co-operation with several Post Office clerks, who may be very conscientious, but are capable of making errors?
    Mr. Marples: I think "Ernie" is quite dispassionate. Any hon. Member who wishes to go to Lytham St. Annes to look at the machine and have it explained is at liberty to do so. After 18 months experience we are preparing an appreciation of procedure for the Press and interested bond holders, which I hope will be available in a few days' time.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not suspicion naturally created when one's number does not turn up?
    Mr. Cronin: I think the right lion. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. Surely the question is the co-operation of the Post Office clerks. Would it not be more satisfactory if a device were invented whereby the whole selection was completely automatic?
    Mr. Croninasked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for lists of the numbers eligible for selection by Electronic Random Number Indicating Equipment in the respective Premium Bond draws to be available for public inspection.
    Mr. Marples: Over 150 million units were eligible for the December draw, and the total increases every month. It would be impracticable to make available lists of numbers on this scale. Apart from the labour of compilation, a book equivalent of 400,000 pages of HANSARD would be needed. This is equivalent to fifteen or sixteen years of Parliamentary reporting.

    Post Office Engineers (Salary Claim)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Postmaster-General when he now expects to give an answer to the Post Office Engineering Union to their claim submitted on 3rd October.
    Mr. Marples: I hope in the near future.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister say whether he has answered the letter of 19th November from this union, as I understand that two days ago they had had no reply?
    Mr. Marples: I reply to their letters almost by return and I should therefore think that I have replied to that letter, but I should like notice of the question; I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Staff Interchanges
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General whether he can yet make a statement about his proposed scheme of interchange of staff between the Post Office and industrial concerns.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. On 5th January, 1959, two Post Office men, an administrator and an engineer, will take up temporary appointment at Unilever, Ltd., and two Unilever men will come to the Post Office. The exchange is expected to last for about a year. Discussions with another concern are also in train. I hope that this experiment will be the forerunner of a regular interchange of experience between the Post Office and industry. I believe it will bring mutual benefit and a better understanding of each others problems. I should like to pay tribute to the helpfulness of the Board of Unilever, Ltd., in agreeing to co-operate in this experiment.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we welcome this cooperation between private and public industry? Will reports on the experience gained and the results be made available?
    Mr. Marples: After Question Time this afternoon I intend to meet these people. I hope that I shall be able to get from the Unilever men their reactions and Unilever hope to get the experiences of our Post Office men in their firm. I am sure that it will be of great benefit to both.

    Property, London (Rent)
    Mrs. Jegerasked the Postmaster-General why, as landlord of 34, Calthorpe Street, W.C.1, his Department has increased the rent of four rooms there from £1 6s. 10d. to £2 10s. 4d. per week, especially having regard to the condition of the property and the lack of basic amenities.
    Mr. Marples: I am having urgent inquiries made and will write to the hon Member as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Jeger: Does not the Minister think it an absolute disgrace that the rent of these rooms has been practically doubled when the sanitary inspector has found thirteen items, including a defective roof, which in the case of a private landlord would make the rooms eligible for a certificate of disrepair? Is not this a disgraceful example for the Government to set?
    Mr. Marples: I said that I would look into this. After I have done so I hope that the hon. Lady will be satisfied with my investigation.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Special Telephones (Deaf Persons)
    Mr. Croninasked the Postmaster-General what arrangements are available for the provision of special telephones for deaf subscribers.
    Mr. Marples: We provide a telephone with an amplifier at an additional rental of 15s. a quarter. An improved design of amplifier is at present undergoing field trials.

    Exchange, Rugby
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement regarding the progress of the building of the new telephone exchange at Rugby; and what is the estimated date of completion.
    Mr. Marples: Work on the extension of the Rugby telephone exchange building started in December 1957; the extension is now 60 per cent. completed. It should be finished by October next year, and we hope to have the equipment installed and ready for service early in 1961.

    Shared Lines, Barry
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General why as many as 55 per cent. of private telephone subscribers in Barry have been required to take a shared-line service, while the comparable figure for the United Kingdom is only 38 per cent.; and what steps he will take to reduce the proportion in Barry.
    Mr. Marples: The percentage of subscribers sharing is mainly determined by the availability of spare wires in the local cables; at any one time this must vary in different areas. While above the average, the percentage at Barry is not exceptional, and special measures to reduce it would not be justified.
    Mr. Gower: Is not the very high percentage of shared lines due to a shortage of cable, and will my right hon. Friend take steps to rectify that shortage?
    Mr. Marples: Yes. A new automatic exchange is in course of erection at Barry, and duots for the new cables have been laid. The exchange and cables have been planned to be available by 1962, when subscribers will have greater freedom.

    Kiosks (New Design)
    Mr. Farey-Jonesasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made with the new design of telephone kiosk.
    Mr. Marples: From three designs submitted I have selected that prepared by Neville Conder. A scale model of his design will be placed in the Upper Waiting Hall tomorrow. A number of new kiosks, based on Mr. Conder's design, will be erected in selected places. Development and manufacture will, however, take a little time. The public reaction will assist me in deciding whether the new design should become the standard for the future.
    Mr. Farey-Jones: Could my right hon. Friend give the House a little more information about this matter? For instance, instead of pressing Button B and getting only 2d. back, will there be another button by which we can get the jackpot?
    Mr. Marples: The kiosk and the coin box are two separate issues. A new coin box will be introduced as S.T.D. is introduced in various parts of the country, but the new kiosk will take both the old
    1108
    type coin box and the new. On the new coin box I am afraid that one does not get any money back at all.
    Mr. Richard Williams: Before the Postmaster-General reaches a final decision about the new designs of telephone kiosks, will he look at some new designs in America and note their size and the material of which they are made, which is aluminium? Secondly, in considering the new design of telephone kiosks, will he make quite sure that they are big enough for men and women of above average proportions to be able to get into them?
    Mr. Marples: I have already looked at kiosks all over Europe, and, of course, in the United States. What I particularly want in these kiosks is that they should be of a new material, instead of cast iron, so that the maintenance costs will be lower than the present costs. I want, above all, that people can breathe in them as well as talk.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Advertisements
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that during a recent discussion programme broadcast by the Independent Television Authority between Mr. Gerald Gardiner, Q.C., and Mr. W. J. Brown on capital punishment an artificial break was made in the programme, Mr. Gardiner being interrupted in the middle of a sentence for the purpose of inserting advertisements; and, as this is a breach of the Television Act, what action he proposes to take against the Authority.
    Mr. Marples: The responsibility for ensuring that the programme contractors comply with the Television Act, 1954, rests with the Independent Television Authority. They tell me that the matter has been taken up with the programme contractor concerned.
    Mr. Chapman: In the interests of the public, can the Authority or the contractor be prosecuted when they break the law? Secondly, as there is this tendency now—I want to be quite reasonable about it—for breaks to be manufactured in programmes and for the compere simply to say, "I must leave you now.

    1109
    We will be back in a few minutes", would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to discuss with those of us who take a serious view of this the possibility of altering the Regulations to get what was really in Parliament's mind when we discussed the Television Act?
    Mr. Marples: The responsibility is that of the Independent Television Authority and not mine. If the hon. Member wishes to have conversations on this, I suggest they should be had with the I.T.A.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts responsibility for his own rule? As these rules have been approved by him and placed in the Library as a result of his initiative, surely he ought to compel the I.T.A. to conform with the rules?
    Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman has over-stated the case. For example, at the most in a month there have been only one or two breaches of the rules and, as there are 600 advertisements a day, this is not a matter which should cause alarm to any reasonable person.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were very extended debates on this matter in the House? We were given assurances that natural breaks would be natural breaks. In view of those assurances, surely he must accept some responsibility in this matter?
    Mr. Marples: It is the responsibility of the Independent Television Authority.
    22. Mr. Mayhew asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Independent Television Authority recently approved the broadcasting of ten and a half minutes of advertisements within a period of 70 minutes; and whether he will issue regulations under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, 1954, to prohibit the broadcasting of more than four minutes of advertisements in any hour.
    Mr. Marples: The Authority tells me that arrangements have been introduced which broadly limit the amount of advertising in any one hour to eight minutes. This is subject always to the overall daily average of six minutes in the hour, which
    1110
    the Authority has imposed from the beginning, having regard to paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Television Act. I see no need to issue regulations on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that the Act plainly lays down that the amount of television advertising should not be such as to detract from the value of the programmes? Four minutes advertising in the hour would give more than ample profit to programme contractors, and ten and a half minutes in 70 is a gross abuse of the Act and creates profiteering as well.
    Mr. Marples: The duty of defining that is on the Authority and not on me.
    Sir R. Grimston: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether I.T.A. has been receiving any of these complaints from the public, or are they coming only from a few hon. Members opposite who dislike independent television?
    Mr. Marples: There is very little disturbance in the minds of the public. If these breaks were interfering with the programme the number of viewers on that channel would go down, whereas in fact it has been increasing.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Postmaster-General if he will make regulations under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, 1954, to prohibit the interruption of programmes by advertisements.
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the large profits obtained by programme contractors, if he will use his powers under the Television Act, 1954, to confine advertisements to the beginnings and ends of programmes and prevent the intrusion of artificial breaks.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir, I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) last week.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent investigation into this matter published under the title of "Children's Television", in which a very great deal of comment was made about irritating interruptions in the middle of programmes? Now that the I.T.A. is sitting pretty, is it not

    1111
    about time the convenience of viewers was taken into consideration rather than the profits of programme contractors?
    Mr. Marples: As I said in answer to the last Question, the number of viewers is increasing; therefore, they must be receiving what they want.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Act puts responsibility on him to see that the Second Schedule is enforced. He has power thereunder to amend, withdraw and replace all these Regulations. What is gained by these constant illegal, profiteering, breaks in programmes about which many complaints are received from the public? I could send the right hon. Gentleman scores of them, if he wants them. Why are the breaks allowed, when all they do is to increase the already excessive profits of the contractors?
    Mr. Marples: I cannot accept the assumption underlying the right hon Gentleman's supplementary questions.
    Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Gilbert Harding taking a lozenge or an advertisement for hair restorer can break into a boxing match? Is that what we pay for?
    Mr. Marples: We are not paying for it. That is the point.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total proportion of advertising is not excessive in the hour? Is it not a fact that in a play which is particularly dramatic a break for advertising can be a relief?

    Colour Television
    Mr. Greyasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the future of colour television;
    (2) what are the technical difficulties which prevent colour television from becoming an established fact; and
    (3) if he will state the rate of progress that has been made toward the possibility of colour television.
    Mr. Marples: The broad position is as stated in my reply to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) on 5th November. The main technical problems are
    1112
    the system to be used, the definition standards to be adopted and the production of a reliable and economic colour receiver. As the hon. Member knows, the Television Advisory Committee has been asked to report as soon as possible.
    Mr. Grey: Will the Postmaster-General say what reactions there have been towards the principle of colour television? In view of the fact that the North-East has had a raw deal over a shared wavelength, will he consider the North-East having priority when coloured television comes?
    Mr. Marples: I think we must await the report of the Television Advisory Committee. The question of coloured television is largely a technical one and should not be taken lightly. It will influence the course of events in this country for years to come.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Can we have an assurance that no decision will be taken on this matter without informing the House, in view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy about the linage and compatibility?
    Mr. Marples: I would rather look at the report carefully and place a copy in the Library and see where we go from there.
    Mr. Popplewell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to receive the report?
    Mr. Marples: I am pressing as hard as possible and hope to receive it at the end of January.

    Reception, North-East Essex
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the deterioration in television reception in north-east Essex recently; and what steps he is taking to improve the situation.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. The trouble is due to a recurrence of abnormal conditions in the upper atmosphere that lead to interference from distant radio stations and about which I can do nothing. These conditions occur at times during winter when sunspot activity is high. Sunspot activity follows an 11-year cycle and is now falling. The trouble should therefore be less during the next few winters.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will regard his argument about sunspots as sheer moonshine? Is he further aware that if he wants to send a message to the people of north-east Essex of Christmas greetings and good cheer, the best thing he can do is to ensure that they are able to receive Her Majesty the Queen's message on the afternoon of Christmas Day? At the present moment the afternoon reception is deplorable. Will he take steps to see that the power at the Crystal Palace is increased?
    Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that my Answer is correct. Sunspot activity makes a break in reception all over the world. It is an act of God for which my Department is not responsible. Band III is less subject to this interference; the constituency of my hon. Friend should be grateful for that.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all hon. Members are staggered by his modesty?
    Mr. Marples: No person is better qualified to talk about modesty than the right hon. Gentleman.

    Scotland
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Postmaster-General what further authorisation of expenditure in the Highlands and Islands by the British Broadcasting Corporation he intends to sanction; and whether he will now authorise the extension of television very high frequency service to the Western Isles.
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Postmaster-General when there will be an extension of television and very high frequency reception to the western seaboard of Ross and Cromarty.
    Mr. N. McLeanasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to ensure that the British Broadcasting Corporation improve their sound radio services in Fort William and Lochaber and along the west coast of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to expedite the introduction of television services in these areas.
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend's reply of 10th December relating to these matters covered the grounds completely. I find there is nothing useful I can add
    1114
    in respect of the places in which hon. Members are now interested.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was highly unsatisfactory, and that until the Western Isles are equipped the whole coastline of Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland and some parts of Inverness-shire will not be able to get television reception? Is he further aware that the B.B.C. seems roaring to go and is only waiting for financial authorisation so that it can place contracts for equipment and the rest of its needs? All this takes time to go through. Having all these things in mind, will not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more helpful? When some areas are clamouring for improved service and in others we are duplicating service, why is the right hon. Gentleman not giving favourable consideration to an area where there is no service at all?
    Mr. Marples: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are sympathetic to the problem of the Highlands. We want to give them a service as quickly as possible. In view of the fact that the B.B.C. experiment in satellite stations shows that technically there is an answer to the problem and that we have only just got the result of that experiment in satellites, the hon. Gentleman has been a little unfair in saying that we have been slow.

    Forward Scatter Stations
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General what power is used in existing civil types of forward scatter stations; what is to be the increase in future developments; and how far the consultations that are now taking place on the inherent dangers of future developments are dealing solely with high frequency radiation effects.
    Mr. Marples: The output from the transmitter is concentrated into a very narrow beam. Along this beam the power is of the order of 10 megawatts; outside the beam it is less than one thousandth part of this. No large increase in power is foreseen in the near future. The consultations referred to in the Answer given the hon. Member on 4th December are concerned solely with the effects of high frequency radiation.
    Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House exactly what the

    1115
    dangers emanating from these high-power stations are, and to what extent they can affect the operating personnel and the public a large?
    Mr. Marples: We have issued a statement agreed by all Government Departments which says that there is no risk to the public from any radio station now in existence in this country. That to some extent answers the hon. Gentleman. I will consider the remainder of his supplementary when I read HANSARD tomorrow.
    Mr. Mason: What about future developments? Are we now contemplating building further stations, more high-powered, and are the consultations that are now taking place between his Department and the D.S.I.R. and the Medical Research Council dealing with this problem of danger to the public and to operating personnel?
    Mr. Marples: The Post Office do not propose to have any transmissions of higher power in the future. What I will do, if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down, is to look into the matter.

    Schools Broadcasts
    Mrs. Castleasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the unsatisfactory result of the investigation made by the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation into allegations of political partiality in the current affairs for schools broadcasts, which has given serious offence, if he will now investigate the matter, in accordance with his previous practice in such circumstances; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: I assume the hon. Member is referring to a programme about Cyprus on 19th November in the Current Affairs for Schools series, about which she wrote to the Director-General of the B.B.C., kindly sending a copy of her letter to me. I have read the script, and I have also seen a copy of the Director-General's reply. As he explained, the attempt to show the picture in Cyprus in simple terms suitable for a 20-minute broadcast to children of 13–15 lead to some omissions. The broadcast did not in his view display the partiality attributed to it by the hon. Member, and I see no need for further investigation by
    1116
    myself. If the hon. Member is still dissatisfied she should pursue the matter with the Corporation.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is now giving a different impression to that in the Director-General's reply to me? If he will look at the matter again he will see that the Director-General agrees that there were two points on which, in his own words, "inaccuracy crept in." One of the main statements of Government policy was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—"undoubtedly inexact," and on another point
    "there also seems to have been an error."
    The Director-General justifies this on the ground that these programmes have to be simplified. Would the Postmaster-General make inquiries into the organisation of these programmes, in order to see that in future they are sometimes simplified in favour of the Opposition and not of the Government?
    Mr. Marples: That is a matter for the B.B.C.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter of which my hon. Friend complains is not an isolated instance, that there is a systematic presentation of untrue and biased material in the schools broadcasts and that when one complains to the Director-General the replies one gets, although long, are completely without substance?
    Mr. Marples: I can assure the House that the number of complaints we receive about bias about cancel each other out. People on the right say that the broadcasts are baised to the left, and vice versa. I am sure that bias and partiality lie in the eye of the beholder.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the third complaint about the schools broadcasts in the last two months? Will he read the Adjournment debate relating to the broadcast affecting the strike of 1926? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman discussed this matter with the Director-General so that what is wrong in the schools broadcast can be put right?
    Mr. Marples: I have already read the debate, and I think the right hon. Gentleman who started it rather overstated his case.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Fairey Aviation Company, Valley (Contract)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air why the maintenance contract between his Department and the Fairey Aviation Company Limited, at Royal Air Force, Valley, Anglesey, is being terminated on 31st December. 1958; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): As the hon. Member now knows, the task for which the contract was awarded will finish at the end of this month. We shall, however, shortly be inviting tenders for a new contract for the servicing of certain training aircraft which will move to Valley in the early part of next year. We are also considering whether we can ourselves employ any more civilians at Valley in place of airmen. I hope that in these ways employment will again be available at Valley for at least as many civilians as are working there now.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the dismissal of 85 men just before Christmas in an area of high unemployment has caused concern and despondency throughout Anglesey? How soon does he think work will be found for the men who have been dismissed?
    Mr. Ward: The task does not end until the end of the year—after Christmas. I hope that quite soon in the New Year there will be fairly extensive works services which will temporarily employ some of these people. A little later, in two or three months' time, we hope to be able to let a contract for this further work.

    Education Branch
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now able to make a statement with regard to the future of the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force, with particular regard to the promotion prospects of squadron leaders.
    Mr. Ward: I cannot at present add to the answer given to my hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 5th November.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will give very great disappointment to the many officers in this
    1118
    branch who have been waiting a long time to know whether they have any prospects for the future? Would it not be better to wind up the Education Branch and let it revert to civilian status?
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir. I know the interest which my hon. Friend takes in this matter, and I can assure him that we are doing our best to get this new scheme finalised and approved by everybody concerned. I have not forgotten my promise to him, and as soon as I am in a position to make a statement I will do so.

    United States Air Base, Burtonwood
    Mr. Leeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the future use of the United States air base at Burtonwood.
    Mr. Ward: The United States Air Force expect to give up Burtonwood in the second half of next year. We are considering how the station should be used after that. I will let the hon. Member know as soon as a decision is reached.
    Mr. Lee: May I first thank the Under-Secretary of State for the courteous way in which he has kept me informed of developments at Burtonwood? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an enormous development costing many millions of pounds and possessing some of the longest runways in Britain? As it entails heavy unemployment in my constituency, will he set up some sort of investigation to ensure that the very best use is made of this in the way of international airport development, or something of that type, which could serve that part of Lancashire, where we are in grave danger of very heavy unemployment?
    Mr. Ward: We shall bear in mind very carefully all the points which the hon. Member has made when we are considering this matter, but the first step is to decide whether there is a further R.A.F. requirement for the airfield.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are any British civilians to be dismissed as a result of the decision of the United States Air Force? Is compensation to be paid to them? Does not this raise an important matter of principle? As we have provided these facilities for the United States Air Force, is it to be left to their arbitrary decision

    1119
    to decide whether British civilians should be thrown out of work without compensation?
    Mr. Ward: British civilians will be thrown out of work by this decision of the United States Air Force, but established civil servants will be offered transfers to other Government work as near as possible to their homes, or, alternatively, they can apply to be considered for the benefits of the new arrangements which were announced recently by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. Shinwell: This is a most important matter. What about unestablished civil servants and the general body of employees who are neither established nor unestablished civil servants? Surely the United States must accept some measure of responsibility for this decision? They cannot throw our people about in this fashion without compensating them. I say that with no disrespect to the United States. We ask for fair treatment for our people.
    Mr. Ward: Unfortunately defence policy changes from time to time, and when we in the Air Force close down maintenance units or airfields we also throw people out of work. We regret it very much, and we try our best to find them alternative employment. The same applies to the United States Air Force.
    Dr. Summerskill: As this airfield is adjacent to my constituency, may I ask whether all the employees have now been given notice?
    Mr. Ward: I am not absolutely certain about that, but I think they have. I will let the right hon. Lady know.

    Rocket Bases
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for Air what has been the total expenditure to date upon the installation and equipment of rocket bases in the United Kingdom; and what he estimates to be the total expenditure upon the present programme for such bases.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement about intermediate-range ballistic missile bases in Great Britain, including, if possible, their cost, number, and degree of completion.
    Mr. Ward: The estimated cost of constructing the sites and of supplying the items of equipment to be paid for by this country remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 24th February. Expenditure for this financial year will total approximately £2½ million. It would not be in the public interest for me to give the number of sites or the extent to which they have been completed. Construction has, however, been going on for some time past and the first missiles are now with the crews for training.
    Mr. Yates: Do I understand from the Minister that the estimate which was originally given will not be exceeded? In view of the doubt which has been cast upon the necessity for these sites or the advantage of them in present circumstances, and since £2½ million is to he spent, should there not be some reconsideration of this waste of public money?
    Mr. Ward: There is no indication at the moment that the estimate given by my right hon. Friend will be exceeded. I cannot agree with the hon. Member when he says that this is a waste of public money.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not obvious that if these nuclear missiles are launched we shall get them back instantly and that therefore they are suicide weapons? If the Minister admits this but argues that the expense is justified as a deterrent, will he also admit that their very existence adds to world tension and suspicion and, therefore, makes war more likely and not less likely?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member asked in his Question about the cost and the date of completion. He is now raising larger matters of policy which it would be difficult to discuss in Questions.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that these Thor missiles have not yet passed their tests? If that is so, why are they being installed in these stations? Does not the description which we gave to them a year ago now appear to be amply borne out—that they are no more than junk? Is it not time that they were abandoned and public money saved?
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir. There is no reason whatever to suppose that Thor will not be a successful weapon. The proving trials in America are going according to plan.
    Mr. de Freitas: Did not the Minister of Defence tell us that they would not be installed for the R.A.F. until they had passed their tests?
    Mr. Ward: He made it clear that those we have here now are for training the crews.

    Transport Aircraft
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet decided what types of transport aircraft are to be ordered for the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is not this continued delay having a very sad effect not only on the industry itself but also on the whole future of transport for the Armed Forces? Will not the Minister look at this matter as one of urgency?
    Mr. Ward: We are looking at it as a matter of urgency, and we are going ahead as quickly as we can. Our existing transport force can do what it was designed to do, and it meets the current requirements. The study we are making is a long-term study directed to the future requirements, and its scope is very far-reaching. We cannot rush it, because what we determine now will be the way in which we meet our overseas requirements for many years to come.

  OVERSEAS HOSPITALS (TREATMENT CHARGES)
  Miss Baconasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that free treatment is provided for British civilians in all hospitals abroad for which any Department of Her Majesty's Government is responsible.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  The only such hospitals are those for which my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers, are responsible. The question of free treatment for civilians in these hospitals is now under consideration.
  Miss Bacon: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that up to now the Minister of Health, while making reciprocal arrangements with countries
  1122
  abroad, has so far failed to accept responsibility for coming to similar arrangements with other Government Departments? May I take it from his reply that something is now to be done in this matter?
  Mr. Butler: I am aware of the two cases, one of which was answered at Question Time today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and one of which was raised by the hon. Lady, which brought this subject to the fore. What my Answer means, on behalf of the Prime Minister, is that we are now looking at the whole question again. The hon. Lady's Question deals with civilians in general. She is aware that dependants of Service families are already catered for. This raises the broader question of the civilian abroad, the question of the interrelation of Government Departments and their responsibility and the question of how to deal with civilians abroad. I could give no definite undertaking of what result the inquiry will have. We think the matter sufficiently serious for immediate examination.
  Mr. H. A. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a constituent of mine, a captain home from Cyprus after three years' service there, has been debited with £96 in respect of treatment in the British Military Hospital, Nicosia, for his mother-in-law, who was in Cyprus as a dependent relative? Does not my right hon. Friend feel that such a bill should be met either by the War Office or the National Health Service?
  Mr. Butler: If my hon. Friend will submit that case, I will see that it is considered in the proper quarter.
  Mr. Price: Thank you very much

  MINISTER OF LABOUR (STATEMENT)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent the statement made by the Minister of Labour at London Airport on 8th December, on the Russian economic challenge, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour's statement was in accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement made by the Minister of Labour, as reported in the Financial Times, is true, in which it is stated:
  "The free world had to accept the Russian economic challenge, particularly in undeveloped areas, and that we had to succeed in this or the struggle with the Communist world might be in vain."
  If that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, can the right hon. Gentleman say how are we meeting the economic challenge of Russia in Egypt, who is going to build the Aswan Dam, and have we not lost a lot of valuable markets in the Middle East because the Government are not meeting the Communist challenge?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Thanks to the Government's economic policy, there is more opportunity for expenditure abroad than there has been for a very long time. It is in this way that we shall have to meet the Communist challenge overseas.

  COMMONWEALTH (MEMBER COUNTRIES)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the existing consultative machinery of the Commonwealth is sufficient for keeping under review, with full consideration of the interests and alliances of Commonwealth nations, developments which might lead to the voluntary association of foreign States or territories with an expanding Commonwealth, having regard to the suddenness of the proposals for a Ghana-Guinea union; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The well-established arrangements for consultation between Member countries of the Commonwealth will, I trust, prove equal to any developments such as my hon. Friend has in mind. As regards the relations between Ghana and Guinea, I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement of 27th November.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the surprise which Dr. Nkrumah's proposals caused suggest that the consultative machinery of the Commonwealth needs
  1124
  improvement? Will Her Majesty's Government take every possible initiative to this end?
  Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 27th November that he was surprised, and that represents the situation. However, he received a full report from Dr. Nkrumah and it does not reflect upon the general Commonwealth machinery. In this case, Dr. Nkrumah kept us informed, although the actual incident was a surprise to us.
  Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman place this matter on the agenda of the Conference of Commonwealth countries when it meets in the summer, because this may easily develop in other areas, including Togoland and the Cameroons in West Africa?
  Mr. Butler: One of the facts which have recently emerged is that this may be the beginning of something bigger in West Africa as a whole. I can give no absolute undertaking about what will be on the agenda, but this will certainly be one of the matters before the Commonwealth Conference.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it not undesirable that an unco-operative member of the French Union, one of our greatest allies, might come into the Commonwealth by a back door? Will the Government take an early opportunity of stating in general terms the criteria of adhesion to the British Commonwealth?
  Mr. Butler: My noble Friend's point will be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider discussing with General de Gaulle how best the United Kingdom and France can help achieve a harmonious evolution of Commonwealth and French Union territories, with the fullest understanding of and cooperation with African Powers.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to discussing with the French Government in general and General de Gaulle in particular all questions of common interest. The evolution of the Commonwealth is, of course, a matter for all Commonwealth countries and not merely for the United Kingdom Government. The many problems of Africa are very present

  1125
  to the United Kingdom Government, and there is already a close liaison with the Governments of the countries concerned, including not only the European Powers but also the Governments of the independent countries of Africa.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that since the proposals for a Ghana-Guinea union were made the Prime Minister of Senegal, M. Mamadou Dia, speaking at Bathurst in Gambia, spoke of a possible Senegambia?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, we have observed that statement, and I think that the repercussions of it must be carefully studied.
  Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the question put a moment ago by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), may I ask whether the Government's policy is now to revise the famous anthem and substitute for certain well known lines, the lines
  "Narrower still and narrower Shall thy bounds be set"?
  Mr. Butler: The answer in short is, "No, Sir."

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your help and guidance? Today, in the national Press, there has been published a letter relating to conditions in which our troops are living in Cyprus. The letter is from a warrant officer in charge of men out there and they bitterly complain of their conditions.
It was not possible for me to put a Question on the Order Paper; nor was it possible for me to ask a Private Notice Question. In view of the grave importance of this matter, and the fact that there is no more time available to us before the Recess, could you allow the Secretary of State for War, or the Under-Secretary of State, to give an assurance that the conditions which are complained of do not prevail?
Mr. Speaker: That would be entirely irregular. The hon. Member must give notice of his Question.
Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order. May I, then, give notice that I
1126
shall raise the matter the first thing in the morning?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may give notice of a Private Notice Question tomorrow morning if he likes, but that is all he can do.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for the first week after the Christmas Recess?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 20TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST JANIJARY—Report and Third Reading of the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
THURSDAY, 22ND JANUARY—Debate on the Education White Paper.
FRIDAY, 23RD JANUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions, which will be balloted for today.
Sir A. Baldwin: Will my right hon. Friend provide an early day for a discussion on the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Lands, which was set up three years ago and reported to the House last July?
Mr. Butler: We shall have to consider that request during the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the subject mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) is exciting considerable interest in the country and that an early debate would probably be very helpful to all concerned?
Mr. Butler: Perhaps the Opposition would care to choose it for a Supply day.
Sir T. Moore: I understood that the Home Secretary would tell the House before the Christmas Recess what were

1127
his proposals for adequate punishment for crimes of violence. The time is getting late.
Mr. Butler: I cannot regard that as a matter arising out of business, but I do not underestimate the seriousness of the position. I do not think that any further statement could be made before Christmas, though it need not necessarily be indefinitely delayed.
Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Motion which appears on the Order Paper in my name and in the name of some of my hon. Friends, this morning, regarding the allegations made by Mr. Rawson Macaria that perjured evidence was given at the trial of Jomo Kenyatta and others?
[That in view of the statements recently made by Mr. Rawson Macaria in an affidavit and also in an interview with the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich that he gave false evidence at the trial of Jomo Kenyatta and others; that this evidence was dictated to him by a police officer and that he received a substantial consideration therefor, including an air passage to the United Kingdom, a two-years' course at a British University valued at £1,000, subsistence for two years for his family valued at £250 and a promise of employment by the Kenya Government on his return; that six other prosecution witnesses were offered money in his presence and received sums varying from 3,000 to 6,000 shillings; that at Nyeri from 11th November until 23rd November, 1952, the prosecution witnesses were rehearsed twice a day by police officers at a "model court" in the evidence they were to give at the trial; and that, in view also of the fact that the Magistrate who conducted the trial expressly accepted Macaria's evidence in peference to that of ten witnesses for the defence, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to institute a public inquiry, presided over by a person of judicial experience, into these allegations by Mr. Rawson Macaria.]
If no sufficient inquiry, or no inquiry at all, has been made in the meantime, shall we have an opportunity of debating this matter when the House reassembles in January?
Mr. Butler: That is a reasonable request. I think that the House has already
1128
been informed, in reply to earlier questions, that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary wants a little longer to consider the comments of the Governor which he has received. I do not think that it would be possible, therefore, to discuss this matter before the Recess, because I do not think my right hon. Friend will reach a conclusion before that date. Meanwhile, the seriousness of the matter is realised by my right hon. Friend and the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman will be noted.
Mr. J. Hynd: Are we not to have any statement of any kind relating to an early debate on our relationship with the Common Market? Has a White Paper not been produced setting out what has been happening up to date? We were given a promise, some weeks ago, that there would be an early debate and that a White Paper would be published so that we should know where we were going.
Mr. Butler: Ministers have just returned from Paris. It is quite clear that the matter is one of great importance to our country and one upon which it is impossible to crystallise the situation in time for a White Paper to be prepared before the Recess. Therefore, there is no chance of discussing this matter before the Recess.
Dr. Summerskill: Do I understand that there is a possibility that the Mental Health Bill might be presented before the House adjourns? If so, could the right hon. Gentleman say when the House will be able to discuss it?
Mr. Butler: Formal presentation of the Bill is being made today and publication will probably take place soon after Christmas so as to give ample opportunity for its consideration.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is on the Order Paper a Motion dealing with the Suez campaign?
[That this House, having noted the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs' statement that Mr. Randolph Churchill's articles on Suez in the "Daily Express" were in many respects inaccurate, without specifying these inaccuracies, and, in view of the charges that the state of our military preparedness was staggering and humiliating, that the proof that there was collusion with Israel is now massive and

1129
conclusive, that Her Majesty's Government's actions brought about a drain on sterling and a threat to the pound, and that the United States Government insisted that United States financial assistance would only be given after a cease fire order in Egypt, and in view of the failure of Her Majesty's Ministers to answer these charges after the Foreign Office had drawn attention to them, calls for a Select Committee to inquire and report on the events leading to hostilities in Suez, the military operations and the political and economic consequences of Her Majesty's Government's policy.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the time to debate this matter was so inadequate that the Secretary of State for War completely forgot to answer the charges by Mr. Randolph Churchill? Is he also aware that the Front Bench spokesman on this side of the House had only two minutes in which to deal with that important debate? In view of the fact that Sir Anthony Eden's book is likely to bring up the whole controversy again, and that the controversy is not ending but is just beginning, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he can provide an opportunity for a full debate?
Mr. Butler: We heard quite a lot on that subject last night. It is a great pity that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War did not have more time in which to deploy the arguments that he would have used.
Mr. Bellenger: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question? He will know that the Common Market arrangements come into force on 1st January, and that it will not be until nearly three weeks thereafter that the House resumes. May we have an assurance that the Government will, by that time, be able to produce a White Paper and make a full and adequate statement?
Mr. Butler: It is, I think, known that it has been decided, by a procedural
1130
motion, to have a further meeting in Paris of the nations concerned. I think that the date is 15th January. I do not think that, before then, it will be possible to crystallise the situation sufficiently, but it certainly is most important that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of realising the full import of these matters and also of realising the full significance of British policy. I trust that that will be so at the time we resume.

THE WEST INDIES (GIFT OF MACE)
Sir Thomas Dugdale: Mr. Speaker, the House will recollect that, on 19th November, on a Motion by the Leader of the House, leave of absence was given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) and myself to present, on behalf of the House, a Mace to the House of Representatives of The West Indies. I now have to report that the delegation, which was accompanied by the Fourth Clerk at the Table, has carried out the duty so entrusted to it by the House.
The presentation of the Mace was made on 1st December, when your delegation, Mr. Speaker, was admitted to the Bar of the House of Representatives of The West Indies and was welcomed by the Speaker. After speeches by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields and myself, the Mace was handed to the Serjeant at Arms, who placed it upon the Table of the House of Representatives. The House then, upon the Motion of the Prime Minister, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, agreed unanimously to the following Resolution:
"Be it resolved that the thanks of this House of Representatives be sent to the Commons House of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for their munificent gift of a Mace."
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that, in accordance with precedent, you will give the necessary instructions for this Resolution to appear in the Journals of the House.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Needs of the Arts
  Mr. P. Thomas: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 23rd January, I shall call attention to the needs of the arts in Great Britain and to the part to be played in meeting those needs by the State, public authorities and others, and move a Resolution.
  Colonial Development Corporation
  Mr. Leather: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 23rd January, I shall call attention to the position of the Colonial Development Corporation, and move a Resolution.
  Television Act (Operation)
  Mr. Chapman: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 23rd January, I shall call attention to the operation of the Television Act, and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED
  MENTAL HEALTH
  Bill to repeal the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, and the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938, and to make fresh provision with respect to the treatment and care of mentally disordered persons and with respect to their property and affairs; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Derek Walker-Smith; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Butler, the Attorney-General, Mr. Renton, and Mr. Richard Thompson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th January, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 20th January.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
3.44 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: There is one matter to which I want to make a very brief reference before the House is asked to agree to this Motion. It is an unfortunate but undeniable consequence of the Suez incident that we have in this country 425 British refugees, at present wholly or partially maintained out of public funds, who have not yet been resettled. I should like—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must direct his argument against the Motion that we adjourn until 20th January.
Mr. Lipton: I am directing my argument against the Motion, Sir, for the purpose of asking the Government whether they will take early action to ensure that these unfortunate victims of the Government's Suez policy do not spend a fourth Christmas in the present miserable circumstances in which they now exist.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is not relevant to the Question before the House. It is another question altogether. The hon. Gentleman must take another opportunity for raising it.
Mr. Lipton: I am suggesting that the House should not adjourn until it hears from the Government what they propose to do for these unfortunate victims of their Suez policy, 425 refugees in this country awaiting resettlement, who are now about to spend their third Christmas in most melancholy circumstances.
3.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I did not receive any notice of this matter, but it is, of course, one of great importance, especially to those concerned. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have set up an organisation to deal with the immediate relief of those in need. The question of the longer-term compensation has depended partly on certain negotiations

1133
taking place with the Egyptian Government and partly on certain views of Her Majesty's Government, which have been expressed in another place and elsewhere.
I will undertake to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friends principally concerned the circumstances of these people who are very much in our minds. I hope that if the hon. Member realises the attention which we do wish to give them he will understand that it is reasonable for the House to follow its time-honoured practice of adjourning for a short time at Christmas.
3.46 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I just want to ask one question if I may, before we proceed. I suppose that I, also, must oppose the Motion.
I should like to know from my right hon. Friend how, if we adjourn tomorrow, I shall know what really has happened about our troops and their wet tents in Cyprus. It is very important that we should know whether the allegations that are made are correct. I particularly wish to know, because constituents of mine who have sons in Cyprus have asked about the conditions of the men serving there in such very grave and difficult circumstances. They wish to know whether the troops have watertight tents and good accommodation for their period of service during the present wet and cold weather. I should be most grateful if my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that he will make inquiries. I should then be delighted to support the Motion.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I remind him that I have given notice that I shall endeavour to put down a Private Notice Question for reply first thing tomorrow morning, to be answered by the Secretary of State for War?
Mr. R. A. Butler: If that is the position, I think that I should not intervene between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and his desire for attention to be given to his Question.
Mr. Mellish: I do not mind about that.
Mr. Butler: I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have received
1134
notice from him, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has already been giving attention to the complaint raised both by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). If there is a suitable opportunity we shall be only too glad to give a reply.
Question put and agreed to.

HOUSING (UNDERGROUND ROOMS)
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision as to the circumstances in which underground rooms are to be deemed for the purposes of section eighteen of the Housing Act, 1957, to be unfit for human habitation and, in connection therewith, to validate certain orders made with respect to underground rooms
It is not suggested that my proposed Bill should apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Its principle purpose is to restore to local authorities powers which they had under the Housing Act, 1936, to close insanitary basements. I will say at once that the Bill has the full support of the Association of Municipal Corporations and of a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House; and I have reason to suppose that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is likely to give it his blessing.
An example of the value of the power in the 1936 Act is given by the experience of the Royal Borough of Kensington which, from 1936 until 1939, closed 2,700 basements in North Kensington, to the great benefit of the inhabitants thereof. I realise that an important debate is to follow immediately after this matter has been dealt with, and, in the short time at my disposal, I propose to give no details but merely to outline the objects of the proposed Bill.
First, the principal purpose is to restore a useful public health provision which has been unintentionally lost. In the second place, I put to the House the point that Section 12(2) of the Housing Act, 1936, provides a formula by which local authorities could close underground rooms which were less than 7 feet high or which failed to comply with the local

1135
byelaws. That Act enabled local authorities to deal with single rooms which were unfit for human habitation. The reason why the Bill is being proposed today is that on 7th May, 1957, judgment was given in the Court of Appeal against the Lambeth Borough Council consequent upon an interpretation of Section 9 of the Housing Rent and Repairs Act, 1954. This interpretation, while creating uncertainty, had the effect of modifying Section 12(2) of the Housing Act, 1936, and local authorities up and down the country find themselves hamstrung in trying to carry out their functions.
Housing legislation was consolidated in the Housing Act, 1957, and this Measure was before Parliament at about the time of the Court of Appeal judgment. It was, therefore, more or less unavoidable that in these circumstances this ambiguity was not removed. It is fair to say that all those who have knowledge of this subject would have thought that it would have been removed.
The position, therefore, is that doubt has been cast upon the validity of any closing order made by local authorities since 1954 and also on the regulations which the Minister sanctioned during that period. The proposed Bill is designed to validate orders made between 1954 and the date on which the Bill comes into force. It seeks to rectify a defect in existing public health legislation which could not have been foreseen, and I assure the House that if the Bill is passed nobody will be adversely affected.
1136
Finally, the Bill can have the confidence of the House and be passed as a simple Measure which is urgently needed to ensure that unhealthy underground rooms can continue to be closed with the minimum delay. I ask leave to introduce it in the interests of good local government and to protect tenants who without its authority may be condemned to live in unsavoury and insanitary conditions for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Jenkins, Mr. David Jones, Sir John Smyth, Mr. Rippon, Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mr. Marlowe, Mr. John Barter, Brigadier Terence Clarke, Mr. Farey-Jones, and Mr. Ridsdale.

HOUSING (UNDERGROUND ROOMS)
Bill to make provision as to the circumstances in which underground rooms are to be deemed for the purposes of section eighteen of the Housing Act, 1957, to be unfit for human habitation and, in connection therewith, to validate certain orders made with respect to underground rooms, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th January, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

UNEMPLOYMENT
3.55 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: Tomorrow, the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess and before we return to our labours in January all of us, I hope, will have visited our constituencies. We shall find this year, on returning to our constituencies, that our people will be more anxious and worried about the employment situation than they have been for many years.
The truth is that unemployment, once again, has become the major economic and social problem confronting the United Kingdom. Almost every hon. Member will find that in his constituency, in the cities, towns, villages and valleys, the queues at the employment exchanges will have lengthened, and not only that the number of registered unemployed has increased but that something that has always accompanied unemployment is also increasing among those in work—the fear that it may be their turn next.
I say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and especially to the Prime Minister, who has just come into the Chamber, that when they go to their constituencies this year and regale their constituents with the Prime Minister's slogan that they have "never had it so good," it will sound as hollow mockery in many ears and hearts and will add insult to injury.
Let us consider the facts carefully. On 17th November, 536,000 were registered as unemployed at the employment exchanges. That means that two men were registered as unemployed in November for every one man unemployed last November. This is the highest figure of unemployment at Christmas time for eighteen years. This Christmas, therefore, will be bleak for many hundreds of thousands of unemployed men and their families. We are often apt to consider 2·4 per cent. unemployed as a figure which, looked at quickly, does not appear too high, but it is important that we should realise the significance that lies behind that figure for the men affected and their families.
I want to examine the figures rather more closely. The first one to which I want to direct attention concerns one of the important aspects of the problem of
1138
unemployment. Not only is the total number of unemployed increasing, but the number of what the Ministry describes as long-term unemployed is also increasing. In November, 1957, of those then registered as unemployed, 41 per cent. had been continuously unemployed for eight weeks or more. The figure for November this year is 47 per cent. In Wales, the percentage of unemployed who have already been continuously unemployed for more than eight weeks is 52 per cent. and in Scotland 51 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that we are once more reaching out towards long-term unemployment.
I am glad to see the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Minister of Labour present. If the present trend continues, then it may be that early in 1959 we shall reach the stage at which, under the unemployment insurance provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946, men who have been unemployed for a long time will exhaust their unemployment benefits. Under the provisions of Section 62 of that Act benefit can be continued, subject to the recommendation of a tribunal, without a means test.
If we return to the time when every unemployed man for whom employment could not be found was made subject to a means test, then we are not only acting unjustly towards the men concerned, but we are laying great trouble in store for ourselves. I do not want to hark back to the past, but none of us will forget the period when the means test was applied to unemployed men. That was a period in our history of which we all feel ashamed.
I therefore urge the Ministers concerned to get together to try to deal with this problem. It is certainly a bad problem in some of the worst-hit areas, where unemployment has been serious for a long time and where men are already exhausting their standard benefit and will have to have recourse to the National Assistance Boards. Long-term unemployment as well as total unemployment has thus increased in the last twelve months.
There are other aspects of the problem. How many are now unemployed who are not registered at the employment exchanges, but who represent more unemployment and reductions in standards of

1139
living and in the working force with which the country produces wealth? A new term is being used in the Economist and other periodicals and newspapers—at least, I have not seen it before. It is the term "hidden unemployment". It was used in an article in the Economist last week. The Economist said that there were persons who had become unemployed in the last twelve months who did not find themselves on the registers of the employment exchanges. It called that "a skimming off".
That struck me as a brutal way to refer to putting people out of work. The Economist said that this hidden unemployment was
"The skimming off of old people, married women and others who, though having been put out of work, are not on the Register."
If I understand the rather complicated arithmetical argument in the Economist, it is estimated that hidden unemployment applies to 100,000 people, and that that number has to be added to the number registered as unemployed.
Perhaps the Minister saw a letter in The Times of 19th November, when Mr. H. A. Turner, of Manchester University, dealt with another aspect of the problem, short-time working and a reduction in the productive power at work, with a corresponding reduction in the standard of living. He estimated that the reduction in the number of hours for which all workers were unemployed was the equivalent of a rise in unemployment of at least 220,000. It is clear that in all those ways we are reaching a situation in which we shall soon have nearly I million fewer effective workers than a year ago, I million who, in fact, are unemployed. Yet, in February, the Minister estimated that the figure would soon reach its peak and then go down.
Earlier this year we had a debate on the areas which have been badly hit by unemployment and where the situation has been worse than the general situation. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to mention the plight of those areas, because I wish to claim the indulgence of the House in referring to the area which I represent. One of the things which my study of the
1140
figures has led me to believe important has been the widespread increase in unemployment, especially over the last twelve months.
Some idea of how widespread the increase is can be gleaned from figures in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, which gives the number of registered unemployed in various towns and cities. There is such a table in each copy of the Gazette as it is published month by month, and 114 towns are included in the list for England and Wales, and Scotland. I have selected the unemployment figures for October of last year and October of this year. In every single instance, unemployment in October this year was higher than it was in October, 1957. The towns are a cross-section of the country and all are affected in varying degrees.
The list makes sombre reading. Many of the names evoke memories. It is clear that the structure of our economy is still such that when we meet problems of a recession the same areas at once begin to show the effects. We still have much to do in building a stable and diversified economy in many areas.
I begin with the North-East. The first town I select is Stockton-on-Tees. Unemployment there has increased in the twelve months October, 1957, to October, 1958, from 529 to 1,454, an increase of 175 per cent. In Jarrow, it has increased from 511 to 1,163, an increase of 128 per cent. In the North-West, a typical town is Oldham, where unemployment has increased from 747 to 5,101, an increase of 583 per cent. In a neighbouring Lancashire town, Bolton, the increase is from 617 to 2,575, an increase of 317 per cent. In the West Riding, in Bradford, unemployment has risen from 877 to 4,669, an increase of 432 per cent. In Sheffield it has risen from 1,320 to 6,746, an increase of 411 per cent. In Cardiff, it has gone up from 2,199 to 4,166, an increase of 89 per cent. On Mersey-side, my last example, it has risen from 15,560 to 25,454, an increase of 64 per cent.
It is, therefore, clear that this afternoon we are dealing with a problem which is causing anxiety and fear among many people and in every constituency, Conservative, Liberal, and Labour alike. We are rendering a service to the country in calling attention to this problem. It is a major worry to our people and hon. Members will find when they go to their

1141
constituencies, and attend meetings and "surgeries", that they will be asked two questions, "When am I going to get a job", and, "Can I keep my job?". Once more we have gone back to that. That is where the Government's financial and economic policy has brought the country after seven years of Tory rule.
I want now to refer to the problem of the distressed areas, the worst areas of all. We have had previous debates on this subject. None of us can have been but deeply impressed by a spectacle which we saw in the House recently. I do not remember anything like it before in my twenty-two, or twenty-three, years in the House. I refer to hon. Members presenting Petitions here, to the mayors of towns of Lancashire being present in the Strangers' Gallery, bringing to our notice the plight of their towns, indeed, the plight of almost a whole county which, for two centuries, has played a notable part in the economic and industrial life of Britain and has made an immense contribution to its wealth.
I was privileged to meet them, as also were hon. Members opposite, as they came from their towns—famous towns, fine communities, with their own traditions, history and pride, the kind of civic pride which it is so important for us in a democracy to sustain and keep. No one could but be deeply moved by the feelings they expressed. They were seeing their principal industry declining, and their communities disintegrating, the young people having to seek work elsewhere. They fear that in a very short time their communities will be full of spare and old men, and that all the life and vigour which we have associated with Lancashire will be drained away by unemployment and poverty.
There are other areas, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to call attention to their plight. May I, therefore, say a few words about my own area? If I speak about this, it is not because it is any worse than any other, but because it typifies many of the problems which will arise elsewhere.
South-West Wales, one of the constituencies of which I have the honour to represent in the House, has suffered a cruel double blow in the last few months. It has seen the virtual disappearance of an old industry to which its people, its
1142
skilled men and women and the whole community, have given almost the whole of their lives. I have the facts and figures here, and they are a challenge to us as to the kind of problem that we shall face on the threshold of a new industrial revolution, with technological unemployment becoming one of our major problems. I will mention the figures shortly, because I have given them before.
There was an industry employing 24,000 people. A great change came about. A strip mill came, and instead of having several hundred of the old mills and works employing 24,000 people, and producing a great amount of tinplate, we are to have two strip mills employing 4,000 workers, and producing more and better tinplate than the 24,000 workers did before. That development has come about much more rapidly than anybody had contemplated, either in the industry, in the Government or anywhere else. Here we come up against the technological change and challenge, which has to be faced.
The recession in the steel industry is directly due to the policy of the Government, and the problem is, therefore, aggravated by these changes which we have had to face. At this time, when the steel industry is working at 75 per cent., or even less, of its capacity, and this area is plagued with unemployment already, with nearly 8,000 unemployed, there are still just over 4,000 men employed in what industry remains. They are employed in what I would describe, in contrast to the newer plants as the older works.
The Government, at the request of a deputation of which I was a member, and at the request of the workmen, appointed a four-man team, including technical experts, to examine these older works to see whether they could be adapted to the changed conditions. We have had the report of this team, and it is a very great disappointment to us. We do not accept it, but this report, which I believe the Government have accepted, tells us that this team does not give a long life to the remaining works which still employ 4,000 men. Therefore the problem will be aggravated.
Quite apart from that, with the steelworks and the tinplate industry, other industry has grown up, so that the whole

1143
has become an integrated industry, which is now breaking up. To replace that integrated industry with new industries is a very big problem. Many of the associated industries were engineering works, generally called foundries, dependent on and servicing the steel and tinplate works. They grew up with them. There were 20 of them, employing 12,000 people, who are now mostly on short time, due to the disintegration of this formerly integrated industry.
Now comes the second blow. In this same area, in common with others, we now have to face the closure of mines in West Wales and elsewhere. The closure of mines, in this setting of one industry which is already disintegrating, means that, apart from those to be absorbed in new pits, 1,000 miners are now to be added to the number of unemployed in this area. I should like to say a few words about the mining industry. I believe that I have some right to do so. It is my own industry, I have been connected with it and I am still connected with the National Union of Mineworkers. I hope that I shall not be thought to be too sentimental if I begin by saying that, having regard to the background of my life, I had hoped that I would never again see unemployed miners in Britain. I thought that we had had enough.
When I came to this House, I came here from fulfilling my responsibilities as President of the South Wales Miners' Federation. When I came here in 1936, one miner was on the scrap heap for every one in work, and that was how it had been for a long time. Then came the war, and immediately we began to scour the country for them. On the scrap heap in peacetime, suddenly, in time of war, they became important. Then, after the war, fortunately for this country—and how fortunate—a Labour Government were returned to power and the industry was nationalised.
The first thing I want to say about that is—and I say this to the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), who is, I think, of my generation and has been a manager in the industry; and I wonder whether he dare reject what I am about to say —how fortunate it is that we face the present situation with a nationalised industry. Suppose we had to face it with private ownership of the coal mines once
1144
again, with years of bitterness having made the relationships between management and men so poisonous that cooperation was impossible.
Fortunately for us, we face this situation, and the nation should be grateful for it, with a nationalised industry, a National Coal Board and a National Union of Mineworkers which are working together and will work together to mitigate this situation, to reduce as far as possible the number of miners who are unemployed and to prevent future unemployment.
Let me put the matter in its proper setting, because this is where the Government have a responsibility. I know something of the hopes and plans of the Coal Board, and that in the anthracite coalfield some pits are to be closed. I reject the temptation to speak about this at length, but I will say that this is a fine coalfield and that the fine men in it are producing the best anthracite in the world. I wish that the coalfield had been nationalised forty years ago, because, twenty-five or thirty years ago, it became the playground of City financiers, who came along and bought up old family concerns from the owners. We knew the owners, because these were old-fashioned family concerns.
These financiers paid them £4 for every £1 share that they held. Then they floated companies on the Stock Exchange and sold the shares at 21s. for every 20s. and made their profit. If one-tenth of that money had been spent on developing the anthracite mines we should not have unecomonic mines today. Eventually, we nationalised them. We had to nationalise them, many of them old, badly equipped; badly equipped because the money Which could have been used on developing them was wasted, thrown down the drain, through Stock Exchange dealings.
So the Coal Board began to organise and reconstruct, and planned two new pits to be sunk. They are the only two new pits we have sunk for a very long time, for nearly forty years. We had to wait for nationalisation to see new pits being sunk.
The tragedy of it is that if the Coal Board could have maintained the old pits in operation for another two years the men could have been absorbed in the new pits. I see the problem of the Coal

1145
Board. I am sure that the Board must be worried about it. It will need these men for the new pits. How will it get them, if the men are to be pushed out of the old pits and on to the road for these two years? The men will have gone, and they will never come back. I do not advise them to come back—unless there is a real assurance that if they give their life to the industry the Government of the day will follow financial and economic policies which, with the imaginative plan of the Coal Board for development, will give the men and their sons a real chance of a reasonable living and security.
I blame the Government for the situation with which the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers are confronted. The Government's policy of economic stagnation bears the major responsibility for what the Board is now having to do.
I read in the Press today—and I hope that my hon. Friends who are concerned about this will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and be able to develop this matter further, if they wish, as I am sure they will—that in addition to the 30 pits that we have already heard about, and which are to be closed in Scotland, another 10 are to close in Scotland. I do not know how many more there are to be in Wales.
Let me admit quite frankly that here we are facing two problems. We are facing, first, the problem of recession, of the economic policy of stagnation. The mining industry would respond and benefit at once if we had a real policy of expansion by the Government. That is a problem that the nation can deal with very shortly by getting rid of the Government and having a Labour Government to do the job. However, I recognise that we are facing another problem, that of alternative fuels.
I want, therefore, to put some considerations about that to the Government, if there is any use in putting anything to them in their declining years—or declining weeks, I hope. I put to them the problem which we have of alternative fuels. There is the problem of where we should work coal and what proportion of deep-mined and opencast coal should be worked.
I hope that none of us will consider that this is just a problem of bald economic facts. I hope that when miners
1146
are unemployed because their pits are closed we shall not desecrate their land by opencast workings. Believe me, I know the problem. It is one to which attention should be given, as I hope it will be, by the Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Government.
Then there is the problem of oil and coal, and of atomic energy and coal. We are at the beginning of great changes in the types and uses of fuel. Possibly, the only way to deal with this problem, and to deal with it so as to do the least damage to the nation and the men affected and their communities, is to have a realistic, planned, phased national policy for fuel and power.
I was interested in what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power said the other day. He said that coal must pay its way against oil and the rest. Very well. Take the shackles off. If the shackles had not been there, if the doctrine beloved of hon. Members opposite had not so influenced their policy, the policy of the open market, what would the market have been for coal in the last ten years? What would it have been for the anthracite miners? If the Coal Board had had the right to export anthracite to Canada for dollars the Pits at Cwmllynfell would not be shutting now.
We had a reply the other day which jerked my memory back some years. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, answering an hon. Friend of mine, said that the Admiralty had bought some coal—not a very large amount, 5,000 tons or thereabouts—from Poland. It had bought it for £4 per ton. I can remember when coal from Poland in the 'thirties was £4 a ton less than Durham, Yorkshire, or South Wales coal, because it was subsidised. It was conveyed from the Silesian fields through Gdynia, a distance of 365 miles at a lower freight charge than that for coal sent from Porth to Cardiff, a distance of 12 miles. Those exports were subsidised by as much as £2 or £2 10s. a ton. The declining market because of the depression in the inter-war years brought the whole European coal industry down and brought the South Wales and Durham pithead price so low that miners were working for six days for less than £2.

1147
Are we to have this fuel war now? If we are, then, believe me, the country will not make a tremendous industrial economic advance. In a war of that kind the nation will not gain. The coal industry of neither country will gain. Therefore, I reinforce very strongly indeed the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) in the debate the other day, that it is now the duty of the Government, in conjunction with the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board and all the people interested in the other fuel industries, to have a real plan. If we have that fuel war, in the end it is the nation which will pay for it, all our people. I urge that very strongly upon the Government.
I return to the problem of which I have spoken already. I shall not detain the House much longer in speaking of it, but there are one or two aspects of the problem to which I wish to refer. I am speaking of the continued unemployment. It is the hard-hit areas to which I especially wish to draw attention. I am glad to see the Minister of Education here. I see that we are going to debate rival plans for expanding education when we come back in the New Year. We are to expand education? For what? Let me tell the House the position now in my area. This week not only will this House adjourn, but the schools will close for the Christmas vacation.
Juvenile employment committees in Wales have met in the last ten days and have made pronouncements. For example, the Advisory Committee for Youth Employment in Wales, presided over by a distinguished member of our community for whom we all have the deepest respect, Dame Olive Wheeler, had a report before it at its meeting in Cardiff last Wednesday.
The meeting was reported in the Western Mail on Thursday, 11th December. I hold out the paper for hon. Members to see. It is about the only stronghold left in Wales for hon. Members opposite. They had, therefore, better have a look at it. This is not the Daily Worker or the Daily Herald. The Western Mail had this headline:
"Job prospects for Christmas school-leavers bleak."
1148
This is what the paper reported:
"Of the 2,300 summer term school-leavers registered as unemployed last August, 600 were still without jobs…"
Mr. G. Lindgren: Tory rule.
Mr. Griffiths: Three months of unemployment for boys and girls of 15 years of age. This is how they begin their life. Is this how we start them off in the middle of this twentieth century?
Mr. Lindgren: Tory freedom.
Mr. Griffiths: The youth employment officer in my county and my town, Llanelly, said that there were 250 boys and girls due to leave school at Christmas, and he added:
"Apart from casual vacancies, there is almost nothing for them."
There is nothing for boys in 1958 in a country where, the Prime Minister says, we have "never had it so good."
The officer reported to the employment committee that two local firms, whom I will not name now, though I can supply the names if required, had between them 17 vacancies for apprentices and there were 200 applications for the jobs. The officer comments, in conclusion, and I hope that the Minister of Education will remember this when he speaks in the debate on education after the Christmas Recess:
"I can see a most difficult period for the boys who are taking P1 and P2 exams."
We all know that in technical education we are falling behind.
Here are our boys, and, I hope, our girls, taking advantage of education. We are very proud of them. We have had Labour at work on their behalf for a generation. They pass these examinations, but when they leave school at Christmas the employment officer says, "I am sorry, but there is nothing for you." That is the situation which causes concern on the threshold of this Christmas.
Recently, the Government brought forward a new Bill to help the badly hit industrial areas. We on this side of the House welcome it as far as it goes, but what is needed is not merely a Bill but firm and sustained action. The overall percentage of unemployed in all the

1149
Development Areas was 70 per cent. greater than in the rest of the country in October, 1958. In October, 1957, there were 79,900 unemployed in the Development Areas and now there are 153,300. I say to the President of the Board of Trade that what we want is not a new Bill. The old Act would have done had tough action been taken about the issue of industrial development certificates.
The proportion of approved industrial building in these areas, expressed as a percentage of the total approved throughout the country, was 30 per cent. under Labour, but under Conservative Government it has been less than 20 per cent. In the first nine months of 1958, it was 18 per cent. We have a new Measure, but we have not the industries and the factories. Indeed, we seem to be losing ground. I say, therefore, that this Christmas we need to face, in a way in which we have never faced them before, the anxiety and the challenge of unemployment.
I should like to set out, as I see it, the challenge of our day. It is a challenge to hold our place in this modern world as one of the leading nations, to maintain more than 50 million people in this crowded island, and to sustain our standard of life. To do all this we shall need to use fully and efficiently all our resources, human and material.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has rendered a great service to the country by recognising this challenge. I believe that our party has recognised in its programmes that if we are to survive as a leading nation, to sustain our standard of life and build it up, we have to find a way—and this is a challenge for all of us —by which we can secure economic expansion, increased production, higher productivity, full employment and stability.
It is not only a challenge to those of us who sit in the House and to the country. As a political student, I think that this is the challenge of Communism to the democratic world. I hope that we have all noted Mr. Khrushchev's statement. When I read it I could picture him— because I had once the privilege and opportunity of meeting him on a famous occasion—as he said:
"The uncommitted world will vote for us with their stomachs."
1150
This is the challenge, and it is because I sincerely believe that we can make a real contribution and give a lead to the democratic world on how to combine democratic freedom with economic expansion, full employment and a high standard of living, that I want to see our country leading. It is not leading now. It is lagging behind. I believe that our people have made up their minds that they will not tolerate long-term unemployment again. I say to all parties, including the Liberal Party, that the people have made up their minds about it, and they are right. This is a challenge to us. They say, "The politicians, the Government and the industrialists must create an economic system which provides full employment." They will not tolerate unemployment, and they will not tolerate a Government that tolerate unemployment.
This, therefore, is the challenge. The charge that we on this side of the House lay against the Government is that this is their greatest failure, because what we have had from them is economic stagnation, reduced production, unemployment, and increased prices. They are failing all down the line. I believe that the answer to these problems lies in the application of the principles of democratic Socialism to our society. The only alternative to Communism is not Tory freedom—that does not mean a thing. The only real alternative, here and in Western Europe and, indeed, everywhere, is a planned society in which democratic freedom and the planned use of our resources are combined in a stable economy.
What a chance we are missing in 1958. With the skill, knowledge and traditions of our workmen equal to any in the world, we ought to be ahead of the world. Our charge against the Government is that with these rich material and human resources at their command they are letting the country down. I believe that the country will say soon to them, "Get out and make way for a Government that will be worthy of our country and of our people."
4.49 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has the experience, the sincerity of feeling, and the eloquence to bring before us, as I think no other right

1151
hon. or hon. Member in the House could do, the real tragedy of unemployment. At this time of the year particularly, it is a very good thing indeed that we should have our hearts moved, as the right hon. Gentleman has certainly moved us on this side of the House, and I think his own right hon. and hon. Friends, about this problem. I would like to say to him that we are grateful for the opportunity to give an interim report on the employment situation, and for the way in which he has put such sincerity into the words that he has spoken.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I are to share the giving of the interim report. We had thought, wrongly, that the right hon. Gentleman would wind up the debate. We had anticipated, rightly, that the right hon. Gentleman would talk about the coal industry, of which he knows so much, and that he would also raise the difficult problem of the school leavers. My right hon. Friend will speak about both those subjects, so I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will acquit me of discourtesy if I leave them to him.
One thing that I hope we shall do in this debate is to refuse to give any colour to the idea that there is the remotest chance that in this country we are going back to the conditions of mass unemployment before the war. Here I would like to quote the Leader of the Opposition, who has said that he does not see the chance of a deep slump. I believe that no one who has studied the economic prospects thinks that, and, therefore, I am sure it is a real duty not to stir fears unless we think they are justified; and I do not think that fears on this scale can conceivably be justified.
The national figure for those out of work has risen to about five out of 200, more or less 2½ per cent. We all know, however, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to say it again, that national figures have not much meaning to the man who is out of work through no fault of his own. So we do not wish to harp upon the level of national unemployment as being less than in-other countries, or anything of that kind. We wish to keep in our minds this afternoon the men and women who are out of work. My right hon. Friend made a forecast that the national figure would rise during the
1152
winter months before it improved. I should think that the number of those anxious about their jobs rises faster still. and, therefore, we want to keep them in our minds as well as those people who are out of work now.
The interim report can conveniently be divided into two broad categories of unemployment. There is the national level and there are the local areas of high and persistent unemployment. I know that the national level affects the local areas, but it would be convenient if I could deal with them separately. A number of events have taken place in the six or seven weeks since we last debated this subject which affect the national level of unemployment and the outlook for it. On the gloomy side I would put, first, the continued failure to reach an agreement with the Hong Kong textile industry. This is a matter of great regret to the Government. An agreement is vital to our cotton industry and the delay is preventing growth of confidence in reconstruction plans for the industry.
I can only tell the House that the gap between the two sides appears to us now to be very narrow. I should like to pay a tribute to all the people in Lancashire for their patience during this exhausting negotiation, which has gone on week after week, and the end of which is still not in sight. We believe, however, that before 31st December the industry's delegation will have achieved what it has so skilfully and so patiently tried to secure.
The second uncertainty is that which hangs over the future of trade in Europe. I would like to tell the House that the British proposals for reciprocity and the enlargement of quotas have very great support, not only from all the eleven countries but from many people and some Governments inside the six Common Market countries. Those proposals are now being studied, and if they are accepted next month I think that the way would be clear for a resumption of the negotiations for a multilateral and non-discriminatory arrangement between the six Common Market countries and the rest of the O.E.E.C. members.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to put two questions arising out of what he has just said? First, supposing that, unfortunately, the negotiations with Hong Kong do not succeed by 31st December,

1153
have Her Majesty's Government any plans for dealing with the situation in Lancashire? Secondly, why was it necessary for the discussions in O.E.E.C. to be adjourned for a whole month at this very critical moment when the Common Market is to come into operation on 1st January?
Sir D. Eccles: In answer to the first question, we had better wait and see whether we get the agreement. Obviously, one would not want to say exactly what would be done until we know the conditions, which I hope will not arise, in which the negotiations fail.
In answer to the second question, we did not want the negotiations in O.E.E.C. to be adjourned for so long, but it was represented to us—and I think there was substance in this—that the proposals we put forward, with the strong support of members of the eleven nations, require a certain amount of study, and that as the Christmas holidays were coming so soon it was reasonable to give the seventeen countries—sixteen other than ourselves—a month in which, through the experts of the O.E.E.C., a full report could be made on our proposals.
As a matter of fact, I think that the more they are looked at the more attractive they will prove to be to most people in Europe. Therefore, I do not think that we shall lose very much by having fifteen days of discrimination.
On that point, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who is not here at the moment, but who raised the point after Question Time today, that the O.E.E.C. Ministerial Council has de-restricted all the principal documents concerned with the work of the Maudling Committee and they will now be published.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Hong Kong agreement is vital, and I need not expand upon that. He has also said that the agreement is not yet in sight. Will he say whether he has made it clear in Hong Kong that, if agreement is not reached, Her Majesty's Government have power, and will use that power, to make sure that what is vital to the Lancashire cotton trade does not go by default?
Sir D. Eccles: We have not thought it wise to negotiate with a threat. We hope to get a voluntary agreement.
On the good side, there are factors which I think outweigh the two gloomy ones I have mentioned. The first is that the recovery in the United States has continued strongly. No one, I believe, would have thought that the sterling area could have weathered the recession. although it was mild in the United States, as well as we have done. Now the activity in America is turning upwards and that is bound shortly to affect the trend of world trade.
Secondly, the reflationary measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken here are beginning to work their way through the economy. We think that they are adequate in present circumstances. I say "beginning to work their way through the economy" because an interesting fact is that building in 1958 will end at the peak level, that is the same level as in the highest year that we have ever had, and work looks like continuing at that level next year.
The third factor is that British exports have been better than we expected. Of these three good factors which are operating to produce an expansion in our economy, I put the better trend in exports as the most important. About half the increase in the unemployment between the figure today and that of a year ago is due to the decline in the volume of exports—well over 100,000 jobs. That decline was, in turn, the result of a contraction of world trade which, after all, has affected all countries, not just us.
The Government hold very strongly the view that the state of the balance of payments is the barometer to watch when deciding how fast to stimulate production and, therefore, employment in our economy. If we were to put employment in front of the balance of payments and set out to raise production at any cost we should destroy the foundations of high and stable employment. As far as I understand, the party opposite seems to believe that one can force up production in this country without danger to the £ by increasing exchange controls. I do not find anything in experience to justify that view.
When one looks at the countries today in the free world which have detailed and

1155
comprehensive exchange control, I think it is true to say that they are precisely the countries whose economies are in a precarious condition, and that we would not wish to exchange our position for theirs. Exchange control does not stop rising prices at home. What more control would do would be to undermine confidence in the £. Therefore, our view is that we can safely expand here provided that exports are sufficient to pay for the extra imports that will be required.
A new fact since we last debated unemployment is that exports are better than forecast and, therefore, if the improvement continues we shall have a solid basis for pushing ahead faster with our internal expansion. The export results which we are getting now—the October-November results—arise from orders placed a good many months ago. In the Board of Trade, when looking at these figures, we feel that the results they show reflect the export drive which has been gathering momentum over a number of years.
There is a good deal of evidence to show that British industry generally is putting more emphasis on its overseas selling organisations. One can quote such examples as the Dollar Export Council, which held a remarkable conference at Eastbourne at the beginning of the month, attended by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, where, I think, they must have found not only criticism and sound advice but a general feeling of optimism about the expansion of British sales to the dollar area.
Then we recently entertained a mission of German retailers who left this country saying that there was great scope for increasing their purchases here. Indeed, I think that there is a very good chance of a substantial expansion in Anglo-German trade. What is very interesting is that when we examine the November export figures, we find the increase in exports is spread more or less evenly all round the world, including the sterling area, and that is something which we had not anticipated at this time. It is very encouraging, because if that trend continues not only will it give more work to those involved in the production and the transport of goods, but, as I said before, it will lay the foundation for a higher internal demand. A higher internal demand will help us to deal with problems
1156
of local unemployment, to which I will now turn.
The emergence in these areas of high and persistent unemployment, which causes us such very great concern on both sides of the House, is not wholly due to the increase in national unemployment. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly himself said, we live in a technical age in which there are bound to be many and frequent changes in the pattern of industry. We get the manmade fibres eating into the market for the older types of textile materials. We get paper replacing jute sacks, we get more machinery on the farm, which has immensely cut down the labour required for harvesting. We see changes in another field: in the defence programme, aircraft orders are no longer being renewed. All these factors produce very severe local problems, arising not out of general lack of demand but out of changes of one sort or another.
I am sure that it must be true that the rate and unexpectedness of these changes are much more likely to increase than decline as the scientific age develops. From that it follows that we must have really efficient permanent machinery for dealing with this kind of local unemployment, as was well put in the Manchester Guardian leader this morning. I believe that the best way to describe the improvements in that machinery would be to go through the main areas of local unemployment to see what we are doing there.
I should like to take, first, the most difficult and the most worrying case of all. Northern Ireland has had considerably higher unemployment than Great Britain for a very long time.
Mr. Lindgren: And a permanent Tory Government.
Sir D. Eccles: The Tory Government are not responsible for a number of factors which I will, in a moment, recite. The first is geography. We cannot get away from the fact that there is a sea to cross. Both for fuel, raw materials and for the market for their products, the people of Northern Ireland have to pay extra transport costs. We have always to reckon with that.
Northern Ireland has had to rely, not unnaturally, on old industries like agriculture and textiles, both of which are undergoing severe change and losing

1157
labour not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain and, I should say, in all the older industrial countries. Shipbuilding and ship repairing, for which Belfast is famous, are very dependent on the state of world trade.
Then—and I think that this has never been sufficiently estimated—there is in Northern Ireland a comparatively great lack of employment in the service industries. There is only one very large area of population, which is Belfast, and it is only when there are very large congregations of people that we get much employment in shops, transport, service industries, banking, insurance, and so on. The proportion of people employed in those industries in Northern Ireland is substantially lower than that in Great Britain. That is a considerable handicap. Finally, there is the fact that the population increases quickly.
To overcome those difficulties special help has been given. The Northern Ireland Government are responsible for employment in Ulster, but this House has always felt that it had a special duty to do what it could to help them with their very intractable problem. But they are responsible, and it is through them that help is given from this Parliament. Its main form is in subsidies for the building of factories. I can illustrate how much that subsidy is by pointing to some of the advertisements which one sees in the daily Press and in weekly magazines, like the Economist, showing fine new factories for rent in Northern Ireland at 9d. per square foot.
Mr. Lindgren: We pay for them.
Sir D. Eccles: Yes, and I think that we should.
Mr. Lindgren: We subsidise industry, but not the worker.
Sir D. Eccles: That is the way to get the worker a job. The economic cost would be about 4s. 9d. per square foot, and the cheapest rate at which we let factories on Development Area estates in Great Britain is 2s. 9d. per square foot, so there is a substantial inducement. That has been a material cause in the setting up of many new industries in Northern Ireland. In this year nine new projects and five extension schemes have been approved and started. They will provide employment for 5,000 people. In addition, I.C.I. is to build a Terylene
1158
factory there, which will provide employment for at least 1,500.
But we cannot conceal the fact that as more areas in Great Britain make insistent claims for new industries—claims which are very well-founded—it becomes more difficult to persuade firms to go across the water to Northern Ireland. The more people there are in the queue the more difficult it is. I would tell those firms who are considering going to Northern Ireland that rut only will they find excellent labour there but, if they inquire from those firms who have taken the journey across the sea, I think that in all cases they will get most enthusiastic reports of conditions and of those firms experiences.
Now I come to the administrative pattern for dealing with Northern Ireland. I shall go on to deal with those for Scotland, Wales and England afterwards. The administrative pattern for Northern Ireland is the Northern Ireland Government in charge, helped by the Development Council, under the chairmanship of Lord Chandos and, in Great Britain, the Board of Trade doing all it can to bring to the notice of firms who give us a reasonable hope that they might move the advantages of going to Northern Ireland, and, in this way, backing up the Northern Ireland Government. That work, which has been very difficult in the last twelve months, will be eased as the expansion in our own economy takes place.
I now turn to Scotland. I understand that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland might intervene in the debate. Looking at the position from the Board of Trade, it is certain that Scotland has suffered probably more than her share as a result of the technical changes of the last two or three years, and also from the fall-off in exports.
Mr. George Thomas: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Minister for Welsh Affairs will also intervene in the debate?
Sir D. Eccles: I had a nice piece about my noble Friend, Lord Brecon, which I am coming to in a moment.
Mr. Lindgren: Has the Minister for Welsh Affairs got in the other place already?
Sir D. Eccles: I am sorry; I thought that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was referring to Lord Brecon. In any case, I shall have something nice to say about my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs.
Scotland is facing the same problem as Belfast in the matter of ship repairing, which is a very competitive business. When the carrying trade of the world declines, as it has done rather sharply during the last eighteen months, competition for the ships which require repair becomes exceedingly strong. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that our yards should be efficient and able to quote against foreign competitors. I know that some may be able to do so, but at present it is a highly competitive business.
There are also a number of industries, such as jute, iron castings, and the handling of goods at ports, which happen to be concentrated in a quite small area of Scotland, and they are all affected by major technical changes. Then there is steel. It seems that, both in respect of the falling off in export orders for steel and the adverse results of the destocking of steel in the hands of those who have hoarded it for the last ten years, Scotland's steel industry has had to take an extra share, which has been a rather severe blow. But looking ahead, the increase in capacity—in the form of the new strip mill to be built by Colvilles—will help the Board of Trade and others who are concerned to attract to Scotland new types of industry using steel.
Hon. Members opposite have for long been aware of the fact that the range of steel products in Scotland is too narrow to make it easy to get certain types of firm to go there, but in a few years' time that will change.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: Many of our main competitors have their yards subsidised nationally and, other things being equal, it is impossible for our shipbuilders and repairers to compete on equal terms. Is it not possible for us to get an international agreement which would stop this subsidising by foreign countries, which makes it impossible for us to compete with them?
Sir D. Eccles: That is a good point, but I am not familiar with the degree of foreign subsidy. I will convey that
1160
point to my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. whose responsibility shipyards are.
We shall go on advertising the very great merits of Scotland as a place to start a factory, and we shall hold out financial assistance. The administration pattern there is the Board of Trade, responsible for the distribution of industry policy generally and then, under the Secretary of State, the Minister of State for Scotland, who is a noble Lord and has great opportunities, which he is using to the full in the Board of Trade, to get round and represent to us the needs of certain districts. Then there is the Scottish Council, under the chairmanship of Lord Polwarth. We have the Board of Trade at the centre, the Minister of State in the field, and the Scottish Council helping.
Mr. William Ross: It is all very well for the Minister to tell us that things will be all right when new industry is attracted to Scotland in three or four years' time. The Minister of Labour will tell us that there are now 100,000 people unemployed in Scotland. What will be done this winter?
Sir D. Eccles: We must hope that the measures for expansion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is what is happening, as we think. The economy is beginning to expand again.
Mr. Ross: Nonsense.
Sir D. Eccles: We must wait and see how these measures work.
I want now to turn to Wales. The account of the tinplate industry which the right hon. Member for Llanelly gave, is all too familiar to us, and I shall shortly mention one or two projects which are helping to improve that situation. Wales —I come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—also has the advantage of having a Minister of State for Welsh Affairs. I believe that some people still think that the appointment of the Minister of State was a piece of window-dressing. I can tell any hon. Member who thinks that is so that it he would care to sit in the Board of Trade, in its Distribution of Industry Division, he would get a very different impression. My noble Friend is at us every day of the week about the problems

1161
of Welsh industry, and the co-operation between us has already brought results.
Let us take South-West Wales, which is the part of Wales from which the right hon. Member for Llanelly comes. Three projects which have been settled already this year will bring about 5,000 jobs. The one at Swansea—for the Pressed Steel Company—is the largest factory which the Board of Trade has ever built at any time. There is also one in the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency, Llanelly, which will employ 500 people and another at Pontardulais. For all of those projects the Board of Trade is building premises, and we shall continue to hold out to anyone who will come to that part of the country finance for building premises or improving old premises.
In North Wales we are looking most to D.A.T.A.C. finance under the new Act, about which I will say a word in a minute, to attract new industry. The expansion of the steel industry at Newport, which is the other half of the scheme I have already mentioned, will provide employment for a great many men from the valleys. As far as I can see, Newport is probably the town with the most prosperous future in the whole of the United Kingdom. The expansion that will go on there will greatly affect the surrounding areas and provide secondary employment. The pattern of organisation for Wales is, again, the Board of Trade at the centre, my noble Friend Lord Brecon in the field and independent help coming from the Development Council under Sir Miles Thomas.
Last, but not least, I come to England.
Mr. G. Thomas: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to leave his reference to Wales without saying something about the South Wales ports, particularly about Cardiff, which is becoming derelict through neglect?
Mr. S. O. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that he and the Board of Trade will do all they can to induce new industries to settle down in Wales, but will he please say—he knows that I have a very good reason for putting this question to him—how he reconciles that with the refusal of the Department to allow extensions to existing works in South Wales.
1162
and that in an area which has had from 4 to 5 per cent. unemployment for the last two years?
Sir D. Eccles: I am going to deal with the extension of factories in Development Areas later in my speech, when the hon. Gentleman may hear something to his advantage. I am now turning to England.
Mr. Thomas: What about the Welsh ports?
Sir D. Eccles: I am also going to say something about dock extensions, but I propose to group them all together later, if I may. We need coal exports. If we could only get coal exports again that would be very helpful to the Welsh ports.
England has neither a Secretary of State nor a Minister of State for English Affairs. How well we should do if we had a Secretary of State! Therefore, we in the Board of Trade have thought it right to make some new, special arrangements for dealing with local unemployment in England both at the centre—which we do for the United Kingdom as a whole—and in the field. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will act as the co-ordinator of the day-to-day work. I have relieved him of some of the duties which a Parliamentary Secretary normally carries out and I have strengthened considerably the staff which will assist him in his work on the distribution of industry side.
My hon. Friend co-ordinates the Departments which have an interest, and there are a very great many of them, in the handling of local unemployment. He has begun a series of visits to D.A.T.A.C. areas. He has been to the Isle of Thanet, to East Anglia and he will be going to Northern Ireland. He will devote a considerable part of the Christmas Recess to this work on the spot. He tells me already that it is extremely valuable to talk to the local people, many of whom do not understand what offers are open to them under the Act which was passed last summer.
There is also, I think, very little doubt that perhaps the most effective job which the Board of Trade has to do is to persuade firms which are applying for an industrial development certificate to go somewhere where we would like them to go. That means interviewing the top executives of the firms concerned. We have also begun to interview the boards

1163
of directors of firms which have not yet applied for an industrial development certificate, but which we have some reason to think have expansion plans in mind. I believe that it will work out better if we can get the idea of going to these areas thought about before firms choose a site which we afterwards have to say is not a suitable one. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is doing that and I have brought back from the regional organisation an officer to assist him in this work.
The instrument which we have for the persuasion of a firm to go where first it does not want to go is money.
Mr. Percy Wells: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he tell me whether the Parliamentary Secretary will be coming to the Isle of Sheppey, where we have over 5 per cent. unemployment at the moment and where the dockyard has closed?
Sir D. Eccles: My hon. Friend saw the people from Sheppey last week at the Admiralty, and we have that problem very much under consideration at the moment.
The Act which we passed last summer is taking, and was bound to take, a little time to get into operation. The reason for that is that we are offering public money to help build or equip a factory, and there has to be an investigation before public money can be spent. There are three main criteria. The first is that there must be a reasonable chance of making a commercial success of the project. I should not think that anyone would quarrel with that. The second is that there has to be evidence that all the capital required cannot be raised through ordinary channels on the requisite terms.
What, in fact, that means is something like this. A man might be able to get the money at a suitable rate of interest in order to build his factory on the Great West Road, but if he says, "All right, I will build it in Cornwall," he may find that the lender thinks the risk is greater and that he cannot get all the money or cannot get it at the right rate. Then the D.A.T.A.C. comes in and, quite properly, I think, gives that man some assistance.
Thirdly, the object must provide a fair amount of employment for the money.
1164
To give an example, I do not think that the D.A.T.A.C. would approve a loan to build a cold store where only one man was employed. Those are sensible criteria, but it takes a number of weeks before an examination can be completed. We have greatly simplified the questions asked of applicants and as a result of the increase in the staff in the Parliamentary Secretary's division much more help can be given to applicants to make out their case and bring it forward speedily. The results will soon begin to come through the pipeline, and I should say that by the spring we will have quite a fair amount to tell.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman has described the possible effects of the Act that was passed in July this year. Surely, however, the main purpose of that Act was to extend to the high unemployment areas outside the Development Areas the powers already existing within the Development Areas. If this is to be of such advantage to the areas outside the Development Areas, why in the last seven years, when the Government have had these powers, have they not been more widely used within the Development Areas or had better results?
Sir D. Eccles: Many of the old Development Areas have had no problem of unemployment in the last seven years.
Mr. Fraser: Lanarkshire has 8·5 per cent.
Sir D. Eccles: It may have now. The hon. Member was talking about the past.
Mr. Fraser: It has never been less than 4 per cent.
Sir D. Eccles: I now want to say something about docks.
Mr. Fraser Mr. Fraser rose—
Sir D. Eccles: I am coming to factory building in Development Areas in a moment, but I should like to say something now about docks.
Mr. J. Grimond: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of D.A.T.A.C., this is a matter of importance in the North of Scotland, where it is one of our main hopes of getting small industry. I have had a helpful letter from the Minister of Labour, and I should like to ask two questions.

1165
First, is it out of the question that the Act might help small businesses which are in difficulty and may not be able to maintain employment? The President of the Board of Trade has said that its normal purpose is for increasing employment. Some industries find it difficult to maintain their existing employment.
Secondly, will there be any comparable service in Scotland to that which is to be offered by the Parliamentary Secretary to England? In other words, will anyone make a tour of the North of Scotland? It would be most helpful to interview people who are in doubt about how to proceed under the Act.
Sir D. Eccles: My noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Forbes, will make a special study of the North of Scotland. In reply to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I do not think we can give loans to firms who have made losses simply to make up their losses. If a firm is viable—that is to say, if it can show that it can continue to employ people—I think there is no reason why it should not put up a case; and I hope that the committee would look at it sympathetically.
To return to docks, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his Budget speech to our willingness to help dry dock projects. These seem to take some time to come forward, but I can say that of thirteen projects for which preliminary inquiries were made we have now received five firm applications for assistance. Of those, one—the Prince of Wales Dry Dock Company, in Swansea—has already received approval. Another application is just "on the boil" under negotiation, and three more are under consideration. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) would, I think, agree with me in regretting that neither the big nor the little dock in Greenock has yet reached the stage of a firm application. Nevertheless, we still have hopes.
Mr. A. Robens: Does this apply also to the proposed dry-dock at Belfast in Northern Ireland?
Sir D. Eccles: I am not sure whether that would come under the same form of assistance that we give to factory buildings. but I will inquire into that and let the right hon. Gentleman know.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a possibility that this application for the large dock in Greenock will be submitted next week? Am I under a misapprehension in believing that the plan for the smaller dock in the East India Harbour at Greenock has been submitted and is, in fact, under consideration?
Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells me that the application for the large project is coming through this week. I have been away and did not know the up-to-date details, but I am glad to hear it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will let the hon. Member know about the small project if he intervenes later in the debate. I have been looking forward eagerly to both of these as a help to the difficult situation in Greenock.
I want now to come to factory buildings and extensions to factories owned by the Board of Trade in Development Areas. We have just made fresh inquiries in all these areas to see whether any of our tenants have found extension projects to be started immediately. As a result, in the last week or two £1 million of extensions have been approved in the Development Areas. The House might like to know the details, which are of interest. These projects were judged on their immediacy and their merit. The various totals amount to £180,000 in Wales, £360,000 in Scotland and £480,000 on the North-East Coast.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what areas in Wales are covered by that figure?
Sir D. Eccles: I should require notice of that. I know of the hon. Member's case of the Hoover Company, but I should like notice of that. Perhaps we can give him a reply at the end of the debate.
Private investment depends largely on the views of boards of directors of the future state of demand for their products. As the economy is now expanding and the demand for their products is increasing, I think it will not be long before that is reflected, as it always has been in the past, in an increase in private investment.
I am sorry to have kept the House so long, but it is important to give as much information as one can about a subject of this kind. We can, I think, send out

1167
an interim report from the Board of Trade in two parts. The first is that an expansion in the economy is on the way. How far it can go will depend upon the level of the export trade. That is why keeping prices stable and our goods competitive is so important to the solution of all unemployment problems. Secondly, we can say that the administration of Government policy in respect of local areas of unemployment has been greatly strengthened and improved. This is a dull subject but I am certain that getting right the day to day methods for dealing with this problem and particularly giving more publicity to D.A.T.A.C. will bring results before long.
I join with the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. S. Silverman: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to what looks like being the end of his speech, may I remind him that so far he has said not a word about Lancashire. except the Hong Kong agreement, which he has not yet got? He has not said a word of it in his review of all the local areas. He has said that he is inviting firms to go to Northern Ireland, Scotland, to North Wales and to South Wales. Is Lancashire to come anywhere in the queue at all? Has the President anything to say about Lancashire?
Sir D. Eccles: We are trying to get a large factory to go to Merseyside at this moment. My hon. Friend is going there on one of his forthcoming visits. We certainly do not forget Lancashire, but I have taken a long time and one cannot review—I wish I could—every single area on the D.A.T.A.C. list.
Mr. Silverman: Why not say a word about it?
Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member must not draw me, or I shall never sit down.
I was greatly impressed by what the right hon. Member for Llanelly said at the end of his speech. Of course, he is right. This problem of managing an economy at full speed and preserving freedom is really the challenge, and I think it can be met. I am, however, certain that it cannot be met on a national scale alone. It requires not merely so much the economic planning which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned about our domestic
1168
economy: what it requires far more is high-level strategic planning among the great industrial nations of the free world and their understanding their duty to promote the economic development of the world.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: And planning with the Commonwealth.
Sir D. Eccles: And, of course, the Commonwealth, but that is part of the free world. The Commonwealth, as we saw at Montreal, is capable of giving an example to the rest of the free world. The free world as a whole must, however, follow that example if we are to have steady, high employment as part of our free society. That. I think, is within our grasp.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Jack Jones: The President of the Board of Trade has spent a considerable time in telling the unemployed man exactly nothing. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, one would have thought that we were debating what was possible and what was likely to be happening round about 1970. This debate, however, is not about unemployment that might be cured in ten years from now but unemployment as it affects the present-day unemployed and, more than the present-day unemployed, the hundreds of thousands of under-employed people.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who opened the debate, I do not want to hark back too much into the past. However, it will soon be Christmas Eve. I was one of those who came back from the First World War having served under the person who was for a long time the Father of this House. Once again, I say that he was a brave soldier and a gallant gentleman.
I found myself buying an engagement ring with my war gratuity, but it went into the pawn shop on Christmas Eve. 1926, to help feed children. I want to say no more about it, except please God that it does not happen this Christmas Eve to any of those who came back from the last lot; but I am afraid that it will. The Government must not try to shelve the blame on to anybody else.
"Let us wait and see", said the President of the Board of Trade; "let

1169
us all be nice about it, let us look upon this as something that has happened but is nobody's fault." Everybody knows in his heart of hearts that what has happened is a result of Government action and deliberate restrictionist practices. We have seen the cutting down of capital investment. The right hon. Gentleman said that we are spending as much this year as we did last year, but that is not the criterion. To spend the same amount of money next year as one spent last year does not mean that that money will employ the same number of people. Wages go up, as do the costs of raw materials. Fewer persons will work for £1 million spent now than for the same amount spent in December last year, or in any other year. It is sheer nonsense to argue that because we are spending as much this year as we did previously it will cure unemployment. To go on telling the House about what might be built and what might happen and what ought to be and what should be done is no palliative whatever to the present-day unemployed.
I know a little bit about my own industry of iron and steel. Last February, almost ten months ago—it was the last time I spoke in this House—I warned the Government what was coming. It is all In HANSARD. We were on the road to a terrible slump, and one hon. Member said "Nonsense".
Mr. E. H. C. Leather Mr. E. H. C. Leather (Somerset, North)indicated dissent.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Member shakes his head. It all depends what people think is a terrible slump. It is terrible to anybody who is unemployed. Apparently it does not matter if one looks at a list of a million unemployed. It is terrible in my constituency if one decent Britisher who wants to earn his daily bread is not earning it. In a world in which millions upon millions—thousands of millions, at least—are crying out for a higher standard of life, we in this country should be helping to create and provide them with it, and thereby create employment.
The Government cannot escape the facts. Every year since they came into office, relatively, as against the time when my party was in power, the production per capita has decreased annually. Ours
1170
was an expansionist policy. I know, of course, that there are difficulties. I am not one of those fools who think that if people went to the ballot box tomorrow and returned a Labour Government all our troubles would be over. Too many people, even of my own party, believe that to vote for Socialism means the opening of a gateway to less work and more results from it.
On the other hand, however, many thousands are now rightly expressing their views as a result of Government policy. I speak of the good, decent, honest workman—not the few, to whom I have referred, who want something for nothing, but the millions who are willing to give of their best.
We have heard today of the plight of mining. At one time, I ran almost a one-man band on Saturday mornings working in the coalfields. We were not getting sufficient coal to meet the needs of industry. The reason was the condition of the mines at that time; they were in a shocking condition. We wanted full employment, and we created the policy that produced it. The steel industry, which wanted more coal, could not get sufficient coal at that time. I asked the miners to work Saturday mornings, which they did. Those men have given of their best. What is the situation today? They find themselves by the hundreds being told, in effect, that there is no more work for them after a certain date. Despite all that has been done by the N.U.M., the Coal Board and the Government, and even what the Socialist Government could do when we were in power, men will be thrown into idleness.
I indict the Government for not looking ahead in time. They have been in power not five minutes but for seven years. They knew the change in the industrial pattern. If they did not, they ought to have known. Let me cite one or two instances. Great gun barrels, dreadnoughts and tanks have been going out of existence, and thank God they were. Sixty, 80 or 100 tons of steel is no longer required to be put into two gun barrels. There has been a change of pattern from conventional to atomic warheads, or defence weapons, if one cares to be nice about it. The change in pattern has meant that the Government should have been looking ahead and preparing for the day when all that production which

1171
is not now required for conventional weapons, for instance, should be deployed in other directions.
Government supporters rightly ask what we in the Labour Government did about it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has not told us much about what the Government are doing about it or intend to do. There should have been a great intensification of the roadway plan. More cars are being put on to the roads, and credit is due to the extent that we are creating them, but we are not building roadways big enough nor fast enough to accommodate the increased traffic coming on to the roads.
There are other means, such as bridge building and the sealing up of foul water-ways which should be put into conduit pipes. Then there is coast erosion. We never hear of that from the Government, but soon we shall be getting the stormy weather and reading in the papers about destruction caused in that way. All that coast defence work should be put into operation. Unemployed men could use tens of thousands of tons of steel in that job. Slag heaps should be taken away and put into the holes. These are things which the Government or even a Socialist Government, should be thinking about.
It is all very well to say, "Wait and see, there are only 600,000 of them". I defy contradiction when I say that there is not a steel producer in this country, working the same number of hours, producing as much steel as he was when working under the Labour Government. I challenge any hon. Member of the Government to deny that. One hon. Member opposite interjected "Nonsense" when I forecast this slump. I challenge him, or anyone else, to tell me of one production steel worker in any plant in Britain working the same number of hours producing crude steel as he was when we were in power.
These are the tests which should be applied. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head, but can he tell me where such a worker is doing it? I happen to be possessed of the facts. I attend meetings where reports are carefully gone into month by month and quarter by quarter, and I ought to know. The situation in South and West Wales is terrible. We know that there has to be automation. We know that in South Wales a man may
1172
press a button and do away with the work of fifty or sixty men. We expected that and knew it was to come. Provision should have been made to absorb those people by methods which can be used. New industries have been mentioned, but we cannot have new industries without there being an effect on old industries. How many polythene buckets and basins and runners for curtains are now produced? They all aid and abet the slump in steel.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) knows something about the Canadian aluminium industry. He knows more about it than I do because I am too busy minding my own business. He knows that that industry is busy and doing everything possible to replace steel by aluminium. There are also many natural causes why the demand for steel has fallen. The right hon. Gentleman tries to get away with it by saying that there has been destocking. Where were the stocks? I never thought the industry had them. If it had stocks the Government stand indicted on that. If steel was being bought from America at £60, £70, £80 or £90 a ton to allow people to stock to the extent that they can now disgorge some of the stocks, where has that all gone? They did not have excessive stocks. Stockists have run down their normal stocks because they bought with cheap money and are not going to replace with dear money arising from Government policy.
The Government say, in effect, that we should send a letter to young people saying, "You are going to be married at Christmas; use next year's unemployment pay on hire purchase now". That is the sort of thing that seems to be happening—at the best, "Mortgage next year's work if you are in work", and, at the worst, "Mortgage next year's unemployment pay on something you do not want to buy because that helps to offset present unemployment". The Government ought to know better than that.
The Government stand indicted on all the charges I have made. There is plenty of room for more schools to be built and plenty of room for more prisons. I have never been in one, even to visit it, and, please God, I shall not have to go as a visitor or an inmate, but every hon. Member knows that the prisons of this country

1173
are shocking places. I know something about military barracks. I have been in them. Some of them are "prehistoric" workhouses which have been given new names in order that it may sound better. The Government should get on with replacing some of them. That is something about which, in my personal opinion, our Government could have done something. This Government should get a move on now.
The right hon. Gentleman, in opening the debate, said something less than I am prepared to say. He said that Communism is at the gates. I, if I may humbly say so, have played my part in fighting it. It is still at the gates and it is in every workshop in the country. What the people of this world want are bread and freedom, but they are going to have bread without freedom if it means that they must have bread alone. This Government, or a Socialist Government, will have enough on their plate to give the people both. It is not just a job for a Government. I am not so daft, as they say in Lancashire, as to think that if we were returned to power tomorrow some Socialist Minister of Supply or President of the Board of Trade would have tucked away up his sleeve millions of orders for this, that or the other. He would not, but we have to create a climate of opinion, not only among ourselves but between trade unionists and people in control, and between ourselves and our French and other allies.
The right hon. Gentleman did not get very far last week. He got less far today. I am not surprised that he did not satisfy the "Froggies". He cannot satisfy decent-minded, pleasant-thinking Englishmen in the House of Commons. That is a big job. We have to get down to the job of letting the world at large know that we as a nation want to supply those who are entitled—made in God's image as we were—to the standard of life we want. I am sick and tired of listening to many of my own people who want the moon. If some were asked to give an hour's work for "Who Flung Dung" in China they would not be prepared to play. Let us get down to brass tacks. This Government have not long to stay in power. We on this side of the House have a job to do, to get our people to pull up their socks in order to get what
1174
Almighty God intended they should have —the right to live as decent citizens.
5.45 p.m.
Sir Alexander Spearman: I am always glad to speak after the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) because I know that it is very easy to hear almost every word he has said. He blames the economic policy of the Government for creating general unemployment, but I think he will agree that the problem is quite different from the problem presented by pockets of unemployment of which the causes, and therefore the remedies, must be quite different. It is not only in industrial areas that we get these pockets of unemployment. In seaside resorts, even those as prosperous and popular as those I represent, the degree of unemployment is far greater for a great part of the year than in most parts of the country.
I hope that the Act which we have recently passed, and to which the President of the Board of Trade referred, will do something substantial towards encouraging industrialists to put down suitable light industry factories in those areas where there are workers and amenities available instead of in the congested areas. In the industrial areas where industry is contracting—the areas about which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) often talks—I think there is a case for a measure of protection to be afforded by the Government where they are affected by foreign competition which they could not altogether have foreseen. But I think that that protection must only be of a temporary nature while they have the chance to put their house in order and to compete with any competition from anywhere, or, if they cannot do that, transfer their activities to other directions.
It would be possible to get into a position where everyone was being subsidised and everyone was being taxed to pay for it. It seems to me imperative that we should not try to freeze our economy in an obsolete direction. It should be the job of the Government to accelerate readjustment rather than to resist change. I believe that there has to be continual change in the pattern of production in this country so that we are always trying to produce those things those changing things—which other countries want. That I know is painful, but I believe that the

1175
economy of this country is still a growing economy and things that grow are apt to suffer pains. I think the test as to how far the Government can go, is, first, whether their action would materially raise costs, and, secondly, whether it might lead to retaliation by other countries which would reduce the volume of trade, because we in this country are, I suppose, more dependent than any other country on a great volume of world trade being maintained.
In the long run the real solution is to see that there are improved facilities for training and equipping men and women in middle-age to acquire new skills in new industries. Are the Government really doing all they can in that direction? Are the trade unions co-operating to the full extent? The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who opened the debate, attacked the Government, as did the hon. Member for Rotherham, on their economic and financial policy and its relationship to unemployment. I admit that the Government, by their own expenditure, by their fiscal and monetary policies very largely influence the pace of the economy and that this determines the amount of employment. If the pace is too slow and the demand is too little, we get unemployment.
All of us who are old enough remember what happened in the 1930s, and we are determined that it shall never happen again, but we should remember that, though in many ways bad, the 1930s were not wholly bad. It is sometimes forgotten that the increase in production was greater in the 1930s than ever before or since in this country.
Between 1932 and 1937 the volume of industrial production rose by 41 per cent. [Interruption.] Let me give the figures. The rate of production, expressed as a percentage of the volume of production, was 79 in 1929, a year for which a Labour Government had some responsibility. It fell in 1931 to 71 and it rose to 103 in 1937. During that time the standard of living of those more fortunate people who were employed rose more quickly than it had ever done in the country before. [Interruption.] I have said that that period was very bad, and that the higher standard of living for some was no consolation to those who were unemployed and no excuse, but it is as well to see the picture as a whole.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Gentleman forgetting that there was not a single day between 1929 and 1937 when there were fewer than 2 million unemployed?
Sir A. Spearman: I am not forgetting that in any way, but we must not necessarily assume that because there was heavy unemployment, which was extremely bad, there was also very bad production.
Mr. S. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore say that we have to look at the 1930s in a balanced way, and that if the misery and tragedy of 3 million people and their dependants because of unemployment enabled the rest of the nation to live well, we should take comfort from that fact?
Sir A. Spearman: The hon. Gentleman very often listens very carefully. He will recall that I said that it was no excuse for those bad times and no consolation to those who were unemployed, but I still think that it is a good thing to see the picture accurately.
I would refer to a very interesting article in the last issue of Economica, by Professor Phillips, whom I do not know but who, I understand, is one of the most remarkable economists that this country has produced since Lord Keynes. It goes a very long way to destroy what I believe is the fallacy of thinking that in order to prevent inflation and rising prices it is necessary to have heavy unemployment. He says that in order to have stable wages—a thing I hope no one would want —it would be necessary to have high unemployment, but that in order to have stable prices, assuming the normal increase in production and no abnormal rise in the prices of raw materials, and on the evidence of the last 100 years, a comparatively small percentage of unemployment would keep prices steady. He gives a smaller percentage than the 3 per cent. that was stated by the present Leader of the Opposition as the standard for full employment.
Mr. S. Silverman: My right hon. Friend never said that.
Sir A. Spearman: The hon. Member says that his right hon. Friend said nothing of the kind. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to column 319 of HANSARD of

1177
22nd March, 1951, in which the actual words appear in a Written Answer. I was not intending to read them out but as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that his right hon. Friend never said them, I will do so. They were given in a written reply and were:
"The Government has therefore decided to make a small allowance for the factors mentioned in paragraph 2 above"—
which was a paragraph dealing with the fact that counter measures against unemployment would take time to become effective—
"and to express the full employment standard of the United Kingdom as a level of unemployment of 3 per cent. at the seasonal peak—.. In the event of severe difficulties arising in the sphere of foreign trade it is possible that even a level of 3 per cent. unemployment might be exceeded for short periods."
Several Hon. Members: Read on.
Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) does not usually deceive either himself or the House of Commons, but at the moment he is doing both. My right hon. Friend, when he made that speech from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted was not talking about levels of unemployment or about economics at all, but about the actuarial figures on which the insurance funds were being calculated. If the hon. Gentleman were fair enough to read on for a couple of paragraphs he would put the thing in its proper light and would save himself and the rest of us from this red herring every time.
Sir A. Spearman: I have given the column in HANSARD and it has nothing to do with actuarial calculation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] I have had the full letter handed to me, a copy of which was sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Written Answer went on:
"The figure of 3 per cent. represents the maximum number of persons registered as unemployed on a given day in any month of the year, expressed as a percentage of the total number of employees. It applies of course to the United Kingdom as a whole and does not preclude the possibility that in particular areas the percentage of unemployment might exceed 3 per cent.".
Several Hon. Members: Read on.
Sir A. Spearman: I will read on. It goes on:
"A similar communication is being sent to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe arising out of the recommendation of the Consultative Assembly on this subject on 26th August, 1950."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 320.]
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is not making the matter any clearer or improving his own position in the least. He did not begin to quote from a letter. but from HANSARD. What my hon. and right hon. Friends invited him to do was to continue his own quotation and not to take refuge in somebody else's. I am sure that he knows very well indeed that what was under discussion then was not a definition of full employment but the actuarial basis on which insurance payments were being calculated.
Sir A. Spearman: On the contrary. When I started that part of my speech I said that I was quoting a Written Answer in HANSARD. The letter from which I quoted comes from the HANSARD report and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has to accept that fact. The right hon. Gentleman said in his letter that he and his Government would do all they could to avoid 3 per cent. unemployment but that he had to face the fact that these things could happen. It is as well to know what his opinion is.
I was saying that Professor Phillips goes a long way to destroy the fallacy that we must have heavy unemployment in order to keep prices stable. As I said, if demand is too little we have the unemployment which I hope and believe we shall never suffer again on a very large scale, but, equally, if the pace is too fast and demand is too great, we have inflation. Inflation is such a misused word that I should like to say what I mean by it. I mean by inflation a state in which the increases in the income of everyone taken together are greater than the increases in the amount of goods available to be bought.
If that occurs then employers do not hesitate to give more wages because they know that they can put the cost on to the price. The unions do not hesitate to demand more. In fact, they almost have to demand more wages when they know quite well that the employers will grant the increase, even though they might think that it is not good for them in the lone run. The result is that prices must rise.

1179
That, as we all know—no one disputes this—causes great hardship, particularly to those who can bear it least. But it could be worse than the hardship which we have suffered in the past. We have had inflation in this country but we have been saved from disaster—although we have been near it once or twice, in 1947 and 1951—by the fact that other countries were inflating too. If inflation were only in this country there would be not only hardship and high prices but absolute disaster.
I therefore believe that the main task of a Government in economic affairs is to see that there is a proper balance between the money incomes of the country and the national resources. That means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to walk a tightrope and lean one way or the other with changing circumstances. Hon. Members opposite complain about the Government changing their policy, but they must change it as circumstances change. If I were driving a motor car on a straight road I could steer a straight course, but if I were driving round corners, as sometimes happens in this country, I should have to pull first one way and then the other.
I would say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has greater control over the machine of the economy, the pace at which it is going, and is directing it more wisely, than has happened in this country before. Those hon. Members who are demanding, as the hon. Member for Rotherham demanded, changes in Government policy should analyse how the present slack has occurred. I agree that there is a slack to-day. Why is it? After all, no sensible doctor automatically prescribes his favourite tonic without trying to diagnose what is wrong with the patient. I believe that the slack today is partly due to the measures taken by the Government in 1956 and 1957 to check increased spending in order to deal with the excessive demand and the consequent inflation. It is partly due to a fall in exports of about 4 per cent. which has occurred this year.
Haw are we to use that slack? Are we to use it by increasing home demand or are we to reserve it for exports? What we cannot do is to use it twice over, because then we should be bound to have inflation and we should not maintain our
1180
exports. If international trade recovers it will probably mean that the prices of our raw materials will rise, and that will mean that our imports will cost us more. It will then be vital not merely to maintain our exports but to increase them.
Those who gaily talk about the restrictive practices of the Government and blame Government policy should bear this in mind. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will tell us when he concludes the debate tonight whether the would-be spenders believe that there will be no revival in international trade and no rise in commodity prices. If they do, they may be right, but they should give their reasons. Or perhaps they have not thought about it at all. Or is it just that they must have sticks with which to beat the Government and this is the best they can provide?
I believe that the Government's policy today, as I understand it, is to try to fill the gap between the slack in the economy at present and the time when they expect that there will be full demand, with a revival in export demand. They are doing that by removing hire-purchase restrictions, which, I believe, tends to increase immediate demand and to have not much effect on demand in a few months' time. They are also doing it by trying to get Government Departments and local government to spend today what in any way they would spend next year—in fact to speed up their expenditure. They are also doing it by loans and credits to foreign countries, and particularly to members of the Commonwealth, which would not otherwise have been able to buy from us, and thus they have been able to maintain exports at a far higher level than might have been expected.
This policy of trying to fill the gap and showing determination to increase our exports is not the easiest policy for a Government and is not the most popular policy, but I am convinced that it is the right policy for the nation in the long run, because it is the only way in which we can expect to maintain a high level of employment and increase prosperity.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. Charles Grey: I hope that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments. I say this with regret, because there are

1181
many matters on which I could join issue with him, but I know that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite wish to take part in the debate, and I wish to be as brief as possible.
Of all the debates which could take place now, none is more important, especially in domestic affairs, than this. To many of us the debate brings to mind the grim 'thirties, when many of us experienced unemployment. For the British people to experience the fear of a return to those days is a tragedy. We must admit that the position is not as grave as it was between the two wars, but the trend is there, and if it is not reversed tragedy will be upon us again.
I shall confine my remarks to northern regional affairs for the simple reason that I wish to make my speech as brief as possible, but also for the most important reason that the unemployment figure in the northern region is 3·1 per cent. compared with the national average of 24 per cent. If the northern region is experiencing such a high unemployment figure, then this should be stated by me and, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by my hon. Friends who know and can express the northern regional point of view.
The grim 'thirties are still in our minds. While I will not go into this in detail, I recall the hazards of life then and I emphasise that if nothing is done now by the Government to reverse the trend, that position will arise again. If we allowed that to go by default, then we, as Members representing the northern region, would be guilty of slackness in not bringing to the Government's notice the claims of the northern region.
If the Government believe that the position will suddenly, automatically, adjust itself, then they are much blinder than I thought they were. The President of the Board of Trade must show a more lively interest in northern regional affairs than he has shown so far. I recall the many Questions which were put to him about a fortnight ago and the many replies which were given, and I also recall putting a supplementary question in which I stated that the position was rather grim. On that day, I recall, the President of the Board of Trade had left Questions to his Parliamentary Secretary but the right hon. Gentleman, who was present,
1182
shook his head in dissent, as if he disbelieved what I had said. What has happened since then has proved how right I was, and I hope that hon. Members will share my opinion before I have finished my speech.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred to the national unemployment figures. On 17th November there were 536,000 unemployed, representing an increase of 22,000 in a month. On a percentage basis there was a rise in one month from 2·3 per cent. to 2·4 per cent. When the northern, Scottish and Welsh regions bear the brunt of this, it is time that someone was sitting up and taking notice.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Since hon. Members appear to be putting facts on record about their own regions, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that within a 60-mile radius of the centre of Manchester there are 160,000 unemployed?
Mr. Grey: That is a fair point and it emphasises what I have said.
This rise in unemployment in the northern region has been taking place for some months. I questioned the Minister of Labour about it and asked him about the unemployment figures. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is aware of the continual rise of unemployment in this area over many months. When I asked for a figure on 11th December—I will not quote too many figures—I was told that the total in October, 1957, was 18,267, which represented a percentage of 1·4; but by October, 1958, the figure had risen to 35,755, representing a percentage of 2·8—exactly double—and from October to November, there was a rise of unemployment of 4,605, which gave a total figure of 40,360, representing a percentage of 3·1.
If this is not a situation to make the Government take action I do not know what is.
Mr. S. Silverman: Nothing will make them take action.
Mr. Grey: I agree, but we must keep trying in the hope that they will change their minds. I hope that we are not wasting our time by the debate and that what we are saying is falling on good ground.

1183
In addition several coal mines are to be closed, a question which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). I am sorry that I did not hear the beginning of his speech. The position in the coalfields is becoming tragic because pits are to be closed. I know that an attempt will be made to find work for the miners in other pits by the N.U.M. and the National Coal Board, and I would pay tribute to the Coal Board, because it is one of the most human institutions which we have in industrial affairs. No credit is too high for it. In this issue the N.U.M. and the Coal Board are doing what they can to find employment for these men but, with the best will in the world there are bound to be miners without jobs.
The President of the Board of Trade rather depressed me and the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby did not help matters either. For they offered very little to miners who will be out of work. These men were needed in wartime, but they have now got to pay the penalty for an economy created by the Tory Government which makes them valueless and puts them on the scrap heap.
Another aspect of this problem is juvenile unemployment. This is very disturbing. I do not know what the national figures are, but I believe that the pattern is probably the same all over the country. In Durham County the figures between September, 1957, and September, 1958, rose from 631 to 1,409. I do not know what the figures are up to date, but I have every reason to believe that they have not improved. The number of juveniles seeking employment in Durham County and the northern region is likely to increase in the next few years in view of the larger number of children who will leave school. In the administrative County of Durham 1,700 more children will leave school next year than in this year.
We know that there is a wide difference between the two sides of the House on domestic issues. We are firmly convinced that it is part of the Tory Party's political philosophy to have unemployment, but the people who favour this philosophy make sure that they are not in that category. They are always talk-
1184
ing about having unemployment, but they let someone else be unemployed. They believe that this is the only way in which the economy of the country can be bolstered. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby believes it.
Sir A. Spearman: What I tried to say was that if we had excess demand we got full employment, but we also got rising prices. By cutting down demand we got rid of inflation and secured stable prices, but that meant something less than 99 per cent. employment.
Mr. Grey: When the hon. Gentleman reads what he said, I think that he will find that what I said was correct. The people are coming to realise that they are in for a rough time at the hands of this Government.
It is about time that the Government made known their intentions about National Service. We on this side wish that the whole thing were abolished. I am not so sure about hon. Members opposite. Is this the only way in which they can abolish National Service, by causing a certain number of young people to be unemployed so that they have to join the Army in search of employment? We want an assurance, because this resembles a repeat performance of what happened between the two wars when millions of young lads could not get jobs and the only thing they could do was to join the Army. If that is the intention of the Government it is a shocking thing, and I can only endorse what a young man said when looking at the Tory poster, "Tory freedom works". He said "Aye, it is like me; it is completely worked out."
The answer to the problem, nationally and regionally, is an expanding economy. Factories must be steered to the regions. A Question was asked some time ago about the number of vacant factories in one of the trading estates in the North-East and I believe that it was said that there were five empty factories. I believe it was said that every endeavour was being made to find tenants for these factories. I should like to know whether these factories still remain untenanted.
A lot could be done regionally by developing more public works schemes. I should like to refer to some of the matters which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. He spoke of bridges, and I should like

1185
to refer to houses. It is shocking to think that there are thousands of people living in unfit conditions while there are thousands of builders out of work. Why cannot public money be spent on providing houses for the people who need them and, at the same time, providing work?
We might also build more hospitals. When I asked the Minister of Health about the number of people waiting for hospital beds in the North region I was astounded to learn that up to 31st August there were 24,000. About 13,000 had been waiting for less than four months, 6,000 had been waiting for between four and twelve months and 5,000 for over a year. These people cannot be admitted to hospital because there is no accommodation. Surely, if there is a lack of hospital accommodation and an army of people is waiting to build, the answer is to build more hospitals. Many of these people awaiting admission might, with treatment, be employable, though, of course, I appreciate that they would have swollen the numbers of unemployed.
Reference has been made to the necessity to build more schools. The Government may be satisfied with their intentions, but even their intentions fall short of what is required in that they are inadequate to meet the need to reduce the numbers in the classes as well as the need which arises when children leave school at the age of 16.
Last month, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation refused to meet a deputation from Durham to consider certain schemes. This is wrong. Numerous projects and bold schemes could be embarked upon. Why not give a starting date for the Tyne Tunnel? If this and other road schemes could be started, plus the introduction of factories into the area, a lot of good would be done and the Minister would receive the support of my hon. Friends and myself.
I understand that the Prime Minister is coming to the North-East. I do not know where he is going, except that I have heard that he will visit Darlington and Sunderland where, I believe, he has a few political friends. May I suggest that he should arrange his tour differently? I think that it would be a good idea if I were to arrange his tour
1186
for him. It would do his health good and it would educate him. I know that he is supposed to know the North-East, but he has not been there for a long time. If I were allowed to arrange his tour I would first take him round all the employment exchanges in the area and let him mix in the queues of people on the dole and listen to their conversations. If he did so, and took to heart what they said, he would come back to No. 10 Downing Street a much wiser and sadder man.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. John Peel: This is an extremely important subject, because it involves a very human problem. Any subject that has to do with human beings is one to which we should give great attention. Fortunately, Leicester is blessed in that the level of unemployment is well below the national average. During the last month, no doubt due to the sensible measures which the Government have taken, the level has dropped.
It is high time that the House and the country understood quite clearly how completely erroneous is the impression deliberately put about by Members of the Opposition that the Conservative Party is the party of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is."] That is utterly untrue. If hon. Members look at the figures, they will see that unemployment has always been higher under a Socialist Administration than under a Tory one. In the economic crisis at the end of the 'twenties and the beginning of the 'thirties, unemployment rose rapidly as soon as a Socialist Administration took over. After the war, in 1947, during the fuel crisis, there were 2¼ million unemployed—
Dr. Dickson Mabon: For two weeks, because of the snow.
Mr. Peel: —yet the Socialists have the impertinence to talk about themselves as being the guardians of full employment.
Since the war, the average level of unemployment has been as good under Tory administration as it was under the Socialists. In fact, it has been rather better under much more difficult conditions. Those difficult conditions were brought about by the profligate dissipation of the American Loan by the Socialist Administration and by trading

1187
conditions in the world becoming very much more competitive since the Conservatives took over government.
The party opposite will never face the fact that, unless we pay our way in the world, which we can do only by trading, we shall have unemployment on an immense scale. If we have serious inflation of the kind we had under a Socialist Administration after the war, a runaway situation such as they produced in 1951, our export trade, on which we depend for our very life and to maintain our standard of living, will be dealt a mortal blow. However good our world record is—I venture to say that it has been very good inded, especially under Tory administration—the world does not feel that it owes us a living. We have, therefore, to earn our living in a fiercely competitive world, and we have to do it from a very vulnerable position. We cannot possibly indulge in the luxury of Socialist rigging of the economy, because it is so dependent upon external trade and external factors over which any British Government can have only limited control.
The real threat to employment is the Socialist desire to distort natural economic forces.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the present tide of increasing unemployment is a direct result of the policies of the Government which he supports?
Mr. Peel: I will come to that particular point in a moment.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: That means that he does not.
Mr. Peel: The only way that a Socialist society can ensure full employment is, of course, by the creation of slave labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have seen it in Soviet Russia, which is the country furthest along the Socialist road. I do not believe that the unions really want that.
Occasionally, we see a faint gleam of natural, economic common sense fitfully pierce the dull Socialist gloom of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The other day, when he was taken to task about his remark in 1951 about 3 per cent. unemployment, he did not attempt to contradict it as one or two hon. Members
1188
opposite have done today. All he did was to say that he added, of course, that no Socialist Administration would sit back and do nothing while unemployment went up to that figure, implying that a Conservative Government were doing nothing about it.
We all know, of course, that that is utterly incorrect. We have done a great deal and we are doing a great deal, very much more than any Administration formed by the party opposite could possibly do, because under a Socialist Government, as we all know, the economic health of the country is so deplorably weak that the Socialists are incapable of correcting any serious unemployment.
Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in Kilmarnock, under a Labour Government, there were 345 unemployed? In Kilmarnock today the figure is 2,000.
Mr. Peel: Yes; we have already discussed the question of pockets of unemployment. The fact remains that the overall unemployment situation under the Socialist Administration was worse than it is now.
Mr. Grey: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees or disagrees with pockets of unemployment?
Mr. Peel: Nobody agrees with unemployment in any circumstances. Nobody for a moment believes in it. It is one of the things which is so deplorable about the Opposition that they say that my right hon. and hon. Friends believe in unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] That is an utterly untrue statement which we have belied time and time again.
It is a great tribute to our stewardship that, despite the change from a sellers' to a buyers' market since 1951, despite the worst recession in the United States since the war, and despite the defence run-down, we have kept employment at such a high level, a great deal higher than in very many other countries.
If Britain is to maintain her standard of living, let alone increase it, she cannot stand still. We must constantly expand our opportunities to trade. I am reminded of what the successful businessman said to the young man who asked him what was the secret of his success.
Dr. Dickson Mahon: Get a job.
Mr. Peel: He said, "You must always jump at your opportunities". The young man asked, "When do you know that the opportunities occur?", to which the successful man replied, "You do not. You never know when they will come. You just keep jumping". That is what Britain must do.
I hope that the Government and the country will not forget that Great Britain is a great and important European Power, as well as being the heart of the Commonwealth. We have very important duties and responsibilities to Europe, which we neglect at our peril. Those responsibilities are both political and economic. I do not think that they can be separated. If we are to preserve full employment and increase the standard of living of the people in the next twenty-five years, the problem, as I see it, is how to reconcile our position as a leading European Power with our position as the centre and heart of the great Commonwealth and also as one of the senior partners in the North Atlantic Alliance. Unless we can reconcile our position in those three respects, and increase our trade in every direction, there will be a grave danger and threat to employment.
It is clear from the record buying spree over a very wide area at this time of Christmas that, in the main, the bulk of the people are in very good heart. It is a tribute to the Government that in difficult times they have managed to steer a very difficult economy in troublesome seas so well and so safely.
Mr. Speaker: I would remind hon. Members that the sands are running out very quickly, and I am sure that the House would be grateful if hon. Members who are called later could be as short as possible in their speeches, so as to allow this problem, which covers so many different places, to be adequately ventilated.
Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order. Further to what you have said, Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that we are now to debate the problem of unemployment in Scotland? I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) rose. Will there be a further opportunity to discuss Welsh affairs as well?
Mr. Speaker: My hope is that the Welsh situation will be dealt with, too. That is why I appeal to the House for short speeches.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: It is clear from the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) that he has no knowledge of the human suffering and misery that flows from long periods of unemployment. He said that we have done well in making the change from a buyers' to a sellers' market and in maintaining employment in comparison with what has been happening elsewhere in Europe. That has been said by many Conservatives from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will not mind my saying that he said very much the same thing to a number of my hon. Friends and myself when we had a meeting with him yesterday—that we had done better in riding the American recession than most other countries in Europe. This is one of the fallacies to which Tories have given utterance at one time or another, and, having uttered it and not being contradicted, they have come to accept it as a true statement of fact.
Certain facts ought to be brought home and made known to people outside the House. I have in front of me a statement of the movement of unemployment in ten European countries, including this country, during 1958. I did not select the other nine countries; I asked the statistical division of the Library to give me some figures. I said that I wanted some of the principal countries and I named about four or five. I have here a table of unemployment for ten countries.
In Austria the figure of unemployment in January this year was 9 per cent. In July, the latest available date, it had gone down to 3·2 per cent. In Belgium, the year started with an unemployment figure of 9·7 per cent. By August it had gone down to 6·9 per cent. Denmark started the year with an unemployment figure of 17·3 per cent. By August, it had gone down to 4·2 per cent. Percentage figures are not given for France, but if one takes unemployment in January this year as being 100 per cent. one finds that by August unemployment was down to 76·7 per cent.
Mr. William Shepherd: Surely the hon. Member realises that

1191
these figures reflect the seasonal changes in those countries. In fairness to the House he ought to quote figures which are more accurate and which properly reflect the position.
Mr. Fraser: I started by saying that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been telling the House and the country that during the last twelve months we have been riding the American recession more successfully than any country in Europe.
Mr. Robert Mellish: It has been said this afternoon.
Mr. Fraser: It was said immediately before I rose and it has been said many times before.
We find the same position in West Germany. West Germany has declared the lowest unemployment figure since the end of the war. There is nothing seasonal about that.
Mr. Osborne: What are the figures?
Mr. Fraser: The latest available figure, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will be interested to know, is for June this year, when it was 2 per cent.
Mr. Osborne: What was it before?
Mr. Fraser: In March this year it was 5·7 per cent.
Mr. Osborne: In order to get an accurate picture it is much better to stick to facts, and I congratulate the hon. Member for so doing. But while trying to prove that the unemployment figures in Europe have fallen while ours have steadily increased, it is fair to bear in mind that the hon. Member is starting with 9 per cent. and falling to about 5 per cent., whereas ours starts with 1½ per cent. and goes up to 2¼ per cent.
Mr. Fraser: May I give the hon. Member the figures for the Netherlands? The figure was 3·3 per cent. in January and was down in September to 1·9 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Those figures are lower than ours."] Of course they are lower than ours, and so are two or three other countries' figures. But in every one of those nine countries in Western Europe there has been a drop in unemployment, and this is the only country in Western Europe where there has been an increase in unemployment this year.
Mr. Peter Thomas (Conway)Mr. Peter Thomas (Conway) rose—
Mr. Fraser: Mr. Speaker has appealed for short speeches, and I do not want to give way unnecessarily.
The figures I have given are no accident. In the last seven years the United Kingdom, which lives by trade, has increased its exports by 17 per cent., but West Germany has increased its exports by 100 per cent. The whole of Europe has increased its exports by 50 per cent. It is no accident that unemployment is rising in this country while it is declining in the rest of Europe. I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member opposite will again say to the country that under a Tory Government we are riding the American recession more successfully than any other European country—at least not so long as there are figures such as those I have given.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said in the last debate we had on this subject:
"I do not believe that Scotland is going downhill. I commend the attention of hon. Members opposite to what has happened at Grangemouth; to the chemical industry developments; to the new factories which we have in Scotland and to the new American factories which have come to Scotland.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1958; Vol. 594, c. 833.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on painting this bright picture; everything in the garden was lovely.
The Minister of Labour made a speech on unemployment in Scotland in July, 1957, and it is relevant to mention it now. We argued in the debate that we had had so little capital investment in industry for a number of years and that unemployment was growing in Scotland, and we said that if there were a recession in this country we in Scotland would suffer more than any other part of the United Kingdom.
The Minister of Labour, speaking in the debate on 18th July, said:
"People have always felt that if a check came to the prosperity of this country, as a check did come last year, it would affect Scotland first and more steeply than the rest of Great Britain. Taking both unemployment and employment figures, the evidence which I have given would seem to show that that is not so. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 1382.]
The evidence since that date shows that the forebodings of the Opposition in July, 1957, were justified and the Minister of

1193
Labour and the Secretary of State were quite wrong in the optimism which they then expressed.
The Minister of Labour went on:
"I have concentrated, and the debate will concentrate, on the problems affecting Scotland, but I think it would be quite wrong to pretend that the situation is in any way an unhappy one, because the figures of employment and unemployment which I have given show quite clearly that Scotland is a prosperous country…. Shipbuilding activity is at a very high level, and new orders for merchant ships are being placed in Scottish yards this year at a higher rate even than last year. There has been a very useful growth in the big engineering and electrical goods group of industries which continues to expand and during the last year—and this again, I think, has relevance to the analysis I made to the check to employment….
In the past year we have seen an increase of nearly 2,000 among the wage earners on colliery books in Scotland. That is the biggest increase in any of the National Coal Board Divisions, except in the West Midlands where a special recruiting drive is proceeding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 1390–1.]
I hope that when the Minister of Labour comes in the Secretary of State or the President of the Board of Trade will tell him I have been quoting some of the remarks he made in that debate on employment in Scotland some eighteen months ago.
That is the picture he painted for us, but the President of the Board of Trade had to admit today a decline in steel production. Scotland's steel industry is running at 56 per cent. of its capacity. Why? Because there is no demand in the shipbuilding industry for steel. Many thousands of our steel workers are unemployed in Scotland, and, of course, all those who are working are on short time. We have large-scale unemployment among the shipyard workers on the Clyde and many berths standing empty. But only eighteen months ago the Minister of Labour painted that picture of full order books, of more orders for merchant ships coming in 1957 than in former years. They are not all built yet. The Minister of Labour told us about 2,000 more workers were employed in 1957, compared with 1956. I can tell him that in 1958 there are 2,000 fewer than in 1957.
Then we had the recent announcement about the closure of 20 collieries, and the further announcement yesterday that there will be yet another 10 collieries
1194
added to that list, making a total of 30 collieries to be closed in Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel now, at long last, after all his misrepresentations of the Scottish position, that the Scottish economy is very sick indeed.
We have now, at 17th November, 94,823 on the dale, 4·5 per cent. I have no doubt at all that by now, since these figures are already a month old, we have well over 100,000 people unemployed. I have no doubt about that at all. We had at 17th November 67,271 unemployed men, by far the biggest number either globally or percentage-wise of any region in Britain—by far the greatest number. We can compare our situation, if hon. Members like, with that in London and the South-East, with three times our population, and where there are 60,000 males unemployed. We have 67.000 males unemployed. This is the picture of unemployment in Scotland, one-third of the land area of Great Britain. That is the kind of unemployment we have got, and it is growing every day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) intervened during the peroration, or near-peroration, of the President of the Board of Trade's speech today. The right hon. Gentleman was telling use what was going to happen in Scotland in the dim and distant future. He did not know how many years ahead, but it was certainly some years ahead, after we got the production of sheet steel which has been promised. We know nothing about that scheme yet. We do not know how long it will be before the constructional work starts. Nor does he. But when he was casting his mind forward to the future, to the wonderful time which lies ahead of us sometime, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock asked, "What about this winter?" What was the right hon. Gentleman's answer'? "We shall have to wait and see." That is his answer to the 100,000 unemployed in Scotland. That is the answer of this Government to the 100,000 unemployed in Scotland. I do not think Scotland is very happy at that answer.
The President of the Board of Trade, I thought, wasted our time today drearily explaining to us the organisation of the Department, how his Department works. The 100,000 unemployed in Scotland are not terribly anxious to know how the

1195
right hon. Gentleman has organised his Ministry. What they are anxious to know is when they are going to get jobs. He took a long time to tell us how the D.A.T.A.C. scheme is operating. But we have had D.A.T.A.C. since 1951. We have had D.A.T.A.C. since the end of the war.
We have in Lanarkshire 8·6 of our workers unemployed, in the industrial heart of Scotland. Under D.A.T.A.C., under this scheme whereby assistance can be given to industrialists, unaffected by the Act passed in July, we have had one application approved for £105,000. This is in an area with a population of 500,000, a population, incidentally, equal to the population of Cyprus. The sum of £105,000 was advanced for one scheme last year, and it was done quite independently of the Act which was passed in the summer of this year. The President of the Board of Trade knows full well that this Act passed in July this year is not going to make any marked contribution to pulling down unemployment in any of the black spots in Britain.
In any case, it was quite unnecessary for the blackest of black spots in Britain, for South Wales. They could have dealt with South Wales without the Act which was passed in the summer of this year. They could have dealt with Lancashire without the Act passed this year. They could have dealt with industrial Scotland without the Act passed in July of this year. The Act passed in July of this year has contributed nothing at all to the power the Government had to deal with those areas of really high unemployment, the blackest of the black spots. Yet the President of the Board of Trade talked drearily about its advantages to us, about how his Ministry and the other Departments concerned are going to operate the Act passed in the summer of this year.
I think, in view of your advice to us, Mr. Speaker, that I should probably cut a very considerable part of what I was going to say, but let me just say this. We in Scotland are suffering this dreadful unemployment now. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly Members on the Treasury Bench, to appreciate that this is dreadful unemployment. We are suffering this unemployment in Scotland today because the
1196
Government have failed in their duty to distribute industry properly since they took over in 1951.
Scotland's share of factory building has been a declining proportion every year since the Tories took over. We have been told to concentrate on our basic industries, our basic industries being steel and coal and shipbuilding. Yet all of these are declining. The number of people employed in all of those is coming down, and coming down all too quickly for our comfort, and we have had no alternative employment, no balancing industry, provided. As the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade know full well, because we have not been getting capital investment in the years which have been wasted since 1951, when this recession took place, when the economy of the whole country suffered, the setback which we in Scotland suffered was much more severe, as we said it would be, than that in any other part of the country.
We get these figures from the reports issued by the Ministry of Labour, from the Ministry of Labour Gazette. It is information issued by the right hon. Gentleman, and the interesting thing to bear in mind is that we in Scotland lose 8,000 workers each year across the Border. There are many workers who travel north across the Border to find jobs, and there are many who travel south, but at the end of the day, the Ministry of Labour has calculated, there is a net loss of insured workers from Scotland to England. Not from Scotland to Canada or New Zealand or Australia, and so on. I am not speaking of those who emigrate to other Commonwealth countries and to foreign countries. This is a loss of workers from Scotland to south of the Border.
Mr. Osborne: It has been going on for 300 years.
Mr. Fraser: It has not been going on for 300 years. This process has been accelerated since the Tories took over.
Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that ever since James VI came down there has been an influx of Scotsmen into this country?
Mr. Fraser: This, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) says, is much too important a

1197
matter to be dealt with in this way. Why is it that workers are moving from Scotland across the Border? It is because the prospects of employment here are much better than in their native country. We are saying that in this little island of about 50 million people, with only 5 million, or one-tenth of the population, living in one-third of the island, the northern third, it seems to be a bit daft to continue to deport one-tenth of the population somewhere else. We want to spread the population out and organise a movement in the opposite direction, but, for heaven's sake, let us adopt policies to ensure that Scotland retains her present share of the population instead of losing people at a greater rate than ever before.
I noticed in the Sunday Pictorial this weekend a very interesting report. This newspaper, noting the serious problem of unemployment in Scotland, made an offer to co-operate with the Ministry of Labour. In fact, there was published in the Sunday Pictorial this week a statement that that newspaper noted the high level of unemployment on the October figures in Scotland and offered to co-operate with the Ministry of Labour in finding jobs for workers. It said that if the Ministry of Labour would give the newspaper the information as to where the vacancies existed anywhere in Scotland the Sunday Pictorial would, by arrangement with the Ministry of Labour, publish it in that newspaper. It would publish in the newspaper the parts of Scotland where work was available for Scotland's then 85,000 unemployed workers. The Ministry of Labour in Edinburgh thought it was a good idea, and invited conversations. Representatives of the Sunday Pictorial went to have the conversations with them, and officials of the Ministry of Labour in Edinburgh said, "It will not work, because we have no vacancies to announce."
Mr. William Hamilton: It's all there in black and white.
Mr. Fraser: The newspaper report is here, but I will not waste the time of the House by reading it all out. Vacancies are so few, and those they had were for such highly specialised and skilled people that there was no point in the Sunday Pictorial using its columns to publicise, for the benefit of the unemployed in Scotland, where vacancies were. In any case, by the time its representatives had met
1198
Ministry officials the number of unemployed in Scotland had increased by 10,000 and the number of vacancies had decreased by 1,000. The Ministry of Labour now says it is helpless. May I quote from the Ministry of Labour reply?
"Much as we appreciate your offer, we would not be able help, because there is no casual work, and no prospect of any."
This is Scotland, not one little town or village, but the whole of Scotland.
In Lanarkshire, the position is particularly bad. If we had in Britain as a whole the Scottish percentage of unemployment we would have one million unemployed now. In Lanarkshire, we have 8·6 per cent., before we get the December figures, which will be higher still. If we had this level of unemployment in Great Britain as a whole we would have 1¾ million unemployed. Would not that be a serious thing in Britain? I think it would be serious. Well, it is equally serious in Lanarkshire now.
I can say that we have in Lanarkshire now many skilled workers who have found themselves out of a job through no fault of their own, and they are highly skilled workers who cannot find jobs. I think this is awful. There is something very wrong with a country which cannot offer employment to people who have spent years of their lives acquiring a high degree of skill which they are willing to sell to the community in return for a decent living. Now, the community is not interested in the skill of these people, and the position in Lanarkshire, in particular, is worse than I can describe at the present time. I am sure that something like nine out of every 100 men are on the dole in what is the industrial heart of Scotland.
Miss Margaret Herbison: My hon. Friend has been showing that the blackest picture is in Lanarkshire, but the one Member for Lanarkshire on the other side of the House has not even come in to listen to this part of a serious debate.
Hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. Fraser: I can assure my hon. Friend that I had observed that the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) has disappeared from our discussions, which is somewhat surprising to

1199
me, because I understood that he was very anxious to participate in our proceedings.
Mr. Speaker: In justice to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), who is absent, I think I ought to say that he asked me what I thought his prospects of speaking in the debate were and I told him that I thought the chances were very much against him.
Hon. Members: Really?
Mr. Speaker: I think I ought to say that, since the point has been put.
An Hon. Member: That is a new one.
Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. Is it not a discouraging prospect for those hon. Members who are trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, that we should know that the list of speakers is, in fact, cut and dried? Is it not a bad thing that this practice should grow up?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may have his own ideas on that subject, but I have mine. I had an idea how long the debate is going to last, and I know how many hon. Members wish to speak, and there are far more than can get in. If an hon. Member asks me what I think his chances are, I think it is my duty to tell him. I am always ready to help whoever catches my eye and is entitled to speak.
Mr. H. Hynd: May I ask whether the hon. Member was notified that he was not likely to be called? If so, is not this a new custom?
Mr. Speaker: I am often asked by hon. Members whether I will give them an idea whether it is a debate in which they should stay. Hon. Members on both sides frequently ask me, and I do my best and give them my honest opinion, because if an hon. Member is not employed in the House there is plenty of work for Members of Parliament in other parts of the building.
Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order. Do you think on reflection, Mr. Speaker, that it is wise for Mr. Speaker to come to the defence of a Member of Parliament who is absent on the ground that you have told him that his chances of getting into the debate were very slender? There are several of us in this
1200
Chamber who know that we have no chance of being called, but we feel it our duty to be here.
Mr. Speaker: I felt slightly responsible for the absence of the hon. Member for Lanark. I did it for the hon. Member, and I will do it for the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), as well as for anybody else.
Mr. Hamilton: I really must pursue this. I feel very strongly about it. I have tried to get in on several occasions on this subject, on coal and also on other matters. I have not got in, but I have still attended in the House, though neither Mr. Speaker nor anybody else has ever come to my defence by saying that the hon. Member for Fife, West was absent because he could not get in in the debate.
Mr. Speaker: I have never heard that the hon. Member for Fife, West was being attacked for not being here. I thought it was in order to say that, and I hope the House does not think I was wrong. It was done out of my sense of fairness. I do not like people being criticised behind their backs.
Mr. Fraser: I think I had better try to bring my remarks to a close rather quickly now. I have taken too much time, but I have had a little interruption.
I was saying that the position in Lanarkshire was particularly bad. We have had the announcement about a lot of pit closures in Lanarkshire, and we know that an additional 2,000 or 3,000 miners will be put out of employment. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade, as two of the Ministers responsible for securing that our people are given an opportunity of selling their labour, have a responsibility to consider whether these miners who are to lose their jobs in Lanarkshire are likely to be re-employed.
The miners who are becoming redundant in Lanarkshire will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to be re-absorbed in the mining industry in Scotland—not just in Lanarkshire or within travelling distance of their homes, but in Scotland. In the circumstances, is there not a duty upon the Government to secure that alternative employment is provided for these men in Lanarkshire?

1201
A lot of pits have been closed in Lanarkshire in recent years with certainly no adequate. but almost no alternative, employment being provided in the areas in which the men were becoming redundant. Let not this latest list of closures—the list announced a fortnight ago and the further list announced yesterday—take effect without the Government taking action to secure that alternative jobs are made available in the areas concerned.
We have had recently a statement from Lord Polwarth, Chairman of the Scottish Council. I was not at all surprised that the President of the Board of Trade had something kind to say about Lord Polwarth this afternoon, because Lord Polwarth is no longer merely an apologist for the Tory Government. He has become the principal propagandist for the Tory Government in Scotland. It is he who has now told us that the new steel development in Scotland will produce at least 100,000 new jobs and at best 150,000 new jobs. Where on earth did he get these figures?
Does the President of the Board of Trade know anything about this? [Interruption.] No, of course not. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head negatively. He knows nothing about this, neither does Lord Polwarth, who a little while ago was concerned about employment in Scotland, about not getting enough factories built and that we were losing population each year because the population was being squeezed out by the lack of opportunity. Suddenly, however, on the eve of an election he discovers that everything in the garden is lovely, that there is nothing to worry about and that we have a great future ahead of us.
Lord Polwarth has been supported in that kind of picture by a speech reported to have been made the other day by Sir Robert Maclean, Chairman of Scottish Industrial Estates, who said that last year there were 130 applications for factory accommodation in Scotland. Let the Secretary of State tell us today what happened to these 130 applications. Certainly, they were not successful, because we did not get these new industries. Why did we not get them? Is this just another bit of propaganda? Was this meant to be construed, or misconstrued, by the
1202
readers of the newspapers as 130 successful applications? They may have been fictitious, but in any case they were certainly not successful, if they were real.
There is all the more reason why we should be told tonight what happened to those applications. If they had been conceded, perhaps we would not have had 100,000 unemployed in Scotland and we might have had some hope to offer to our young people who cannot find jobs today. The boys who want to take on apprenticeships cannot get them today. A country that cannot offer even a job to its young people is a poor country and will not succeed in the more competitive days that, we are told, lie ahead.
7.14 p.m.
Lady Tweedsmuir: Like the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), I should like to deal with some of Scotland's problems. First, however, I would like to put some general considerations on the background of our trading position and, in so doing, to try to meet what I regard as the test of this debate: that is, how we are to discuss the areas of unemployment about which we are most worried without at the same time exaggerating fears for the future. If we were to do that, we should disturb confidence throughout industry, confidence among men that new plant and machinery will not mean that they are working themselves out of a job and confidence with management that it will not have to face the inevitability of change.
As we all know, the whole background of our world trading position depends largely on this delicate character of confidence. At the end of last year a lack of confidence in Britain's determination to keep her prices within reasonable levels and her spending within reasonable bounds led to an inflation which, if we had not tried to check it, would have made it impossible for us to compete competitively or to keep the country at work.
The measures that were taken then, discouraging though they undoubtedly were and although, as has often been said, they have also undoubtedly helped towards our present problems, sought at the same time to tackle the foundation of our economy, which was the position of the £ sterling. Had we let inflation go on at the rate at which it seemed that

1203
it might do, we could well have been forced to a devaluation of the £, as happened under the Labour Government in 1949. The proof that those measures were right is in fact that sterling is now strong in relation to other currencies and that we can build our expansion, which we all want, on a sound foundation.
The controversy in this debate has been whether the Government have been right in their judgment as to the right moment at which to start easing all the restrictions.
Mr. George Lawson: Do we take it, therefore, that the hon. Lady is assuming Governmental responsibility for the 8·6 per cent. unemployment in Lanarkshire?
Lady Tweedsmuir: That is quite beside the point. If the hon. Member would wait until I develop my argument, he would perhaps see where I am heading.
Coming, as I do, from a fishing port, it is not inappropriate for me to use a shipping simile. Surely everybody knows that when trying to steer a ship through heavy seas, when the wheel is turned it takes time for the ship to respond; and it takes a great deal of judgment and long years of experience to know exactly when to ease the wheel the other way against the swing of the ship. The Government's duty is to know when to pull back the economy and when to start relaxing the restrictions.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, when he speaks later in the debate, will tell us his feelings about America's recovery from her recession. My right hon. Friend has recently returned from America. Naturally, we in this country have been disturbed by the extraordinary rumours which have been circulating that the dollar might be devalued. From all that one hears, I do not believe that that is likely, but as we are so bound up with the North American economy it is of the utmost importance to us to know whether America is mastering her own recession. Bound up with this are the rumours of a revaluation in the price of gold. This is a subject on which we will all be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
Hon. Members will understand that if a lack of confidence generally can lead to a rumour of devaluation of the dollar,
1204
which a few years ago would not have been thought possible, it is not unnatural that the Government should devote all their energies to maintaining the strength of sterling. The hon. Member for Hamilton quoted figures for various European countries, even an extreme figure of unemployment of 17 per cent. coming down to 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., yet we tackled the inflation problem, and in the United Kingdom as a whole unemployment has risen from only 1½ to 2½ per cent. It is in relation to that fact that we say that, generally speaking, we have weathered the recession pretty well.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Lady suggest to the House that the argument which she is propounding explains the fact that there are 5,000 people unemployed at present in Aberdeen?
Lady Tweedsmuir: I shall shortly propound an argument concerning Aberdeen and then point out to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) that the figure which he has quoted is entirely incorrect. The figure is 3,754 unemployed on 8th December, and not 5,000.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles) rose—
Lady Tweedsmuir: I would willingly give way to the hon. Member, but there are many others who wish to speak.
I should like to turn now to the unemployment position north of the Border. As we all know, the problem in Scotland has always been difficult and I cannot find it in myself to criticise the Scots who seek their fortunes not only overseas but south of the Border. At the same time, I am in agreement with all Scottish Members in trusting that the Government will continue to do all that they have been doing to induce industry to go North. As long as we live in an economy where we have no direction of labour and no direction of industry, we cannot instruct industry to go into that area. We can only induce it to do so.
The figures for new building in Scotland are very impressive and include a post-war record last year. Whatever the controversy about the steel strip mill, I think that it can be summed up by the Scottish Council which fought as hard as

1205
it could for it. The Council has said that the mill will bring a"contribution to the Scottish economy greater than that of any other single project which has been introduced for many years."
I hope very much that it will help such areas as my own part of Aberdeen, and I should like to deal briefly with the position in my own constituency.
I have given the total unemployment figure and I will not refer to it again except to say that we are lucky in that we have a negligible amount of under-employment or short-time working. We have had six applications for financial assistance under the latest Act. We are encouraged by the fact that Spillers Limited are setting up a factory which will cost £600,000. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for letting us at last begin the development of our great tourist industry—the beach development which has been hanging fire since the war.
Despite the difficulties with Iceland and the Faroes, there is without doubt a continuing effort to replace the fishing fleet. I have looked at the various categories of unemployment and I find that where we have most trouble is placing unskilled workers, those in the distributive trade, in the building industry and in hotels and restaurants. These give rise to difficult problems because they are the worst hit in the off-season winter months.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he is pushing the Law Reform Committee to make a report on the difference between the law in England and the law in Scotland relating to the fact that movables are not considered in Scotland as assets when firms apply for loans or grants. I find that a firm which wished to establish a quick-freeze plant and cold storage would receive only 50 per cent. loan or grant in Scotland compared with 80 per cent. south of the Border.
I should also like to ask the Secretary of State whether he will have consultations with the Board of Trade concerning the initial grant of £10,000 given by the Board of Trade in 1953 to an organisation known as the National Union of Manufacturers' Advisory Service. This is an advisory service to deal with existing industry. It is often felt that we can solve our problems in out of the way parts of the world where we suffer from the geographi-
1206
cal position and the distance from markets by managing somehow to introduce new industries, but I suggest that a great deal can also be done with existing industry.
In Aberdeen there is a large number of the smaller firms and this service, which was brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), is one to which the Board of Trade might consider giving an increased grant. The service gives advice to existing industry on management, organisation and staffing problems, costing, work study, incentive schemes, production methods, plant lay-out and training. So far, it has given advice to firms with a turn-over of £25,000 to £250,000 and to firms which employ from 25 to 300 people. Those are the types of firms of which there are a great number in my constituency.
This advisory service claims that it has increased production by from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. It is a non-profit making organisation. If the Board of Trade and the Government feel able to give money in other ways, as we know has been done by means of the latest Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, I suggest that they could look at this kind of service which could increase efficiency in the North.
I should also like to know what is being done to follow up the trade mission which was sent to Canada last year. I had the opportunity of seeing members of the trade mission which came here from Canada. They were, without doubt, extremely interested in the types and variety of work that Scotland can produce. What has been done by the Canadian Government to try to divert even a portion of their trade to Britain which was their declared intention? We know that it is difficult and that there are a great many pressures but, according to the latest figures, our exports last year were up to the United States and down to Canada. After the amount of good will initiated by the joint missions and the Commonwealth Conference, it would be interesting to hear what positive steps are being taken on both sides of the Atlantic.
While, without doubt, from now on trade will always be keen, I feel that the measures that have been taken in easing restrictions, and all the efforts of which we have heard from the President of the Board of Trade, will steadily bring work

1207
to this country as a whole. Because our own local problems are bound up not only with world trading positions and Government actions but also with that very subtle atmosphere of confidence, I suggest that we should all try not to make too gloomy speeches on this matter. What we are here to do is not only to express our own concern about our own constituencies but surely to see the picture as a whole; and I believe that this country as a whole is in sound shape.
7.39 p.m.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: It would not take a very great effort on my part to shake hands with those Scottish Members in whose constituencies unemployment is negligible. Therefore, I congratulate the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) on her ability to say that, and I am glad that in Aberdeen, South the problems are apparently not so severe.
All these added advantages which are coming to her constituency are most commendable, but if the noble Lady would lift up her eyes from the south of the City of Aberdeen to the north and over the county and the north-east part of Scotland she would find that in November unemployment was running at 5½ per cent., which is quite formidable and stands comparison with the situation in Dundee.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I happened to speak in Fraserburgh during the recent by-election, which the hon. Gentleman may remember. The unemployment figure there is 10 per cent. and comprises 800 people. In Aberdeen, although it is just under 4 per cent., the number of unemployed is 3,754 and I do not consider that to be negligible.
Dr. Mabon: I do not know what the OFFICIAL REPORT Will say about the hon. Lady's speech, but most of us on this side of the House had the impression that she was satisfied and was not anxious for us to make gloomy speeches.
Lady Tweedsmuir Lady Tweedsmuir rose—
Hon. Members: Order, order.
Dr. Mabon: I am never disrespectful to ladies. I merely want to finish my sentence. As I have said, the hon. Lady has given the impressions, perhaps erroneously, that the position in her con-
1208
stituency is favourable and I think she used the word "negligible' in relation to unemployment. If that was not so perhaps she would not have made a bright speech, but a gloomy one.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I did not use the word "negligible". The hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) started his speech by saying that there was a higher unemployment rate in Greenock than in Aberdeen and that he thought I was fortunate in having such a negligible amount of unemployment in my constituency. I got up again to say that I did not consider it to be negligible, and that is exactly what I mean.
Dr. Mabon: I am glad the hon. Lady has joined the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament who have an unemployment position that cannot be ignored. She is now joining those of us who are concerned about it and are objecting to the fact that the Government have allowed this position to drift.
May I remind the hon. Lady and her colleagues that we have had many unemployment debates in the House? In particular, in a debate in 1957 we were all read a sermon about how wicked we were in making gloomy speeches and in raising the question of unemployment in our own constituencies. Perhaps I might be exempted from that censure since at that time there was 6 per cent unemployment in my constituency and today it is 8·4 per cent., which represents 2,800 people and many families.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited Greenock he asked me if I knew how many young men were unemployed and how many had been unemployed for a year or six months and I took him to meet quite a number of my constituents who were standing in queues at the employment exchange. I can tell the House that life is not easy, especially for a young man with a young family, who cannot move from one part of the country to another to find a job.
I do not care what the figures are in terms of percentages, or how Ministers may comfort themselves. These are human problems and they must be tackled. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) is just about to leave us. When he was talking about the sacred cow of Beveridge's 3 per cent., I wished that we

1209
would rid ourselves of the shackles of that White Paper and realise that those days are over. We have long passed that position. We have found that in a free society we can run our economy freely. efficiently and effectively under a Labour Government, and even before 1958 under a Conservative Government, with as little as 1 per cent. unemployment.
The reason why a Tory Government can do it is because of the large amount of controllable public expenditure through the Budget—even though at election times they protest otherwise. They are able to prime the pump. At least, they have learned that 25 per cent. or so of the national income can be used profitably by putting it back into the economy sensibly and sanely. My charge against the Government is not that they have failed to do this, because they have done it to a large extent. That is why unemployment has only risen from 1½ per cent. to 2½ per cent. throughout the United Kingdom generally.
The fact is, however, that the Government are unable to plan because they think that planning is contemptible. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East demonstrated, they have become prisoners. They have become prisoners of their own dogmas and legends, and this is one of them, namely, that planning is contemptible. In my constituency in June, 1957, the Government sacked 800 men in two months from the Royal Ordnance Factory there, when we already had an unemployment problem of between 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. in the town. That action was absolute madness. Where were those men to get jobs? Obviously, no Government with any sense would have done that. There were no alternative jobs for those people. There was a general contraction of the Scottish economy that year, so there was nowhere else for the people of my constituency to find work. This was the case in many other constituencies and the unemployment figures rose.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would have given way a little earlier, so that I could correct a misapprehension arising from what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). She underestimated the figure for Aberdeen. There are 5,000 unemployed today
1210
in my constituency and the numbers are increasing.
Lady Tweedsmuir Lady Tweedsmuir rose—
Dr. Mabon: No, I cannot give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. We have moved from Aberdeen to Greenock and I think that there is a case to be made out for Greenock without interruption from Aberdeen.
Dr. Mabon: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker. What I was trying to say was that there is a general national problem which is shown by the position in my own constituency.
Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that at present, according to Ministry of Labour figures, 31 per cent. of all the boys under 18 years of age who have been out of work for more than six months are in Scotland?
Dr. Mabon: I know that that represents a formidable problem which has been raised time and again by many of my hon. Friends, and I have no doubt that it will become more acute as the months go by.
Reverting to my argument about suddenly dumping 800 people on to the labour market without a moment's thought, it should be remembered that the Royal Ordnance Factories are, after all, Government concerns. They were under Government control and this process should have been phased. How could we find jobs for these men? By having advance factories. In Greenock after the war, as in many other towns, one could see factories constructed by the Government, even rented or sold by the Government to private firms.
These represent the triumphs of Government planning under the Distribution of Industry Act, which we all salute now, not only those of us on this side of the House who created and operated it, but those on the opposite side who say that they are now willing to operate it. I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland that in 1957 he was then arguing that we should not have any more advance factories in Scotland because there was no demand from industry. So he would not build factories to provide alternative jobs for those who work in Greenock.
I will read to the House a valuable statement made by Sir Robert McLean.

1211
chairman of Scottish Industrial Estates Limited. After all, he is chairman of a quasi-Government body and can hardly be said to be partisan. He said this week:
"Some difficulties have been experienced in letting a few large factories but inquiries for smaller units of 5,000 to 20,000 square feet have been numerous. In all 130 inquiries have been received for factory accommodation during 1958, a total which stands comparison with practically any previous year."
And this is an important sentence:
"This evidence of the continuing demand for factories, even during a period of general industrial retrenchment, might be regarded as a good augury for future activities."
In other words, we are told by one of the most authoritative voices on this matter in Scotland that in 1958 there were 130 applications, most of them for small factories of this kind. I wonder how many there were in 1957 and 1956. The year 1958 is the year of economic contraction. The years 1957 and 1956 were less adverse because the economy was stagnating.
The position is that the advance factory programme which the Government have rejected could have been the salvation of many Scottish towns in terms of what are called pockets of unemployment. Now the Government are beginning slightly to change their mind about rejecting it out of hand and are willing to think about it. I am raising this point because I would like the Government to consider the prospects of an advance factory in my own constituency. There is an excellent example of one at present in a factory which belongs to the Admiralty and which is to be vacated next year. The factory has been proffered by the Government on the open market for rent or for sale. I am sure that the significance of this remark will not be lost on the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that the statement by the President of the Board of Trade, jointly with the Admiralty, that the most advantageous terms possible would be offered to any possible tenant or buyer of that factory still stands.
We have, as I have said, this factory there ready and waiting. I believe that we can have an occupier soon. If this does happen then it will be clearly demonstrated that Scotland can, if we have the buildings and are given the facilities for
1212
them, attract people to come to difficult areas. I cannot see, in the light of my own experience as the Member for Greenock, how this advance factory argument of the Government, politics apart, can stand on its own feet solidly and fairly. I think that the only argument in its favour on the Conservative side is the doctrinaire one, that this is another example of the Government interfering in industry and granting direct subsidies of one kind and another to industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is to reject once again this idea of advance factories, will provide us with a better argument than he has done so far.
There is ont a single Scottish Member exempt from this. All want a factory of one kind or another to come to their areas to take up the slack of unemployment. Even the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) wants a factory to take up the slack in his area.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to have a substantial Government programme of advance factories, certainly in Scotland and Wales and in the areas of England bady affected to take up the slack. I ask him to plan so that whatever redundancies are likely to arise and whatever industries are dying or contracting, we can have one set of jobs replacing another set of jobs. This is not only Socialism. It is good sense. Surely the Government are not averse to adopting good sense.
It would be ungracious of me if I did not say that I am grateful to the Government for all their earnest efforts in relation to my own constituency. We have now two very formidable applications before the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee and I hope that the Government will see their way to grant these. I look forward to the possibility of the torpedo factory having a new tenant. Nevertheless, unlike the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I want to raise my eyes higher than my own constituency and ask the Government to realise that much more has to be done in Scotland before we are able to overcome the substantial unemployment which is with us.
7.44 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I want, in as reasonably a short time as I can, to deal with

1213
a few detailed points and to say a certain amount about the general position. I think that I should forthwith deal briefly with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and those who have spoken in the last hour on special Scottish problems.
Let us get this quite clear. Hon. Members opposite lend to talk as if they were the only people in this country concerned about unemployment. Nothing could be more nonsense.
Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman must not get angry.
Mr. Maclay: I am not simulating anger; I am speaking with a certain amount of deep feeling about this. I am saying that this knowledge of unemployment is not confined to one side of the House. It is not; it is causing all of us concern. I admit that I did not suffer the extreme miseries of unemployment of the 'thirties, but I was directly engaged throughout that period in trying to combat some of the effects of it in the industry with which I was connected. I know what unemployment means. No one wants to see the events of that time come again.
In this time of rising unemployment figures, the matter is of great concern to the Government and to everyone in the House. We must get it in proportion. If I am pointing out some of the things I am doing, it is not because I am complacent. I think that we have a great deal still to do. I have said very often in public that until we have really solved the problem of increased diversification of industry in Scotland, no Government will have solved the long-term economic problem in Scotland. We have all been working on that for a good many years. Hon. Members opposite worked on it for years and so have we since we have been in office.
I certainly do not want this evening to get into statistical arguments—there will be an opportunity for that on other occasions—regarding all that the Government have done in those spheres where it was possible to help by inducement in placing new industries in Scotland. I could give a whole series of figures, but I do not want to get into a statistical argument at this late hour.
Mr. Hector Hughes: On the point which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with, does he not remember that I asked him to assist in bringing new industries to Aberdeen and he said that he could not do so but he hoped to do so in the near future, and he has not done so yet?
Mr. Maclay: I do not remember precisely the conversation, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman says that I said that, I must have said it. I am quite sure, however, that I did not say it in those particular words.
Of course we are working to try to encourage new industries to go to wherever they are needed in Scotland. I think that it would be useful at this stage if I said something in detail on what is happening at the moment. I have made it very clear that the Government feel by our statements and actions that we are not only concerned about unemployment but we have taken action. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked: "What about this winter?"
I will go into a little more detail. I think that he knows what we have done in deliberate action, taken rapidly, to try to help in areas of particular unemployment. I am talking of those departments for which I have direct responsibility. We have been able to bring forward capital investment work to the extent of nearly £4 million, in addition to that included in the normal expanding capital investment programme, and all this is for work to be substantially completed during 1959. It may be of some interest if I break down those figures. This £4 million can be broken down roughly into buildings of various kinds, £800,000; road work, £730,000; electricity for the two boards, £1 million; hospital work, £724,000; schools and college work and matters relating to schools, £250,000; and on miscellaneous local government work covering various types of projects, for example playing fields, £220,000.
That is not all the story because I am studying very carefully other projects which could be brought ino operation very quickly and I have recently asked local authorities for any further suggestions which they may have to make as to work which might be carried out during 1959 and I have said that they would be studied with every sympathy and very carefully.
Mr. A. Woodburn: We appreciate what the Secretary of State has been saying about this issue, but can he tell us why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so long in releasing public industries in Scotland, which might have played a part, from the restriction on capital investment, and allowing them to speed up their programme, which might have compensated us at this time?
Mr. Maclay: It is not for me to answer for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The programme was started in early autumn. If the right hon. Member remembers the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) he will appreciate that we had a difficult problem this year. We had to master the threat to the £. If we had not, there would have been utter disaster. There is also a question of timing in all these matters. I suggest that we moved in very fast. I would remind hon. Members that all the work that I have been mentioning is of a nature which is likely to help employment, and is spread over those areas where the need is greatest. It is a highly useful form of work. It would have had to be done sooner or later, and what has happened is that its priority has been brought forward. That is the right way to proceed.
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) who said that the Conservatives had learned from the Labour Party about public works. I would point out to him that hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as hon. Members opposite, have read the works of Maynard Keynes. The only thing I would say is that they got Keynes upside down in 1946 and 1947, and applied his theories in a completely cockeyed way.
The hon. Member for Greenock claimed something else, which is another old myth that we ought to get rid of. He said that his party created the Distribution of Industry Act. When will hon. Members opposite remember that that Act was worked out in the Coalition Government and passed by the Caretaker Government? It is true that it was operated in its early years by the party opposite, but it was operated by us subsequently. This is too serious a matter to mix up with party politics. I am willing to do that on another occasion, but not tonight.
1216
It is too soon to say what detailed effect this work will have upon the total employment figures I have been giving, but a substantial sum like this must have some useful results.
Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when these works are going to start? It is all very fine to say that schools are to be built, but we had a promise of two technical schools in Ayrshire over two and a half years ago, and they have not been started yet. If things are to take as long as that it will be no good for this winter.
Mr. Maclay: This is on top of the normal expanding capital investment programme for Scotland. The works that I have been talking about are being undertaken in the belief that they will be substantially completed in 1959, and the money is spread over a number of different projects.
I have said that certain sums are to be spent in housing of various kinds. Over the past year the normal housing programme has continued at a high level In the first eleven months 29,925 houses were completed, compared with 29,011 in the same period last year, and on the evidence at present available I expect that the figure for 1958 will be as high as it was for 1957, when 32,437 houses were completed. I want to make it clear that the Scottish housing programme has not been subjected to any form of cut. Local authorities have been free to press on with slum clearance and other essential work as rapidly as possible, and this they have done. It is true that many of the smaller authorities have stopped building, but this is broadly because their needs have been substantially met. In the areas of greatest need they have gone on building.
Mr. James H. Hoy: Will the Minister make it clear that many local authorities have said that the one thing holding up their building programmes was the very high interest rates forced on them by the Government?
Mr. Maclay: There is obviously an element of cost in the judgment of what any local authority is going to do but where the need is most urgent building has gone on and there has been no falling off of housing activity in industrial areas where the need is really strong.
I turn briefly to deal with what is happening in our heavier industries—
Mr. T. Fraser: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of building, will he tell us about the building workers on the dole?
Mr. Maclay: I am not going to be drawn into giving other figures. I have been explaining what we are doing in order to try to bring down unemployment.
I want to say a word about the heavier industries in Scotland. I regret that the Scottish steel industry is having a particularly difficult time. This is an undoubted product mainly of overseas trading conditions but it is also affected by the fact that Scotland is still concentrating upon the heavier industries.
I want to say something about the new strip mill, because that is a very important element in the long-term position of Scottish industry. I profoundly welcome the fact that we are to have strip steel production in Scotland. I very much agree with the statement of the Scottish Council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South quoted in her admirable speech. The facts are obvious. First, by the integration of this proposed mill into the Ravenscraig project it should go into production about two years more quickly than would be the case if the mill were built on a green field site.
Secondly, it is estimated that it would mean additional direct employment for about 3,500 workers. Important as that figure is in itself, even more important is what may come as a result of having that strip mill in Scotland. I am not going to forecast any figures in this connection. Lord Polwarth is entitled to his view in the matter, and I was unhappy at the attack made upon him by hon. Members opposite.
Mr. T. Fraser: Why should we not attack him?
Mr. Maclay: I believe that the work of the Scottish Council is first-rate, and that Lord Polwarth is an admirable chairman. The Scottish Council is doing invaluable work in encouraging people to look to Scotland as a place to build in and buy from. A man is entitled to say what he believes to be the potential of a great new undertaking in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Hamilton asked why Lord Polwarth should not be attacked. I am only going on what I
1218
read in the newspapers. I know nothing apart from that. I have close contacts with Lord Polwarth, of course, but I am going by what I have read in the newspapers. That is one person's reactions to the possible ultimate employment potential that might come to Scotland now that we look like having, in a reasonable time, the kind of steel production that we have not had previously and which is becoming increasingly important for many industries in the modern world. The move over towards this kind of steel is very substantial in many industries, and I endorse what Lord Polwarth has said, although I am not going to go into any estimate of numbers of people who might ultimately be employed.
Thinking of the long-term future of Scotland, I say that the advent of strip steel production may be one of the most important things that has happened. I hope that we shall have the help of every Scottish Member in getting it known in all possible quarters that this mill is coming along, so that we shall get people to start thinking in terms of what they might bring to Scotland in order to make use of that product.
I turn now to our other efforts to diversify the Scottish economy, and I speak in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and in the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has been present until recently. The co-operation between my Department and theirs could not be more effective, and I am extremely grateful to them for the help that they have given us in all ways. Since the war successive Governments have been making intensive efforts to encourage new industries to come to Scotland. The figures are there to show what has been happening.
Mr. T. Fraser: Of course the figures are there.
Mr. Maclay: This process must continue. We have to go on using everything at our disposal, and I believe that the financial provisions of the Distribution of Industries (Industrial Finance) Act and the D.A.T.A.C. procedure coming from it can be of real help in this connection. I do not believe that any one measure will be the answer to all our problems, but the Act which was passed just before the Summer Recess can assist many parts of Scotland in a form which is much more

1219
likely to be of use than was possible under the provisions of the previous Distribution of Industry Act and the old procedure of D.A.T.A.C. loans.
It is worth mentioning, for the record, that my right hon. Friends and I have been conscious that the procedure in the early stages in applying for D.A.T.A.C. loans has been clumsy, but that is being considered, and I think it will be found very soon that the type of form which applicants have to complete is much simpler to understand and to deal with quickly, and is capable of producing a quicker flow of information between the applicant and the D.A.T.A.C. I am certain that my right hon. Friend, or myself through the Scottish Office, will send the form to any hon. Member who wants details, in case he can assist to explain it to people who have to use such forms. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the unemployment?"] We are trying to get everybody working and to get rid of unemployment. We are trying to get them back into work.
It is vitally important that we should work together to be constructive—much more important than that we should argue too much about who is responsible for what has happened in the past. The argument can go back a long time, through the history of any Government. I feel very strongly that it is our duty to do everything we can—all of us, making full allowance for the inevitable politics which creep in, working together on this task which is very important for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Hamilton implied that the shipbuilding situation in Scotland is very serious, and I think he said that thousands of shipbuilding workers were out of work.
Mr. T. Fraser: I said steel workers.
Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. Member made a slip of the tongue. He said ship-building workers.
Mr. Fraser: Thousands of steel workers are out of work; I obtained the figure from the Minister of Labour. I said that there were shipyard workers out of work, too, and that berths were standing empty. That is true.
Mr. Maclay: In order to make the position clear—because we do not want
1220
the wrong impression to spread abroad about this—I would agree that in certain of the yards which are building the smaller type of ship there are problems and there are some empty berths, but the advice which I have been given so far is that the yards which build the bigger type of ship—at any rate, the vast majority of them; I hesitate to say all of them because I may not have a complete check—still have order books for two years. It is as well to realise that.
I admit that what will happen to the order book over a period must depend on how world trade picks up. The present level of tramp freights and tanker freights is low, but the long-term future must depend on a revival of world trade, which is why it is interesting to see what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. One is bound to hope that the signs of recovery are genuine and will last. I am not competent to judge at the moment on that score. If they are genuine, there is good reason to believe that freight markets, in turn, will improve and that before the order books run down the position may be a great deal better.
I do not want to take the time of the House by dealing with detailed constituency points, but I should deal with the question of the dry dock in Greenock. The Government have made it very clear that we are very anxious to help any viable proposal which can be put forward for the building of dry docks, and I have particularly in mind a dry dock in the west of Scotland, in which I have a certain local interest. The importance of a dry dock of this kind, however, goes far beyond the constituency of Greenock and my own constituency, because it can affect the whole movement of shipping into the west of Scotland, which is very important, not only for direct repair work but for all the ancillary work which will flow from it. I am glad to learn from the Press that the company which is considering this construction has reached another stage and hopes to put its proposals forward very soon, and I am certain that everything possible will be done by my right hon. Friend and by the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee, which is an independent body, to study this problem as quickly as possible in order that there is no undue delay.
It is tempting to go into a large number of Scottish problems, but it would not be

1221
right to do so this evening. I imagine that we may have other opportunities of debate among Scottish Members. I would end by repeating that we are extremely conscious of the short-term problem and also of the long-term problem of the unbalance of the economy in Scotland. I believe that our record shows that we have done a lot to help to overcome that unbalance. Recent events show that we are doing still more. and I am certain that as long as the Government are in power we shall go on doing effective work for the long-term future of Scotland.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy RobertsI will try to be as brief as possible as so many hon. Members have points to put to the Minister, but I want to preface my remarks by saying that it is time that the arrangements for a debate of this kind were reconsidered. Quite clearly, with our very strong regional interests, there should be alternative arrangements for their proper ventilation and consideration.
Having said that, may I pass quickly to some constituency points. I notice that there is not present a Minister who conceivably can answer these questions, and as a Welsh Member I shall have to depend on the doubtful advantage of having two Scottish Ministers in attendance. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the fact that there are now half-a-million people unemployed in Britain. If the percentage unemployment which we have in Caernarvonshire applied to the rest of the country, the total would be not half-a-million but three million. In my constituency, 2,000 families or more live on the dole and National Insurance. That is the biggest single source of subsistence in my constituency. The House may well imagine the kind of Christmas they and their children face this year.
This situation has been with us in North Wales for many years, and the Government have made absolutely no effective move to cope with it. Let us take the case of the slate industry, which in North Wales resembles coal in South Wales in its relative importance to our economy and the problems it presents. In 1938 the slate industry employed 9,000 of our people. Today it gives employ-
1222
ment to barely 3,000. The Government have not lifted a finger to assist this vital and indigenous industry.
Let us take another example. For years it has been suggested that North Wales might well develop its tourist industry. There are difficulties about that, chiefly arising from the highly seasonal nature of tourism. Our summers, though beautiful, are brief. The Council for Wales therefore suggested a thorough investigation into the possibilities and asked the Government for a small grant of £1,000 to promote such a survey. It was refused. The Chairman of the Tourist Panel of the Council, Councillor David Williams, a man of considerable ability, resigned in disgust—and no wonder.
What is the Government's policy for North-West Wales, which has the highest percentage unemployment in the whole of Great Britain? Is there a policy, apart from the enforced migration of our young people in increasing numbers every year across the Border?
In their approach to Caernarvonshire the Government shelter behind two prospects, neither of them certainties—a nuclear power station in South Caernarvonshire and the interest which a chemical firm has shown in a site near the town of Caernarvon. There is considerable anxiety about these two proposals in the county, and I therefore ask, how firm are these prospects? We are told that even if it is approved the power station will not materialise until 1962. Can the Minister reassure us about these two proposals this evening?
I pass quickly to another point already raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)—the operation of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, passed earlier this year. It seems that the Government expect this little mouse of an Act to work miracles in areas of this type, but so far only three applications have been evoked by this Act in Caernarvonshire. The fact is that the Act offers no inducement to an industrialist to establish himself in such areas, which in many respects are difficult. Before we achieve any results I feel that we shall have either to expand the Act or to abrogate it and institute in its place the full application of the parent Act, the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.

1223
In fact, the Government seem to have reduced the inducements to industrialists to come to these areas. Before this Act was passed the Development Commission was able to build factories for rent. That offer has now been cancelled. A prospective industrialist now has no alternative but to commit himself to a major capital charge, to build a factory and to pay for it. In areas like Caernarvonshire, that is an inhibition and not an inducement. Are the Government in earnest about rebuilding the economic life of these areas?
North-West Wales, like parts of Scotland, the north-west region of England and Cornwall is, I feel, in different case from the rest of the United Kingdom. There are, in fact, two problems of unemployment in this country. There is the general problem which faces the country as a whole, which is one of recession and which depends upon the vagaries of the market and to some extent the overseas market, but there is a distinct and different problem which is always with us, whether we have boom or slump, and that is the problem of the fringe areas. Inside the general problem of unemployment we have this special problem of the areas which are on the periphery, and the only solution to their problem is an increase of capital investment.
The reason why certain areas in Scotland, Wales, the North-West and Cornwall always lag behind, even though the rest of the country is experiencing a boom, is that they are fundamentally weak in capital equipment, in public services, in factory buildings and in the installations which are essential to their taking advantage of any upsurge in the general economy.
That brings me to my final point. It is necessary to invest much more capital in these difficult areas and to do so partly through the local authorities. The local authorities in North-West Wales do not come under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, otherwise they could engage in very substantial schemes which would not only provide immediate employment but also build up the area in an attractive way for the new industries which are necessary. Until they come under such legislation, or until the regulations are varied in some other way so that they can spend on public services over and above what is provided for them
1224
in the general grants, no policy will increase the amount of industry and employment available in the area.
I will give one example from my constituency. The town of Pwllheli, with a population of 4,000, now faces the need to modernise its entire sewerage system, which was laid down early in the last century. The cost will be prohibitive to this small municipal borough, because the town itself is below sea level. I am told that if they try to cope with that problem under existing provisions they may well have to add 6s. in the £to their rates. On the other hand, if they came within a Development Area and were treated under the 1945 Act, they would attract a 100 per cent. grant towards this very necessary piece of public amenity. If it were done now in that way, not only would we greatly add to the industrial attraction of the town, which I am sorry to say has 800 unemployed, but it would also provide work for 35 men for the next two years.
It comes to this. There is a clash of principle and philosophy between the two sides of the House. We on this side believe in sensible planning, leading to the location of industry. We believe that to share the work is even more important than to share the wealth. The Government have their own doctrinaire attitude. They have not abrogated the Distribution of Industry Act but they have neglected to use it, with the result that while they have been piling up buildings in the already overcrowded conurbations of London and the Midlands they have created in Scotland and Wales a periphery of misery. In spite of the appeals that we have made repeatedly to this Government for sympathetic and constructive attention to our problems in North-West Wales, we must wait until their successors, drawn from these benches, face the challenge and settle these problems.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thomas: I am delighted to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), and I should like to congratulate him on his good fortune in being called to speak. I have heard him on many occasions refer to this problem which exists in North-West Wales, and I have nearly always been impressed by his objective view of the

1225
situation. I think I can say that in practically all the matters to which he referred today I would not join issue with him.
The hon. Member was not as objective as he usually is. Of course, one would not expect it in a debate of this sort, because I appreciate that the Labour Party is to concentrate greatly on unemployment for political purposes in the next few months. Nevertheless, he presented a true picture of the situation which is extremely difficult. The hon. Gentleman comes from a part of Caernarvonshire which suffers more than the part which I represent, but nevertheless my constituency has difficult problems, and I have written to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade recently on the subject.
I should like to refer later in greater detail to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I feel that first I should refer to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who opened the debate. I hope he will not think it presumptuous of me if I say that I thoroughly enjoyed his speech because, as a Welshman, it is always a delight to hear an orator. I also agreed with him when he said that figures in themselves are impersonal things but that we must not forget, even if the figures are low, the misery that is represented to many hundreds and perhaps thousands of people who are contained in those small figures. I could not agree with him more. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will never lose an appreciation of the misery that unemployment can bring. and I know that most hon. Members will do everything within their power to prevent any return of long-term unemployment with its consequent misery.
Having said that about the right hon. Gentleman. I want to join issue with him because I think he presented an unnecessarily gloomy picture of Wales. He is held in high esteem in Wales; his voice is listened to with great attention, and I think he had a duty to Wales when he spoke this afternoon. It was not right for a man who speaks on behalf of Wales to over-emphasise the depressing features and not to lay any emphasis on the good things. We all know the situation. It is a matter of concern to us all. Nevertheless, when we are trying to attract people to Wales and to attract interest in Wales, it is a bad thing to present a wholly gloomy picture so that people
1226
think that it is a depressed area in which they are asked to take an interest.
I should like to emphasise that, despite the situation which obtains and which we know will improve in the next few months, Wales is a land of the future, a land of opportunity, which has considerable advantages which it can offer to firms wishing to go there and expand. It has excellent labour, excellent sites and services, and it also has in the Government an official attitude which is willing to give any firm every assistance. I refuse to present a wholly gloomy picture of Wales because I think that the prognosis of Wales is good. It is only right that these matters should be viewed as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in some detail South-West Wales. We all know the great difficulties which have been caused in South-West Wales due to the sudden change in world demand for tinplate, which brought about the premature closure of the old works. Experts thought the works would not close until 1960. Two years ago they were short of labour in the right hon. Gentleman's area and they had to import 800 Italians to work in that area. Clearly this is an extremely difficult problem which has arisen by accident, but it would be wrong to think that we are about to move into a great depressed situation in that part. I should say that the position of the old tinplate works should have been foreseen when the first brick was laid at Margam. I should have thought that at that time the right hon. Gentleman's Government ought to have made long-term plans to deal with this situation. It was obvious when the new works was under construction that this sort of problem would arise.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Pressed Steel Company of Swansea, which will provide jobs for 4,000 men and is the largest factory which has been built at any time by the Board of Trade. It is right that those matters should be brought to the public notice so that people may know there is a future there.
Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the announcement of these three projects which were mentioned today is not new. It.vas made several months ago, and these projects have been referred to in other debates.
Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that an old tinplate works can close down in a week, but it is not possible to build a factory in a week. It requires long-term planning. Apart from the Pressed Steel Company, there is the Crawley engineering industry, which will be providing between 300 and 400 jobs. I believe there are two others which will provide between 600 and 800 jobs. I am told that there is hope for another factory which will provide jobs for from 800 to 1,000 people.
I was in Milford Haven a year or so ago on an inquiry dealing with matters which will take place in that area. I could not help but be impressed by the situation in Milford Haven. The Esso Oil Refinery in Milford Haven will give employment to 2,000 people during construction and will employ 800 to 1,000 people when it is constructed. There is the B.P. oil terminal there which I visited and is now employing 320 people during construction. There is the iron ore terminal which will employ many people during construction. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Llanelly did not mention the new steel works at Newport. It sems to me that every Welshman who is anxious to present a true picture of Wales should say how pleased he is that these new steel works are to be erected in Wales. It will give considerable employment during construction, and when it is completed there will be jobs for 8.000 people, and we should rejoice.
I do not think the night hon. Gentleman mentioned the Development Corporation of Wales under the chairmanship of Sir Miles Thomas. Other hon. Members opposite have mentioned this corporation with, I thought, commendable appreciation. This corporation has appointed an expert staff to seek out continually on behalf of Wales a share of new industries, and I am sure it will do a great deal for Wales. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present when hon. Members met Sir Miles Thomas the other day. but they heard how the corporation intends to cover areas all over the world in their search to assist Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned coal. I do not claim to be an expert in the coal industry. I came into politics at a time when the tragedies which he
1228
mentioned had passed. But I think the right hon. Gentleman in all fairness should have mentioned the great investment programme which is now taking place in the coal industry and which we hope will ensure for the coal miners a bright future. I hope that what Sir James Bowman said is true, that coal will remain a major part of our economy for many years to came.
I regret to say that I have spoken longer than I had intended. I should like for a few moments to refer to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarvon. As I say, the hon. Gentleman made a number of points in an objective speech, except, I thought, when he said that the Government have not lifted a finger to help. I suggest that that remark was not in accord with his usual objectivity. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to make exaggerated speeches about the situation, but, as he knows, the problem has been with us in North-West Wales for a long time.
Between 1945 and 1951, during the lifetime of the Labour Government, there was only one factory built in North-West Wales with Government funds. That is in Caernarvon, Merioneth and Anglesey. At that time, there was great expansion in factory building, and the Labour Government very properly made a determined effort to try to deal with the future employment situation, but North-West Wales was neglected. It is no use hon. Members opposite trying to make political capital by pointing at this Government and suggesting that they are doing nothing.
Since 1951, three new factories, two of which are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caernarvon, have been built with Government funds, one at Pen-y-goes and two in Llangefni, and there have been four extensions. As hon. Members know, that is not all; there are many other projects coming along.
Mr. G. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has referred to what I said about the slate industry. I will repeat it: the Government have not lifted a finger to assist the slate industry. Perhaps he will now tell us what they have done. In the second place, between 1945 and 1951, unemployment in the county was under 2,000, and, as he knows, it is today double that.
Mr. Thomas: I am sorry if I used the expression about the Government not lifting a finger in an all-embracing way to which the hon. Gentleman objects. If he is referring to the slate industry, I will gladly reply to that. As regards unemployment between 1945 and 1951, he knows that it was still had during that time.
Mr. Roberts: Twice as bad now.
Mr, Thomas: In February, 1947, unemployment in Wales was 11·5 per cent.
Mr. G. Thomas: In the snow and ice.
Mr. Thomas: I do not think that any good at all is done by saying that.
Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) is not being objective now.
Mr. Thomas: As regards other matters. the hon. Member for Caernarvon knows that there are encouraging things taking place.
Mr. Roberts: Where?
Mr. Thomas: The nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd, for instance, when it is in operation, will employ about 300 people. The hydro-electric scheme at Llanberis is currently employing 340 people. As regards the slate industry itself, the hon. Gentleman says that the Government have not lifted a finger. Neither did the Labour Government. Moreover, it was unfortunate that the Labour Minister concerned with housing, then the Minister of Health, decided that he would prevent slate being used on council houses and gave every encouragement to synthetic tiles, which encouragement has meant that synthetic tiles have now completely outstripped slate in demand and price.
Mr. G. Roberts: I challenge that statement absolutely. In 1948 we employed 4,700 slate quarrymen. Today the figure has gone down to 3,000. The hon. Gentleman should ask any quarryman or any quarry proprietor whether the demand for slate for public housing was greater then than it is now. He will receive the answer "Yes".
Mr. Thomas: The numbers employed in the slate quarries, of course, have dwindled ever since the war, as the hon. Gentleman knows At the moment, as he
1230
says, the number employed is under 3,000. I believe that 93 per cent. of the total output of the slate quarries at the moment is used for the maintenance of existing roofs. We hope that the numbers will not dwindle very much more.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the Government have done. I hope that what has been done will be of assistance. I accept that not a very great deal has been done because, of course, one cannot interfere too much with private companies, as the slate quarries are. An appeal was made by Lord Brecon not long ago to local authorities in Wales to slate 5 per cent. of their new houses. If the local authorities in Wales did that, it would make a great difference to the slate industry of North Wales. The Government have gone further. My right hon Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs has said that he will allow English local authorities to have the same terms as Welsh local authorities in borrowing extra money should they roof their houses with slate. The Government have done that, and I think that it may be of great help to the slate industry.
I had intended to speak about the new Distribution of Industry Act, but I have spoken far too long already. I will just say to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that there are some queries about this Act. I believe that the Act represents a great hope for places like North-West Wales and other places where there is the problem of local unemployment, but some people are a little puzzled about whether it will be as efficient as we should like it to be. I believe that it can be. If various directives, if that can be done, arc given to D.A.T.A.C., I am sure that the Act will produce the result which we should all like to see.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Gordon Touche): Mr. D. J. Williams.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams); I will not keep him long. I know that you will acquit me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of any intention of being in any way disrespectful, but this debate is being conducted apparently on a regionalised basis. Scotland, Wales and other parts of the country have been debated. It is now twenty-five minutes to nine, and the debate must

1231
come to an end soon. So far, Lancashire's voice has not been heard, and the problem in Lancashire is very special and tragic. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Northern Ireland."] Northern Ireland, too. All I wanted to do, without taking up too much time, was to ask whether the areas that have not been heard so far come within the ambit of the conduct of the debate so that we shall not have been completely silent by the end of the debate.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Chair tries to call representatives from various parts of the country. A large number of hon. Members wish to speak, and I am sorry that if at the end of the debate all the areas have not been covered.
Mr. Silverman: I am not making a personal plea. There are many Lancashire Members, but I think that there would be an inbalance in the debate if we were to debate the matter in this way without the voice of Lancashire being heard.
Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: On a point of order. I am sorry to be tiresome. It is one of the ways in which I am not habitually tiresome. For our guidance in the future, may we ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the question of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was a point of order or not? It is important that we should know.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It was put forward as a point of order.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. D. J. Williams: I want to say a word or two about three aspects of the present unemployment problem. Firstly, I want to deal with the serious increase in national unemployment figures over the last twelve months; secondly, the emergence of a new kind of post-war unemployment problem since the end of the war namely long-term unemployment which has not been mentioned in the debate so far; and thirdly, the existence in many parts of the country of heavy pockets of unemployment. My own part of South Wales is one of these areas. There the unemployment figures are well above the national average and we have in a very acute form, the problem of long-term unemployment.
1232
From every point of view, long-term unemployment is the worst kind of unemployment. It is a serious matter for the nation when large numbers of people are unemployed. It is a much more serious matter when large numbers of people are unemployed for a long time. This is the situation with which we are now faced and it is especially serious in areas where there are heavy concentrations of local unemployment.
I regret the need for this debate. All of us on this side of the House deplore the circumstances which make the debate necessary. We are bound to protest against the policy of the Government which produced these circumstances, and which, indeed, made them inevitable. It is depressing that we should have a situation of this kind in Britain. It is profoundly disturbing that in the second half of the twentieth century, in this age of Sputniks, Zetas and other scientific marvels, we should be discussing unemployment on the present scale.
It is true that unemployment today is less than it was in pre-war years, and, because of that, there is a tendency to regard it as a somewhat remote and abstract problem of statistics, averages and percentages, of importance only as a kind of barometer of trends in the economy. But unemployment is not an abstract problem in South-West Wales. It is not a matter of statistics, percentages and figures. It is a matter of human beings, of men and women and their families, their hopes and prospects, and of the communities where they live. For these people unemployment is a grim and ghastly reality. We need figures to measure the trends in unemployment, but we should not forget that behind the arithmetic there are human beings.
Unemployment in Britain today is assuming serious proportions. It is developing into a major national problem. Every month, there is an increase in the number of people unemployed. Last month, the number went up by 22,000 and we now have over half a million people unemployed. And there are emerging all those social evils which unemployment on this scale inevitably produces.
The national unemployment figures are higher than they have been since the war. They stand at half a million. I am not

1233
suggesting that this is mass unemployment and I do not believe that we shall have a recurrence of the mass unemployment of the inter-war years. In modern Britain, no Government would survive if we had mass unemployment on the scale that we had before the war. Even if there is no mass unemployment, I am not exaggerating in saying that there is a massive unemployment problem. Indeed, in certain parts of South-West Wales the unemployment figures are now higher than even in the worst days of the depression.
Unemployment on the present national scale, however, is serious enough, because when, as at present, it exceeds the half-million mark, we are bound to have mass concentrations of unemployment in certain areas and we are bound to have long-term unemployment. This is brought out clearly in the figures issued by the Ministry of Labour. I do not want to burden the House with figures, but I should like to quote one or two.
As the national unemployment figures rise, there is an increase in the percentage of people who are unemployed for more than eight weeks. In December, 1957, we had 335,469 people unemployed and of these 38 per cent. had been unemployed for more than two months. Last month, we had 536,000 unemployed, but the percentage who had been unemployed for two months or more had risen to 49 per cent. We now have a quarter of a million people who have been unemployed for more than two months. Unemployment on the present national scale breeds long-term unemployment.
The problem is even worse in areas where there are heavy pockets of local unemployment. It is worse in Wales and it is worse still in certain areas within Wales. In Wales, the percentage of unemployment is well above the national average and the proportion of people who have been unemployed for more than two months is correspondingly higher.
In October, Wales had 38,942 people unemployed. Of these, over 20,000, or 53 per cent. Of the total, had been unemployed. This is a percentage of 4·1—nearly twice the national average. Within Wales, however, there are some very
1234
black spots indeed. In parts of South-West Wales, the percentage of unemployment is four or five times the national average.
In South-West Wales the position is really grim. The economic situation there has been deteriorating for a long time. The area has been overcome and overwhelmed by calamity after calamity. First, it was the closure of the old steel and tinplate works. Then on top of that, in the same area and at the same time, comes the closure of coal mines. In this area, we are faced not with unemployment as a temporary and transitory problem. We are faced with long-term unemployment with all its disastrous social and human consequences.
Unemployment today is a matter of policy. The present unemployment problem is not due to the operation of any mysterious economic forces. We do not need committees of wise men to find the cause of it, though we may need committees of much wiser men to find the cure for it. We certainly do not need any special economic insight to understand the cause of the present situation. It is the direct result of deliberate Government policy. The Government have used unemployment as an instrument of policy. They have deliberately increased unemployment in order to try to combat inflation, and, in deliberately increasing unemployment in order to try to halt inflation, they have sentenced large numbers of people to long stretches of unemployment, and have brought social and economic disaster to many communities.
The Government's policy has produced the twin evils of large-scale unemployment and derelict communities. The outcome of their policy may not have been the aim of that policy. The Government may not have willed these ends, but they have willed the means, and the evils which they have produced were implicit in those means. The fact is that unemployment, as an instrument of policy, is not only a most inhuman weapon, it is also a very clumsy and, indeed, a very dangerous weapon. It is not selective. it is not flexible, and all the ingenuity of the Minister of Labour cannot make it selective or flexible. If the Minister needs half a million people to be unemployed in order to halt inflation, then he cannot choose a different half million

1235
every week, and he cannot spread unemployment equally throughout the country. He is using a sledgehammer, not a scientific instrument. He is committing an assault, not performing an operation.
The result is that places like South-West Wales are being savaged while other places escape unscathed. The Government's policy has created conditions in which large numbers of people are unemployed for a long time. These are the people who suffer most from the hammer blows of unemployment as an instrument of policy. The Government's policy has also created conditions in which certain areas have long-term and large-scale unemployment. These are the places that suffer most from the hammer blows of unemployment as an instrument of Government policy.
This policy is causing irreparable harm to our economy, inflicting serious hardship on large numbers of our people and ruining old established communities like the towns and villages of West Wales. This is not the way to build a prosperous Britain, and certainly not the way to double the standard of living in twenty-five years. We cannot raise the national standard of living by depressing the standard of living of half a million workers and their families, and we cannot establish prosperity in Britain by ruining long established communities which have made important contributions to the life of this country.
The workers of South Wales have suffered severely from the effects of Government policy. They have been condemned to the ordeal of long-term unemployment. They have suffered the hardships involved in loss of employment, loss of income and loss of status. Many of them have already exhausted their claim to unemployment benefit, and now have to suffer the humiliations and indignities of a means test. If the Government cannot provide employment for these people, the least they can do is to treat them in a civilised way. The time has surely arrived for the restoration of the provisions of Section 62 of the National Insurance Act. These men are unemployed through no fault of their own, and they ought not to be penalised and persecuted because they are the victims of Government policy.
8.50 p.m.
Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams) spoke of the seriousness of long-term unemployment. That is something which, unfortunately, we in Northern Ireland understand only too well. We have a growing population, and every year now we expect that at least 5,000 more will go on to the working list of people wanting jobs. We have also to remember that we have had the big problem of the number of people unemployed in our agricultural and textile industries.
Time is pressing, so I shall not be able to develop the theme as I had hoped to be able to, but I will as quickly as possible put the main points. First, the credit squeeze hit a number of our firms at a time when they were extremely short of capital and they found it very hard to sell. They recognised, of course, that it was essential for the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole, but it certainly hit them very hard indeed.
We are at present very interested in the discussions going on with Hong Kong. There are certain aspects of the texile industry in Northern Ireland which are watching those with tremendous care. What happens about Hong Kong affects many other parts of the United Kingdom. I know full well, but it affects Northern Ireland very much, and it is upon the effects upon Northern Ireland that I wish to concentrate in the short time at my disposal.
People in the linen and made-up clothing industries wonder what is to happen if the great influx which is now going on is permitted to continue without any restriction or any agreement. We have to face the facts, but I for one rather wonder about this. If we import vases, or some such object wrapped in straw, great care is taken to burn the straw publicly to save the spread of disease in our country. I, for one, wonder whether Asian 'flu is coming into the country in the materials we import from Asian countries where they are worked in conditions which would not be tolerable in the United Kingdom.
The discussions on the Free Trade Area are causing great concern in Northern Ireland. We are looking to the New World

1237
to help us establish new industries to diversify the industry we already have, but at the moment, with the breakdown in the Free Trade Area negotiations, American firms are taking another look at the situation and are being slower to come to Northern Ireland and feel less interested in coming, and, of course, that affects us and means that we ourselves are very anxious to see that the Free Trade Area has a real possibility of coming into being, however hard we must work to achieve it.
Another of the difficulties in Northern Ireland is shortage of capital. We have a number of small firms which did not share in the prosperity there was during the boom years, if we may call them that. Firms which are working with 1935 or 1938 capital in a 1958 economy find it impossible to carry stock and to maintain the standards necessary for them to sell the goods of quality for which we in Northern Ireland are so famous. That is a real problem and I believe that something ought to be done about it.
In passing, I would say that the Bank Rate is too high for small firms to borrow money to help carry these burdens. There must be found some way of reducing that heavy burden on the small firms.
There is another matter which affects us greatly, as has been mentioned already, and that is the fact that while the Anglo-Eire trade is in balance generally, many small firms in Northern Ireland are in a bad way for business because manufactured goods coming into the United Kingdom as a whole from Eire come in much greater proportion to Northern Ireland in particular, because it is easier for Eire to send them just over the land border than it is to send them anywhere else. We have to face that as further competition for our small firms.
Moreover, we have too high transport costs, which have been mentioned before, and which, in the short time available to me tonight, I shall not now elaborate.
My own experiences, and they are numerous, of this problem of unemployment go back to the early 'thirties. One day in the very dark year of 1931 there WAS an incident which will always remain in my mind. As a small child I went with my father, who was constantly visiting in and around the small houses in the centre of the city where men had forgotten what it was like to work. On
1238
this day, at the lunch hour, I remember seeing children in the house sitting down to bread with a spreading of jam.
There was no man in the room and my father went upstairs because we heard that the man was not yet up. I heard him say distinctly to the man, "Don't you think that even if you cannot get a job there is much you could do to help with the children and keep up morale?" I have never forgotten the man's reply which was, "Your reverence, if I do not rise I do not eat." We have come a long way from that situation. We have achieved a tremendous lot and we know that those sort of things cannot and must not ever return.
I speak with great feeling because I have listened to hon. Members putting the case for pockets of a very high level of unemployment. The general figure overall for Great Britain is 2·4 per cent., for Wales 4·1 per cent., for Scotland 4·4 per cent., but for Northern Ireland generally 8·3 per cent.
Mr. Ellis Smith: We have 60,000 unemployed in my area.
Mrs. McLaughlin: I am speaking now of Northern Ireland only and of the overall figure and I hope that the hon. Member will allow me a few minutes. We have this problem very acutely. I do not know how many unemployed there might be in certain pockets of unemployment, but I will do no more than mention the overall figure and problem. The President of the Board of Trade spoke this afternoon about the special help that is to be given about the difficulties of providing services round, and about new industries and about everything that has been and is being done. We are very grateful for what is being done, but we know that this problem is still being approached in an orthodox manner and that that such pieces of legislation as would allow the development of industry to be on the same level as it is now in Northern Ireland has not helped us in any way and that our problem is still as intractable as ever.
It is a problem with a long history. I remember that during the war we had 4·4 per cent. unemployment when there were no such comparable figures in the rest of Great Britain. Other parts of the United Kingdom had a greater measure of prosperity than had Northern Ireland

1239
We in Northern Ireland are modest, hardworking people. I sometimes think that because we do not shout loud and hard enough we do not get our share of employment.
No Government, including the present Government, has ever succeeded in solving this problem. We had the same problem during the six years of Labour Government. In fact, unemployment was then 0·1 per cent. or 0·2 per cent. higher than it is now. There is no cause for hon. Members opposite to say that the problem should be solved when they failed to solve it when they were in power. I would indict any Government, Labour or Tory, which failed to solve this problem.
Mr. Lindgren: What about the Northern Ireland Parliament?
Mrs. McLaughlin: Party bitterness is brought into this matter, but all we want is that the problem should be dealt with now and not in years to come. Laughing and joking, as some hon. Members appear to be doing, sometimes help to raise the temperature of the House, but it does not help to solve this problem in Northern Ireland.
We are grateful for the arrangements made to give grants to small farmers, because farming is our largest industry in Northern Ireland. These arrangements will help considerably those small farmers who have no other means of making the land as productive as it should be. The Government of Northern Ireland have been trying to bring new industry into the country. They have been successful, and, despite an increasing population and the increasing number of people coming on to the labour market all the time, we have managed to maintain the level of unemployment at a figure of which we are not proud but which would have been much worse but for those efforts.
We have slum clearance schemes, new road schemes, and school building. As much as can be done by us is being done, and I believe that the effort will be increased as and when we are able to do so. We have made a sound advance in technical school training and with a Short & Harlands' apprenticeship scheme, whereby we hope to see that all young people who are so minded have the opportunity of good training. We have a good labour market. We are anxious to exploit it and
1240
to allow anybody who wishes to come in to use it to have a really good shot at it industrially. We have a high exporting value per head of the population. Northern Ireland is a high-dollar-earning part of the United Kingdom. It has a large shipping industry and it has received a fair proportion of Government contracts.
We have many prosperous firms, small and large. We are not a down-and-out area and we are not trying to say that we are. We are saying that we have a problem on which this House is concentrating tonight. We have had a great increase in the "know-how" of textiles. We have had a great influx of new industries. If I may be vulgar, we can make everything from a brassiere to a battleship. The trouble is that we have not enough orders or enough firms filling them to take our unemployed.
Now I will make a few recommendations, because it is no use complaining if one cannot make suggestions. We have our aircraft industry represented by Short Brothers and Harland. Where are the Government orders and when will the decision be taken on the new freighter-cum-trooper for the Armed Forces? When will Messrs. Short's get an opportunity to develop the Britannia, which is a first-class project? We cannot get a definite answer and the men are getting impatient and restless. What about guided missiles? We need that kind of work and Short's is a Government firm. The Government have responsibility for seeing that the firm works, works securely, and works profitably.
Some method must be found of helping the exporting firms to carry their stocks. I will give one example. A linen firm which sends a salesman to America cannot guarantee to fill the orders given in America in the required time. The delay is between six to eight weeks. Why? Because the firm in question must carry 10 or 12 ranges in 10 or 12 colours, and at least 400 yards of each colour in each range must be dyed to make this an economic possibility. How can such a firm be expected to do that without crippling itself by carrying a heavy overdraft at the present high Bank Rate? Although the Bank Rate has come down, it is still not low enough.
Instead of scouting all over the world asking people to come to Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland at the same

1241
time, is it not possible to decide on a concerted theme for Britain, for Ulster, for Wales and for Scotland? We are not greedy. We want to share in what is going. We are hungry for work, but we do not say that we must have it and nobody else. Long before I came to this House I suggested sending a team of fact-finding people to Ulster to discover where we need the capital, where the injection of money should be made, and what should be done. It is seven years since I first made this suggestion and I hope that it will be carried out.
All orthodox methods of solving this problem have failed. I believe that we must be afraid of new ideas, because no new ideas have been forthcoming. Ulster's exceptional position has not been fully realised. Even the question of a dry dock has not been emphasised as it should have been, so that question could be discussed profitably. I say to the Government, "Turn your eyes from the further horizons, for there are people in Northern Ireland who feel that Malta gets more time and attention from this House than those who have worked so hard in the years past, both in war and peace, and who now want some satisfaction on this point."
In an article published recently in the Northern Ireland Queen's University Year Book, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
"Your territory is our territory and your honour is our honour."
I know that my right hon. Friend is sincere and that he has an abiding concern for Northern Ireland. I am well aware of the Government's interest and of the time that they have spent in trying to solve our problems. But it is not enough, and I do not want any more pious words or any more of these hopeful remarks. I want to see something done. I want the Government not to let this problem heat them.
I speak for all those people who have served Britain in the past and who ask for an opportunity to serve her in the future. I am holding up to the house the red hand of Ulster, the symbol of Ulster. I believe that if any Government can solve the problem of Ulster it is this Government, and I throw down the challenge to them—" Can you, will you, solve our unemployment problem?"
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) has made a very interesting speech in which she has given a graphic and vivid picture of unemployment in Northern Ireland. which picture, of course, is the same picture of every area affected in that way.
The hon. Lady said that she thought that people would get better attention paid to these evils if they shouted louder and oftener, but I think that she will agree with me that it is not enough to shout loud and often unless one knows what one is shouting for. The hon. Lady made it perfectly clear that the tragedies which she was describing so eloquently could be cured by a Government that intended to cure them. The implication of her speech was—and indeed she expressly said—that people in Northern Ireland and their representatives in this House of Commons were not satisfied that the Government were making any serious effort to cure this problem. If her speech did not mean that, she ought not to have made it. If her speech did mean that, she has to do something more than shout loud and long.
There will be a Division at the end of the debate when those who think that the Government have done everything that can reasonably be expected of the Government will go into the Government Lobby. If the hon. Lady is satisfied that the Government have done everything for unemployment in Northern Ireland that they can reasonably be expected to do, she will, of course, vote for them. If she has no opinion at all on the matter, then, no doubt, she will remain in her seat and not vote at all.
Mrs. McLaughlin Mrs. McLaughlin rose—
Mr. Silverman: I have not time to give way. If the hon. Lady means what she said in her speech, then her duty to herself and to her constituents is to come into the Lobby with us at the end of the day and back her opinion with her vote.
Mrs. McLaughlin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not quite so sincere in his determination to air the problem of Lancashire. I spoke very briefly to give him a few minutes. He is now taking up the time of the House by telling me what I

1243
should do. I know what I shall do; I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows what he should do.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Lady seems to be making a mistake which I would not have thought it possible for her to make. She knows perfectly well that the problems of unemployment are everywhere the same. A part of her own problem in Northern Ireland is the textile problem. Most of our problem in Lancashire is the textile problem. As for her speaking briefly, I would point out that she took twenty minutes when she was supposed to take five.
I think that the speech made at the beginning of the debate by the President of the Board of Trade was about the most depressing and disappointing speech that has been delivered in the House for many years. He had not one single word of hope, comfort or help to give to any of us. Lancashire he did not mention, except to say that there was one problem vital to it, namely, the problem of the limitation of imports from Hong Kong. That, he knows perfectly well, is only a small part of the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a vital problem, that he was trying to cope with it by agreement and that agreement was not in sight, and he left it at no more than that as his contribution to the Lancashire problem. It is most depressing and disappointing—disappointing at any rate to those who still have any faith in the Government's sincerity when they say that they mean to maintain full employment. They know perfectly well that they do not mean to maintain full employment at all. They do not give full employment the first priority, as hon. Members on this side of the House do. They say, and have said repeatedly, "We are prepared to maintain a high and stable level of unemployment, such as is consistent with maintaining the balance of payments and resisting inflation."
In other words, the Government are prepared to allow whatever number of unemployed is necessary rather than give up their doctrinaire objections to the control of our economic resources in the interests of the community. They are prepared to allow Lancashire, Northern Ireland, North Wales, South Wales, Durham, and any other part of the country in which it happens to be possible,
1244
to go to rack and ruin. They are prepared to let them become derelict, to let their populations drift away, to let their factories remain idle, and to maintain an absolute refusal to use the national resources for the national benefit unless there is a war.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Robens: We have been debating a problem which has been created entirely by the policy of the Government in the last twelve months.
Mr. Osborne: No.
Mr. Robens: The hon. Member says "No", but the Secretary of State for Scotland said so. He said that the Government had to take the measures they did—which have produced stagnation in the economy and created this unemployment problem—because they had to deal with the more urgent and perhaps more difficult problem of inflation. If the hon. Member takes the view that what I am saying is incorrect, he must see what the Secretary of State for Scotland said this afternoon. At the same time, he said that there was no one on the Government side who liked unemployment; that they were as sincere as anyone else in wanting a low unemployment figure, and regretted the size of the unemployed army at the present time.
Nevertheless, many hon. Members opposite, including some Members of the Government, see some good in a growing army of unemployed. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members opposite protesting, because on 18th October the Assistant Postmaster-General is quoted by the Manchester Guardian as having said, in a speech at Liverpool, that the present figures of unemployment were part of the price to be paid for living in an age of change and rapid growth, and he went on to say:
"It should be seen as a spur to new efforts and new thinking."
If the Assistant Postmaster-General thought that a rising army of unemployed was a spur to new thinking he should tell us who should do the new thinking. Should it be the unemployed? Surely the new thinking should be done by the Government of which he is a Member. That is an example of a Member of the Government who regards unemployment not as terribly disastrous but as a great spur to new thinking.

1245
We have had this debate with the background of an unemployment figure of 536,000. The language used tonight has been reasonably strong, certainly by hon. Members on this side, although if the positions had been reversed the language would have been much stronger from hon. Members opposite. But this is nothing to what we have to face, because in a few months' time the unemployment figure will rise by almost 20 per cent., to 620,000. My authority for saying that is the right hon. Member the Minister of Labour, who told us we must expect it. If from every quarter of the United Kingdom we can have strong statements and the expression of Members who feel keenly the problems of unemployment in their areas with an unemployment figure of slightly over 500,000, it seems to me that in a few months' time the arguments will be even stronger, and the language—if it is not in this House—lurid.
The truth is that there is great public anxiety about unemployment. It is no use hon. Members opposite chipping in by talking about the 3 per cent. which one ought to regard as a reasonable measure of unemployment, which was the percentage mentioned in the Coalition White Paper produced by Lord Beveridge. That was a different day and age. We look upon unemployment in the post-war years very differently from the way we looked at unemployment in the pre-war years. If in the pre-war years we could have had unemployment at 5 per cent. we should have said that that was very good indeed. We are not prepared today to accept 3 per cent. as the rate to which unemployment can go and then sit back and say that everything is all right at 3 per cent. We have to have unemployment at the lowest possible rate, and it is not our view that the lowest possible rate is 3 per cent.
That is why we have this great public interest. The News Chronicle Gallup poll the other day showed that this was the second most important subject in the minds of people in this country. This has been followed up by innumerable newspaper articles in most of the daily papers, and certainly the weekly papers, dealing with the problem of unemployment. Figures have been produced and there have been letters to The Times asking whether there is not, in fact, a much
1246
larger number of people unemployed by reason of the hidden unemployment. A good deal of this has been graphically described today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in opening the debate, put his finger on even a much greater social evil than the problem of adults in areas of unemployment when he drew the attention of the House to the thousands of school leavers to whom the Ministry of Labour local officials are saying, "There is no job for you". I regard this as most serious, because this is an age of technical development. What possibilities are there for improvements in technical processes in industry and factories if young people who go to technical colleges and who hope to improve their education by night school courses, for example, are told, when they leave school, "There is no job for you"?
One of my hon. Friends referred to young people in his constituency who had still no job although they had left school four or five months ago. I am not very old, but I well remember the 'twenties and the 'thirties and the awful problem for young people for whom there was no job when they left school. I was one of them. I left school in 1926 with a secondary education which had provided me with an ability to do shorthand and bookkeeping and to speak another language besides my own, but I started work mopping a shop floor; that was all I could manage to get after eight months seeking employment.
This situation now applies to many people today, and it is one of the tragic social consequences arising directly from the Government's policy. Unfortunately, although I have spoken of Government policy, the Government are following no overall policy. It is incredible to think that on 29th October, 1957, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Box and told us how necessary it was to cut down capital expenditure. I will not quote his remarks because time does not permit, but he went through every phase of our public activities.
The power station programme had to be slowed down; local government work on housing, roads and other public services had to be slowed down; transport developments had to be slowed down; hospital building had to be slowed down; the building of schools and

1247
educational development had to be slowed down. Two or three pages of HANSARD are covered by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the present Government—a Government with the same Prime Minister and almost the same Cabinet—which came to the conclusion about twelve months ago that the whole investment policy had to be slowed down because they were frightened by their inability to cope with the inflationary situation by any other method than that of creating an army of unemployed.
The Government knew perfectly well that the action which they contemplated at that time would produce unemployment. If they did not know it, they were reminded of it from this side of the House in that very debate. Three members of the Government resigned—the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers—and we were told that they had resigned because the Cabinet could not agree on a further cut of £50 million in the investment programme.
Twelve months later the Prime Minister made an entirely different speech. He said, "Of course, there will be more jobs in the spring". He said that it is now necessary to spend a good deal more money. He gave the figure of about £150 million more to be spent than had been agreed at that time, and it was said that this would provide about 150,000 jobs.
I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate, what kind of policy is this to run the economy of this nation, when within twelve months there is a complete switch from pulling down the economy and stagnating industry to these panic measures which the Government have adopted? When all this capital investment flows through the economy it will certainly create jobs. We do not oppose an increase in capital investment; it will create jobs.
What will the Government do then about the inflationary position which that will create? Will they then reduce investment and produce this army of unemployed all over again? It is clear that this is the only policy they understand. They let the economy rip on a free-for-all and then find that the value of the £ sterling is falling and are scared of the position of the £ sterling. They then retract, reduce capital investment and
1248
produce an army of unemployed. We thus go through this process and have this cycle every two years.
Our view is that there is no necessity to have these booms and slumps, providing the economy is properly managed and we have a planned economy. This is the whole argument between the parties. Make no mistake about it. Hon. Members opposite this afternoon have said that we have raised the question of unemployment for political motives. If full employment is a matter of politics, then I stand guilty of that charge. We shall tell the country that it is not possible to have full employment unless the resources of this nation are planned to ensure it, and that under a Tory Government we shall have full employment sometimes and large-scale unemployment at other times. This is the phase that we are now going through.
It is perfectly true that in an industrial society like ours we have problems of world-wide economic effect over which the United Kingdom Government have little or no control, and therefore there will be a fall in exports followed by a rise in exports; but if one has a planned economy, if one is constantly making preparation for the time when exports fall, and begins to put into the machine work for the home market, work that is required to be done in this country on our roads and schools, and in the clearance of our slums—a whole host of work is required to be done—if these are injected into our economy at the right time, instead of having high peaks and troughs we shall have a much more balanced employment situation.
When we come to individual planning within the country, we have to recognise that the changing pattern of industry is also changing the face of Britain. We have got a most remarkable example of that in cotton and coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) did not have much time to develop his case on the cotton industry. I know that in his town of Nelson in the last six years 25 mills have been closing and the young people are pouring out of Nelson at the rate of 600 a week. They are going out to get work somewhere else.
In the coal industry, an extractive industry, it is inevitable that the reserves of coal will be exhausted, and we know

1249
well in advance which pits will be closed and almost the exact time, within months, when they must be closed because the reserves have gone. Many of these pit villages rely entirely upon the working of the colliery. It is perfectly clear that with these two old industries going else-where—and I have no doubt that it will not be many years before the number of pits in this country will be half the number at present; it will be a more efficient industry—dotted over the country will be scores of communities without any work at all unless the Government provide that work.
I do not say that in every pit village we must put a new industry—that is not necessary in these modern times—but we must plan in some way. It may be that there will have to be better travel facilities from the mining villages, better roads, and the ability to use the capital assets in the villages which collectively must represent millions of pounds in housing and the social services. These ought not to be lost. We ought not to have young people leaving Nelson at the rate of 600 a week. We ought to plan our industrial potential in such a way that we can continue to use the social resources that we have in housing and so on, and, indeed, take work to the people instead of having people moving away, leaving deserted villages—and not just deserted villages, but leaving old and disabled people who cannot move to new work.
We cannot undertake this big operation without planning. A free-for-all economy cannot possibly meet this situation. Here is the great difference between the parties. The party opposite believes that a free economy left to itself without any control of any kind will in some way sort this matter out. Our view is that it will not sort it out. We must plan the situation.
Let us take the case mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly this afternoon. He spoke of the number of pits being closed in South Wales at the time when the Coal Board was developing two new pits. He indicated that if those pits had been given two more years of life instead of being closed by reason of Government policy, within the next six or eight months there could have been an easy and ordered transfer of miners from pits which were going out of production to the new pits. What kind of Government policy is this
1250
when in the mining industry it is time that is required It is to the eternal credit of men who work in the industry that they have never resisted the closure of pits which were uneconomic. What they have said is: Let us do this in an orderly way. Let us have these transfers in order to minimise the social inconvenience and hardship to the people working in the industry.
We have a situation in which time should be bought for the coal industry, because the Government were responsible for the coal-oil conversion in the power stations. They should take steps to ease the situation and extend the contracts which they have already made. I am not advocating that commercial contracts should be broken, but I am saying that the two oil companies concerned, faced with this problem, could technically quite easily extend their contracts and give the time that the mining industry needs to deal with this change which has been brought about largely by the stagnation of industry in this country.
The Government ought to look once again at what the gas industry is doing about liquified methane. It seems inconceivable that the Government should permit the gas industry to go to enormous expense to bring liquified methane from thousands of miles away, when, on its doorstep, are millions of tons of coal. They ought at this stage to be using scientific advice on how to carbonise the kind of coal which is available.
I recognise, and I believe that all those I speak for recognise, that with full employment one has a number of economic problems. The biggest problem, of course, is the danger of inflation. To overload the economy, to overload any part of industry, indeed, creates a situation in which inflation could begin to rear its ugly head. But, on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I say that we would far rather deal with the problems of full employment than allow this burden of misery to rest on the half million people who are out of work.
What the Government have done to get out of the mess into which they have put themselves is to put the burden on this army of unemployed which the Minister of Labour says will reach over 600,000 by January or the end of February next year. They have run away from dealing with the real problems of

1251
this country's economy. That is the reason why we shall go into the Lobby against them tonight, to show that we regard their non-adherence to a policy with the contempt it deserves.
9.31 p.m.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): It may be an odd taste, but I like taking part in unemployment debates, although I frankly say that I do not relish being the sixth speaker to speak from the Dispatch Box in this debate. I am sorry that so many hon. Members have not been able to get into the debate. It has been a constituency debate on the whole, and none the worse for that.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) spoke effectively at the beginning of the debate, and, in doing so, drew from the well of his great experience. I will come to certain of the points he made, if I may, but there is one general matter I wish to take up first of all. The right hon. Gentleman and many other speakers have said that they believe that because, man for man the Opposition have a far deeper knowledge of the problems of unemployment than we have on this side of the House—that is, of course, true—they are therefore more devoted to full employment. I do not believe that for a moment.
Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not want full employment.
Mr. Macleod: I do not believe that what a man feels about unemployment depends on the party to which he belongs or whether his party happens to sit on the right-hand side or the left-hand side of Mr. Speaker. After all, the fact is that both parties have had good and bad trading conditions since the war. Both parties have tried, with varying success, to meet different sorts of economic crises.
Just to take comparable figures, the average figure of unemployment from August, 1945, until October, 1951, was 334,000. From November, 1951, until November, 1958, it was 325,400. I am not making any argument about the difference between the two, but nobody, on the basis of those figures, can suggest that one party has been strikingly more successful than another nor, in my view, can
1252
it be suggested that one party is more devoted to the cause of full employment than another.
In a speech at Cambridge a little time ago, the Leader of the Opposition, when expressing his belief—I have already said that I was grateful for it—that there would not be a major slump, laid down five points which he thought the Government should follow. I take it that these remain the beliefs of the Opposition for the right approach to the situation we have now. There are many matters I wish to discuss, and I will take these five points very quickly.
The first is that the publicly-owned industries should be allowed to get on with their investment programmes and be told to speed them up. Apart from the £30 million which was authorised in August, a further large total, between £125 million and £150 million, was announced on 3rd November.
The second point is that Government Departments and local authorities should push ahead with their programme for roads, schools and hospitals. It is in those fields that we have splendidly high programmes and we are now pushing ahead.
The right hon. Gentleman's third point is that interest rates should be lowered. [HON. MEMBERS; "Who put them up?"] This is what the Leader of the Opposition asks us to do. The Opposition cannot complain if we do it. The third point is that interest rates should be lowered much further, and shortly after that suggestion the Bank Rate was lowered again and an alteration was made in the Public Works Loan Board rate.
The fourth point, on export credits, was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in a debate on 4th November, and other alterations ware announced on 2nd December. The Leader of the Opposition's last point is that there should be tax concessions.
Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Why leave it so late in accepting my right hon. Friend's policy?
Mr. Macleod: We did some of these things before the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The concessions on credit facilities were announced on 28th October. The Leader of the Opposition has much more experience in marking papers than

1253
I, but on that basis I give us 4½ out of 5, even on the Opposition's policy. This is the only thing that makes me wonder whether we are doing the right thing after all.
An important argument that emerged many times today, and on which there has been a professorial argument in The Times, was to the effect that the published figures under-estimate the true level of unemployment. I say straight away that the unemployment figures do not tell now, and, in a sense, can never tell, the whole story. I have always tried, as I think the House will recognise, in giving figures of unemployment, to give short-time figures, overtime figures and anything I can that helps to build up the true picture. I do not deny for one moment that when the demand for labour drops it is inevitable that the amount of work some people do is insufficient to keep them fully occupied, and although they are retained by their firm there is a substantial amount of under employment. On the other hand, short-time work over the last few months has not increased substantially. The last full quarterly figures that we have are for August, which show that the figure for short-time was 2·8 per cent., but 21·1 per cent. for overtime.
I wish to refer to only two obvious flaws in the calculations that are sometimes made. An argument that is often used in these debates is that, because in November 14·8 per cent. of the dock workers did not find daily work, this is hidden unemployment, or, any way, unemployment that is not shown in the unemployment figures. This is a misconception of the Dock Labour Scheme, because it has always been accepted—this will be found in the Devlin Report and in many other places—that there is a widely fluctuating demand for dock labour and, therefore, there should be a surplus of labour over daily requirements. This figure has been agreed at around 10 per cent. If we go back to November, 1957, when there was a far higher amount of activity, the average percentage was still 11·7. It is not true to count all these figures—
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: What about the seamen?
Mr. Macleod: I will deal with some facts about Merseyside in a moment.
1254
Seamen would be included in the figures in the ordinary way.
Again, there is the fallacy, which can be seen in today's newspapers, that, because married women sometimes are not insured, they do not appear in the unemployment figures. This is not so. Everyone appears in the unemployment figures, whether insured or not, as long as they are unemployed and registered as seeking work. This is not an insurance point, as is often mistakenly said. The truth is that over the years many hundreds of thousands of people have come in at times of peak labour demand, and this has been a great gain to us. It seems to me quite wrong to use an argument for 1958 which is not used for 1950 or 1948.
It could be argued equally easily that the figures for the years 1946 to 1948. before the 1948 scheme gave a wider spread to insurance, must have underestimated the amount of unemployment that existed because people had less incentive then to go to the exchanges Many of these arguments, however, are beside the point. We have for a long time accepted under both parties the same definition of employment, and if we are to make comparisons over the years not necessarily political comparisons, we must surely start from the same basis.
A little over six weeks ago, when we discussed the question of unemployment in the debate on the Address, I took what I knew was a considerable chance and predicted unemployment ahead to what would probably be the peak months of next year. I did it deliberately. I thought it fair to the House to do it, because with all the risks involved it was better to try to make an examination and see how best one could bring the figures before the House. I do not pretend that one can forecast these things accurately to one-tenth of 1 per cent., but I can say that what has happened since seems to have borne out my forecast. Indeed, I now think that I shall have a little bit in hand.
Between October and November, the increase of 22,000 was almost precisely in line with what I expected, although I added I must repeat this—that the rise in the number of wholly unemployed in those months was larger than I thought would be the case. Even though the final

1255
figures for November have been out only a few days, from the reports I have had I can now see fairly clearly what has happened in December. I do not have any detailed figures, but the movement between November and December has been more favourable than one could expect.
In a normal year, there would be a slight increase between these two months. I certainly anticipated a quite substantial increase on top of the normal seasonal movement. In fact, it looks as if there has been stability between these two months and, indeed, a slight decrease. [Interruption.] I know that it is a small improvement, but I am sure that the Opposition is as glad to hear this as we are. This seems to be the first month for a long time in which we have done better than the trend. Naturally, there is still to come the usual fairly substantial increase in the figures between December and January, about which I have warned the House.
Between these two months, vacancies show a small increase. Although the figures are microscopic, we have now had four months of a rather better trend in vacancies. This at least may show that the decline has been halted. I now give formal notice that, at least as far as the unemployment figures are concerned, I am going out of the tipster business.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly and the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams) raised the question of Section 62 of the 1946 Act, and I would like to answer that point. Nobody knows this position better than the right hon. Gentleman, because it was his responsibility to pilot the Act through the House in 1946. Section 62 of that Act was only a temporary device with a life limited by the Act itself—and, therefore, by decision of the Labour Government—to five years from 1948. Therefore, it lapsed automatically in 1953. When it lapsed, the Government of the day, by that time a Tory Government, put up the amounts of insurance benefit to nineteen months in any one spell. These are the highest qualifications ever allowed since tests such as that of genuinely seeking work were properly abandoned. I say quite frankly that I think it would be a retrograde step to go back on that action. I will not give the House the
1256
quotations which I could give, including some from the right hon. Gentleman himself, but I think I should ask this. He was careful to ask what the Government were going to do about it, but I think he was also careful not to say whether he himself would bring back this particular Section.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I say that Section 62 was created to meet circumstances in which long-term unemployment meant unemployment with a means test? It succeeded admirably. We are reaching that stage again, and I and my party would restore it.
Mr. Macleod: It is a good thing that that should be said, but I do not believe that we are going into that position, and, quite frankly, I think it would be a great pity to go back and to put back into our National Insurance Scheme the sort of qualification which the right hon. Gentleman indicates. If I may quote from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), from 23rd May, 1946, he said this:
…I think it is impossible, being an insurance scheme, that it should march upon the basis that there can be unlimited or unqualified benefit in respect of unemployment… What is impossible in any insurance scheme is to base it upon the principle that there are limited contributions and unlimited benefits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 661.]
I am bound to say, looking back over the years—and we need not debate this now—that that advice was sound, and I rather think that the right hon. Gentleman himself might come to that conclusion.
The problem that has always concerned us all most has not been the overall level of employment but the existence of some of these peculiarly difficult areas, and so I asked for a "dip check" on five places, and these are the only figures I have, for North Lanarkshire, Greenock, Dundee, Llanelly and Merseyside. Between November and December, this is what happened: Greenock remained unchanged at 8·3 per cent. Dundee was unchanged at 4·8 per cent., and, of course, that is a considerable improvement since the high figure in the summer. Llanelly remains unchanged at 6·9 per cent.
In the other two, there has been a very considerable change and improvement. In North Lanarkshire, the total

1257
unemployment has gone down by 640, and the percentage rate has fallen from 8·6 to 8 2 in December. It is still far too high, but, surely, a welcome change. On Merseyside, between November and December, unemployment fell by over 2,500, and the percentage rate from 4·6 to 4·2, but Merseyside has always been essentially a problem of men wholly unemployed, and it is good to see that the male unemployment rate fell from 5½ to 4·9 per cent., the main reason for the fall being the winter overhaul programme and the drop in the number of people unemployed in shipbuilding and ship repairing.
I never try to build too much on one month's figures, but it is certainly true that this is the best news from Merseyside that we have had for a year or more.
Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman any corresponding figures for north-east Lancashire?
Mr. Macleod: I shall come to say a word or two about cotton shortly, but I do not think I have the figures divided up for south-east Lancashire, because this count is only a day or two old.
One important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) on training. He asked whether there are increased facilities for training, and whether the T.U.C. co-operated in this. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have increased the facilities for Government training, but there has, in fact, been very little extra demand—all through these difficult months—for additional training. It remains the policy—and I know it is right and is agreed by both sides of industry—that most of the training should be done by industry itself, and the T.U.C. gives warm support to it. We are also helping a great deal in the Industrial Training and Apprenticeship Council, which is in particular, looking into matters of apprenticeship training.
I have tried to cover all the points, but seeing it has not had a full hearing in today's debate I should like to say one word about textiles, and first of all, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). She made reference to the linen industry,
1258
and particularly to the holding of stocks in the United States of America. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would like to look at that in the light of what she has said in her speech.
On the general position in textiles, there has been something of an improvement—still microscopic, but in the last month or two there has been indeed an improvement. The decline in the number of workers, which has been slackening in recent months, ceased in September, and October was the first month since April of last year in which there was no fall. In cotton the number fell by 1,500 in October. In wool the number has remained steady since July. After a small rise in September short-time working fell by 11,000, a quite substantial figure, in October 6,000 of that being in cotton and 1,000 in wool.
I think the great difficulty with which the hon. Member and other hon. Members are concerned here is the application of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act of this year, because the only places at the moment that we put on the list as qualifying in Lancashire are Merseyside and Barrow-in-Furness.
Mr. Walter Monslow Mr. Walter Monslow (Barrow-in-Furness) rose—
Mr. Macleod: I am sorry I cannot give way, but I have such a short time.
The reason for that is that the criterion we have adopted is one of 4 per cent. wholly unemployed, and as of course the House knows, the problem in wool and cotton towns is essentially one of the temporarily stopped. I should like, with my right hon. Friend, in the light of the things that have been said, to examine this criterion, but I think that in general certainly the wholly unemployed is the better figure to take for this exercise, but I have recognised that there are special problems in Lancashire.
We have heard a great deal today about the closing of pits, and I think there was a passing reference today and in an article by the right hon. Gentleman a day or two ago to the switch to oil consumption at the power stations. Perhaps in a sentence or two I could just say this. On, I think, 3rd December in this House the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power gave some indication of the closure of the 36 pits. We—that is the

1259
Ministry of Labour—have been most closely consulted at all times in this. There are two areas in which this is going to be a very real additional problem indeed. Of course, if there were no other problem this one could be taken. One is north Lanarkshire and the other is West South Wales. We must certainly do everything we can in these areas, which are areas which are receiving from D.A.T.A.C. and other machinery all the help the Government can possibly give. We must do everything we can to take this additional strain as well. In north Lanark-shire I think the long-term prospects, in view of the Ravenscraig proposals, are not by any means unfavourable.
The right hon. Gentleman said they were going to divide on this Motion tonight. On 6th February, in a debate on industrial relations, he said that people
"imagine that the trade union movement is composed entirely of trained economists when, in fact, trade unionists are very ordinary, decent people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 1360.]
This was a distinction to which an added flavour was given by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was sitting beside him at the time.
I do not know whether this is a correct division of mankind, into economists and ordinary decent people, but certainly the great debate amongst economists all this time, and we heard echoes of it in speeches today, is whether the Government have done too much or too little. The economists are almost equally divided on this, as they seem to be on almost every other conceivable subject as well.
It is our view that we have done about the right amount. Of course, it is immensely difficult to judge. Of course, we could do more, and, of course, it would be popular if we did more. Of course, we could get more votes if we did more. But we believe that we have a great chance, perhaps the greatest chance
there has been since the war, of containing inflation now. I do not believe that the prospects of that are in the least affected by such small seasonal movements in the index of Retail Prices as we have seen in these last few days.
I repeat that I believe that we have done just about the right amount. Throughout the debate concern has been shown, on both sides of the House. I hope that I have been able to show—and if I have not I should like to say it again—how fully I share that concern. I think that all the debates we have had in the past show that too. But it is not true, it cannot be true, to say that all the troubles have been wholly created by this Government, whatever political views we may have. The truth is that we have survived a world-wide dip in trade wonderfully well.
We are told that unemployment will be a great issue at the next General Election. I wonder. Many other lances have splintered in the hands of the party opposite. I have a feeling that, as with the Rent Act so with unemployment, it will be the Tories who will be talking about it when the General Election comes. Therefore, if we are to divide on the Motion we will meet that with confidence. I assure the House that we are ready and indeed eager to put these tests to the country as well.
Mr. John Hynd: On a point of order. I should like to point out that in the whole of the debate there has been no mention of steel and no hon. Member representing a steel-producing constituency has been called.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and, in fact, is quite wrong.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn: —
The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 307.

Division No. 18.]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Benson, Sir George

Brockway, A. F.

Ainsley, J. W.

Beswick, Frank

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Albu, A. H.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Blackburn, F.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Blenkinsop, A.

Burke, W. A.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Blyton, W. R.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Awbery, S. S.

Boardman, H.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Baird, J.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Bowles, F. G.

Carmichael, J.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Boyd, T. C.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Champion, A. J.

Chapman, W. D.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Proctor, W. T.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Cl ffe, Michael

Jones, Rt.Hon.A.Creech(Wakefield)

Rankin, John

Clunie, J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Redhead, E. C.

Coldrick, W.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Reeves, J.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Reid, William

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Reynolds, G. W.

Cove, W. G.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Rhodes, H.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kenyon, C.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Cronin, J.D.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

crossman, R. H. S.

King, Dr. H. M.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lawson, G. M.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Ledger, R. J.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Ross, William

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Short, E. W.

Deer, G.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lewis, Arthur

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Delargy, H. J.

Lindgren, G. S.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Diamond, John

Lipton, Marcus

Skeffington, A. M.

Dodds, N. N.

Logan, D. G.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Donnelly, D. L.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

Snow, J. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McCann, J.

Sorensen, R, W.

Edelman, M.

MacColl, J. E.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Edwards. Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

MacDermot, Niall

Sparks, J. A.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

McGhee, H. G.

Spriggs, Leslie

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

McInnes, J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Stonehouse, John

Fernyhough, E.

McLeavy, Frank

Stones, W. (Consett)

Finch, H. J.

MacMillan, M. K, (Western Isles)

Strachey, Rt, Hon. J.

Fitch, Alan

MaoPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Strauss. Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Fletcher, Erio

Mahon, Simon

Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

Foot, D. M.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Forman, J. C.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Swingler, S. T.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Sylvester, G. O.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hn. H. T. N.

Mason, Roy

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Gooch, E. G.

Mayhew, C. P.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mellish, R. J.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Greenwood, Anthony

Messer, Sir F.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mikardo, Ian

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Grey, C. F.

Mitchison, G. R.

Thornton, E.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Monslow, W.

Timmons, J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Moody, A. S.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Usborne, H. C.

Hamilton, W. W.

Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert(Lewls'm,S.

Viant, S. P.

Hannan, W.

Mort, D. L.

Warbey, W. N.

Hastings, S.

Moss, R.

Watkins, T. E.

Hayman, F. H.

Moyle, A.

Weitzman, D.

Healey, Denis

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Oliver, G. H.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Oram, A. E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Holman, P.

Orbach, M.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Holmes, Horace

Oswald, T.

Wigg, George

Houghton, Douglas

Owen, W. J.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Padley, W. E.

Willey, Frederick

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Paget, R. T.

Williams, David (heath)

Hoy, J. H.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'ery)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Williams, Richard (Openshaw)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Hunter, A. E.

Pargiter, G. A.

Winterbottom, Richard

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Parker, J.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Parkin, B. T.

Woof, R. E.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Paton, John

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Peart, T. F.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pentland, N.

Zilliacus, K.

Janner, B.

Prentice, R. E.

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

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Jeger, George (Goole)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.)

Probert, A. R.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Aitken, W. T.

Baldwin, Sir Archer

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Balniel, Lord

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Alport, C. J. M.

Banks, Col. C.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Barber, Anthony

Bidgood, J. C.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Barlow, Sir John

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Arbuthnot, John

Barter, John

Bingham, R. M.

Ashton, H.

Batsford, Brian

Birch, Rt, Hon. Nigel

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Bishop, F. P.

At ins, H. E.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Black, C. W.

1262

1263

Body, R. F.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Mawby, R. L.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Har e-Watt, Sir George

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Braine, B. R.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Moore, Sir Thomas

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Henderson, John (Cathoart)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hesketh, R. F.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Bryan, P.

HIII, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Neave, Airey

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nicholls, Harmar

Burden, F. F. A,

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Safiron Walden)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Carr, Robert

Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Cary, Sir Robert

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Holt, A. F.

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Hope, Lord John

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hornby, R. P.

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

Cole, Norman

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Osborne, C.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Horobin, Sir Ian

Page, R. G.

Cooke, Robert

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Cooper, A. E.

Howard, John (Test)

Partridge, E.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Peel, W. J.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Corfield, F. V.

Hurd, A. R.

Pickthorn, K. w. M.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh,W.)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Crowder, Sir John (Flnchley)

Hyde, Montgomery

Pitman, I. J.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Currie, G. B. H.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pott, H. P.

Dance, J. C. G.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Powell, J. Enoch

Davidson, Viscountess

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Deedes, W. F.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Profumo, J. D.

de Ferranti, Basil

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Ramsden, J. E.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Rawlinson, Peter

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Redmayne, M.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Kaberry, D.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Keegan, D.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Drayson, G. B.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Renton, D. L. M.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Ridsdale, J. E.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Kershaw, J. A.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Duncan, Sir James

Kimball, M.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Duthie, W. S.

Lagden, G. W.

Robertson, Sir David

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Lambton, Viscount

Robson Brown, Sir William

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)

Leather, E. H. C.

Roper, Sir Harold

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Leavey, J. A.

Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard

Errington, Sir Eric

Leburn, W. G.

Russell, R. S.

Erroll, F. J.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Legh, Hon, Peter (Petersfield)

Sharpies, R. C.

Fell, A.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Shepherd, William

Finlay, Graeme

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Fisher, Nigel

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Forrest, G.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Fort, R.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Speir, R. M.

Foster, John

Loveys, Walter H.

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

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n. S.)

Freeth, Denzil

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Gammans, Lady

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

McAdden, S. J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Gibson-Watt, D.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Storey, S.

Glover, D.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Godber, J. B.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Goodhart, Philip

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Gough, C. F. H.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne).

Gower, H. R.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Teeling, W.

Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Temple, John M.

Green, A.

Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Grimond, J.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maddan, Martin

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Gurden, Harold

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E

Vane, W. M. F.

Harris, Frederio (Croydon, N.W.)

Marshall, Douglas

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Mathew, R.

Vickers, Miss Joan

1264

1265

Wosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Wade, D. W.

Webbe, Sir H.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Webster, David

Wood, Hon. R.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Woollam, John Vlctor

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Yates, William (The Wr kln)

Wall, Patrick

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Woroester)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre [copy laid before the House, 12th December], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Padiham [copy laid before the House. 12th December], approved.—[Mr Renton.]
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending
1266
section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Newhaven [copy laid before the House, 12th December], approved. —[Mr. Renton.]
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Brierfield [copy laid before the House, 12th December], approved. — [Mr. Renton.]
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Tenby [copy laid before the House, 12th December], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

TIMBER DISEASES (TREATMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I am sorry to have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to stay here a little longer tonight, but I desire to raise a problem which is of considerable importance to a number of householders and those responsible for buildings old and new. As some special consumer interests are involved I wanted to draw the attention of the Board of Trade to them in the hope that it will be able to protect their interests.
I want to begin by reminding the House that timber diseases are by no means a new phenomenon, although, reading some of the more misleading advertisements, one might think that they were. Indeed, I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will know that if he looks at the Fourteenth Chapter of the Book of Leviticus he will find an obvious description of fungal decay and, what is even more important, a very good practical way of dealing with it.
In much more recent times, though still in historical times—in 1684—Samuel Pepys, when inspecting the Navy, found that the greater part of about 30 ships were in danger of sinking at their moorings before any of them had been put to sea. That was another obvious reference to decay.
It is true that the recent widespread use of softwoods, which have replaced the traditional oak in the structural woodwork for buildings, and certainly low quality sapwood, may have encouraged some forms of beetle.
I do not desire to give the House a lecture on the subject, even if I were qualified to do so, but for the purpose of the grievances that I want to raise tonight these diseases can be divided into two groups. There are those which are due to fungal decay and those which are due to beetles or insects. In the fungal decay category the chief are the dry rots and the wet rots. Some dry rots are extremely
1268
persistent and can even grow their way through brickwork and masonry to find damp wood on which to batten. They are very persistent indeed.
The chief remedial measures in these cases are, first, to get rid of excessive moisture and to see that there is adequate ventilation, and then to take out wood which is obviously infected and decayed. It is clear that the mere application of chemical liquids to decayed woodwork will be quite useless, although it is often recommended and sometimes carried out.
Turning to the categories of beetle, I think that I can best deal with the matter, without troubling the House unduly, if I mention some specimens as I proceed, with the irrelevant treatments sometimes commercially recommended. I want to start with one type of infestation, ernobius mollis, which is an insect that breeds in the bark of the timber. The easiest way to get rid of it is to remove the bark. It may be surprising, but one does find that in some roof structures and floors there are timbers with bark attached to them.
It is obvious that expensive chemical treatment on the timber itself will be completely ineffective. I have an example of a house in Warlingham suffering from this type of infestation, and in this case three firms, widely known, recommended immediate chemical treatment. The lowest estimate in this case for quite a small house was £80, and had that £80 been spent it would have been completely valueless.
I have meditated whether it would be proper for me to name these and other firms on the Floor of the House. From time to time this is a very salutary practice in the public interest and must be done. On the other hand, one has always a feeling that the firm is at a considerable disadvantage in that if there is a defence, it cannot be given, at any rate at the same time as the accusation is made. I should, however, like the Minister to understand that I have precise details of every one of the cases which I mention to support my argument and that I shall be only too happy to provide him with details if he so desires.
In connection with the infestation of ernobius mollis, there is another case which occurred at Worthing, where a man knocked at a door of a small house

1269
—I gather that he has done this on more than one occasion—and asked to see the roof. The tenants were old people. There was a little of this type of infestation and he offered to treat it for £40, not by removing the bark and the pest, which was the proper way to do it, but by chemical treatment. That is scandalous and quite wrong, and any publicity which can be given to that sort of abuse will help the householders concerned. I am glad to note that rather more than a year ago two men were prosecuted at Bournemouth for action of this kind.
Perhaps in my next example I can discuss the death watch beetle, which is nearly always found in association with fungal decay. Often the best and only remedy is to remove the decay, thus bringing the beetle attack under control. I do not need to say too much about this perhaps, because we have had our own problems with it in the Palace of Westminster, but it is clear that chemical treatment applied to the outside of these timbers will generally be quite valueless. It will never reach the beetle. The beetle can live inside big beams, six inches or eight inches from the surface.
I believe that the kind of advertisement which appears from time to time in The Times, to the effect that such and such a chemical "will kill all timber borers and prevent further attack" is a misleading advertisement, because unless we can be certain that the liquid gets into the timber to the beetle it has no effect on the beetle whatever. The proper way is to make a number of test borings, to see how bad the infestation is and then decide to take the complete beam out, or to see whether treatment can be given. Merely to spray the liquid on the outside would be quite valueless, yet it is often done.
Another example of alleged death watch beetle was diagnosed in furniture and in skirting hoards. I am glad to say that an expert timber consultant was called in and that he found that there was no death watch beetle. There were pin holes in the furniture due to pin worm, which must have been dead very shortly after the tree from which the furniture was made was cut, because that insect cannot live long after the wood has dried out. Clearly, this is another instance of the racket which goes on.
1270
Perhaps I may refer to lyctus. This attacks sapwood in certain types of hardwood, but I am advised that there is no known case of initial infestation in houses It is nearly always brought by some other article—a box or a case or furniture—and a chemical spray is generally quite ineffective. There are methods of treatment, but I do not want to weary the House with them now. I have an example where a half-inch floor was treated for lyctus infestation, but within a year the beetle reappeared. In this instance there was a so-called guarantee: the firm was prepared to return and treat the floor again without charge. This may kill some of the beetles, but unless we are certain that we are dealing with the larvae feeding inside the wood, this treatment will be quite useless.
Perhaps I may also mention the house longhorn, because one or two examples of treatment border on the scandalous. The infestation caused by this insect does seem to be endemic to the pine woods of Surrey, although there are occasional examples of attacks elsewhere. Yet a well-known firm wrote not very long ago to an inquirer that there had been a number of attacks in London recently and that this infestation seemed to be increasing. I am told that there is no warrant whatever for that statement, and I hope that the publicity which I give to it tonight will make this firm more cautious in future.
Some years ago, in connection with longhorn, a firm inspected the roof timbers of the Kew Parish Church. They recommended immediate treatment at a cost of £600. Fortunately, a proper timber consultant was called in, and it was found that the longhorn had been dead for many years, possibly for more than a hundred years. Had the treatment been used it would have been valueless. The Minister may have these details if he is interested. It was a shocking case.
There are a number of cases of expensive treatments in connection with longhorn. To treat the roof of a house in Surrey an insecticide firm gave an estimate of £120. The work was done under competent guidance by a builder for £31. This is often the measure of the unnecessary cost. I know of a Government contract where the firm put in a tender for £1,859 and a few shillings. I do not know how it could estimate so

1271
exactly. The work had to be done again and the adviser to the Ministry said that the total cost to the firm could not have been more than £600. Yet here a bill was put in for three times that amount. These are scandalous examples and something should be done.
I should like to refer to the high cost of the preparations. The basis of some of these preparations is a 5 per cent. solution of pentachlorophenol. That was confirmed in evidence which was given in a Chancery case not long ago, the case of Shaw v. Taylor, and it is generally accepted. One firm can make a 15 per cent. solution which sells for about 12s. a gallon. If that was diluted with two gallons of water, at negligible cost, one reaches the conclusion that the 5 per cent. solution ought not to cost more than 4s. or 5s. Yet some of the proprietary brands retail for at least 25s.—four times that figure. If one has pentachlorophenol in oil the cost can range from 9s. 3d. to 28s., and there is no evidence that the 28s. product is better. I should have thought that there was a case for investigation into this matter.
May I mention one other important matter in connection with these preparations? The liquids have a very low flash point—round about 100. If people are working in confined spaces, as they often are in dealing with roof timbers, the most stringent fire precautions ought to be insisted upon. There is one such case which is subject to proceedings, so I will not refer to it. If old cables or old electric fittings are in use, or if there is carelessness in using naked lights, serious consequences may arise. I hope that this point will be referred to the Home Office.
What can be done? I have already suggested an inquiry into prices. Secondly, I hope that this debate will give some publicity which will put householders on their guard. This is perhaps the most important aspect. Thirdly, I wonder whether anything can be done to emphasise the desirability of separating diagnosis which ought to be done by a skilled and independent authority, from the people who are to carry out the work. It seems to me that there is a great temptation if the people who are actually diagnosing the work are also the sales representatives for the firms who manufacture the proprietary liquids.
1272
I wonder whether anything can be done to deal with the vast variety of people who call themselves surveyors, who pretend to have some knowledge of the subject but have no qualifications whatever and belong to none of the learned professions. Perhaps there could be a register of people who are competent to advise.
Fourthly, I should like to see bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of British Architects, with Government help—for these bodies cannot do it alone—preparing a simple booklet which would set out more precisely than I have done timber diseases and their treatment, and where to get proper advice. These bodies have no vested interest in these proprietary chemicals and such information would be of great use to all people concerned with looking after houses, churches and buildings generally.
Fifthly, I should like to think that there might be organised by the Ministry of Works or some other appropriate body courses for builders and qualified surveyors so that there would be more people with real knowledge of the subject. I am certain that the main types of disease are not difficult to identify, and that those with proper knowledge of treatments could save many people a great deal of money.
Although this is not specifically within the province of the Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps he will pass on some of these points to his colleagues. I hope that the policy of hiving off the outside work of some of the Government research units will be discontinued. Much of this work cannot be left to trade associations because, with the best will in the world, they must hold a point of view which is not necessarily that of the consumer. These are real problems for householders, and consumers need protection. There are many cases of gross exploitation, and some firms are preying upon the ignorance and fears of people. I hope that the Minister will co-operate in providing publicity and any other help which may be possible.
I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary has already replied to an Adjournment debate. If he has not, I should like to wish him well, and, in any case, I offer him my congratulations upon his appointment.
10.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I am sure that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for bringing this interesting and unusual topic before the House. As I shall explain, this is a matter very near my heart, because my own house, a seventeenth century house, has recently been afflicted by every form of timber pest. I should like also to express to the hon. Gentleman my gratitude for the courtesy he did me in giving me prior notice of the main points he proposed to make, which has enabled me to look at the brisk exchange of correspondence he has had with my predecessor at the Board of Trade.
From my own experience, I agree that anyone faced with the problem of suspected disease in the main timbers of some building for which he is responsible, be it his own home, as in my case, or, perhaps, one of the old and lovely churches of our country, is faced with a very difficult problem and that when he comes to consider the steps which he is advised to take he may well be appalled, as I was, at the cost. But I do not accept the inference that the diagnosis and treatment of timber diseases is a profession absolutely infested by rogues, quacks and vagabonds.
The hon. Gentleman himself made clear that timber diseases are of two main kinds. There is the attack by fungus, which is mainly the dry rot fungus, and there is the attack by insects, generally beetles or the so-called worm. I would not have the House think that this whole matter is just one which I have been recently briefed on by my Department, because I have had good personal experience of it. Indeed, such is my personal experience that, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, I am prepared to match his Latin by mentioning all the diseases and beetles from the attacks of which my own house suffered.
There was Merulius lacrymans, the dry rot. There was Coniophora cerebella, which is wet rot. I have had also the four main insect timber pests—Xestobium rufovillosum, which is the death-watch beetle, Anobium punctatum, the common furniture beetle or woodworm, Lyctus, the powder post beetle, and Hylotrupes bajulus, which is the house longhorn beetle.
1274
It is clear to me that dry rot fungus is one thing which needs one kind of treatment. Generally, as the hon. Gentleman said, the thoroughgoing removal of the parts affected and flame treatment of any brickwork involved is the only effective kind of treatment. The various beetles are a different matter, and they require quite another form of treatment.
While there are, no doubt, many excellent local men who can tackle these problems effectively, diagnosis and treatment of these things, particularly when the attack is severe, is, in my experience, not as a rule a job for one's local builder Indeed, some architects even admit gaps in their own knowledge on the subject.
I have a great respect for the capacity, good faith and honest workmanship of this country's small local builders, particularly those who worked for me; but these timber diseases are, as my own experience has shown me, jobs for experts who specialise in these things. If the hon. Gentleman were to confine himself to saying that some experts are more expert than others, I would agree with him, and there would be nothing much between us. There may also, I admit, be a few bad hats at work here, as there are in other trades and professions.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there were three principal things wrong, and he said that the Government should do something to put them right. I will deal with these criticisms which he made as sympathetically as I can, but I must be careful to keep within the bounds of order, since the kind of action which I suspect the hon. Gentleman has in mind for the Government to take would involve some legislation.
First, faulty diagnosis. The hon. Gentleman told us that he knows of many cases in which so-called experts have diagnosed non-existent timber pests and then expensively cured them. I will say at once that if he or anyone else believes that to be true and believes that a deliberate fraud has occurred or is occurring, he has a remedy now. The matter should at once be put before the authorities who are competent to prosecute in cases of fraud.
There may also be remedies at the civil law. The hon. Gentleman was in correspondence earlier this year with my predecessor at the Board of Trade about

1275
this matter. My hon. Friend said, as long ago as May last, that the law against fraud, false pretences and conspiracy exists to deal with such cases. Indeed, he himself gave one fairly recent instance in which two men who did run a racket in treating buildings for non-existent woodworm were prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud and for false pretences and were sent to prison for two years.
Nor is this the only statutory remedy. There have been suggestions that so-called experts may treat timber with preparations which are represented as being effective in killing the beetles but which are, in fact, of no value for that purpose. Here we have the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953, which may possibly afford some remedy. This Act deals with the application of what are called "false or misleading trade descriptions" to the sale of goods. A trade description includes descriptions
"(aa) as to the standard of quality of any goods, according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade, or
"(ab) as to the fitness for purpose, strength, performance or behaviour of any goods."
"False trade description" has a corresponding meaning. I commend this legislation to the hon. Member's study.
I turn now to faulty diagnosis and inadequate treatment of pests in church timbers, of which the hon. Member spoke. He has painted an unhappy picture of shameless exploitation of unworldly parish priests. However common or uncommon that may be, there is no lack of good advice on this matter.
I have with me a copy of an admirably full and clear pamphlet, published by the Central Council for the Care of Churches at half-a-crown, called "Church Timberwork, Books and Fabrics; Damage and Repair." It was drawn up by an expert committee and describes the symptoms both of dry rot and of the various kinds of beetle and wood worm, and what may be done about them. I notice in particular that the Central Council will supply names of firms who, within the Council's experience, can be relied upon for sound advice and good workmanship.
The pamphlet bears out my own conviction that timber preservation work must be carried out under the supervision of knowledgeable people. The Council adds quite flatly:
1276
"Unintelligent application by unskilled labour may well result in waste of money and effort".
I do not doubt that those responsible for the buildings of other religious denominations do not hesitate to avail themselves of the expert advice that is available to them, if not locally, then through their central authorities. At any rate, it is clear that the churches with which the Central Council is concerned need not lack for sound advice.
If the sound advice in the Central Council's pamphlet were followed—and not only by those responsible for churches—the path of those people whose activities have been so eloquently described by the hon. Member would be less easy, and their careers much shorter. If the hon. Member's speech and my reply have no other result but to make these facts even better known than they are already, we shall, I feel sure, have gone a long way towards bringing to an end whatever exploitation exists in such matters.
This pamphlet is, of course, far from being the only source of sound advice. I have with me also copies of the leaflets prepared by the Forest Products Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. These leaflets, which are issued free, describe in clear language the symptoms of dry rot and of the several insect pests of timbers in buildings. Moreover, for 2s. one may get from Her Majesty's Stationery Office a comprehensive Bulletin on Dry Rot.
Other organisations are active in these matters. I have been impressed, for example, by the valuable work which has taken place in conjunction with the York Institute of Architectural Study, where courses are run for surveyors, architects, builders and the like. Advice is also obtainable from the Timber Development Association, which, I understand, deals with 20,000-30,000 inquiries a year at its six offices in London, the provinces and Scotland. Nearly all the advice is given without charge. I understand that the Association's officers will, when necessary, visit the scene of the trouble, charging no more than the cost of doing so.
The hon. Member's second complaint was about the high prices of preparations. The logical deduction would be that he wanted some form of price control.

1277
Obviously, this, again, would involve legislation and is a matter which I cannot pursue. I remind the hon. Member that the whole business of timber preparations is a competitive business. If the preparations involved are the result of long research and experiment, the intrinsic cost of their raw materials is one factor only in the cost of producing and selling them. I am neither defending nor criticising the prices charged for such preparations. I do not, however, believe in price control, even if the hon. Member does.
Next, I come to the question of standards, although I do not think that the hon. Member suggested that the British Standards Institution should do the work. He mentioned other bodies, the surveyors and like people. I would point out that the British Standards Institution has done a great deal of work on methods of, and preparations for, preventing timber from being attacked. I shall not weary the House with details of what the B.S.I. has done but it has done a lot, which I shall be happy to communicate to the hon. Member.
I do not think it is possible to impose a standard for this but my second point is that in this field a little learning can be a dangerous thing. Eradication of timber pest is often a task for which expert advice is essential together with skilled application and proper equipment.
A period of observation will be needed afterwards to ensure that the cure has been really effective. Dry rot fungus, especially. often calls for quite drastic treatment. I do not know whether the hon. Member is suggesting that the vicar, aided by his leading parishioners—I do not say this in any way offensively—ought to be able to eliminate dry rot by painting on something out a tin which carries a British Standard. The diagnosis and the treatment of the diseases of timber are not matters to be handled by amateurs. Some people may be unwilling to believe that those who advise a costly course of treatment can be doing so from proper motives. But the remedy for this is to take a second opinion, to cross-check with publications from the Stationery Office and other respectable authorities, and, if a church
1278
of the Establishment is concerned, to get in touch with the Central Council early.
I understand that the Timber Development Association Ltd., to whom the Forest Products Research Laboratory now refers inquirers, is prepared to offer advice; and the Central Council for the Care of Churches has a wide range of experience which it can put at the disposal of parish councils. I see that my predecessor invited the hon. Member to furnish to the Central Council any information that might be helpful to them but I do not know whether he has yet done so.
Mr. Skeffington: I have been in consultation with the Council.
Mr. Rodgers: Good. The last point which the hon. Member made was about the possibility of setting up a new professional body. I thought that he was suggesting that consultants on timber diseases should form themselves into an independent body available to give informed advice in the same way as, say, doctors or lawyers, distinguishing between diagnosis and treatment. This may be an excellent idea. If it is, no doubt people outside the House will pick it up and see whether they can make something of it. I cannot, however, promise that this of itself will remove all the ills that are worrying the hon. Member. In any case the move for it must come from timber consultants themselves and not from the Board of Trade.
To summarise: there is statutory protection to deal with fraud, and there are the Merchandise Marks Acts. There is the help and guidance from which some of the churches may be able to benefit. There is the information available in Government publications. Owners can often help themselves by becoming better informed about these matters, and by seeking a second opinion. And there is the help which can be obtained from the Timber Development Association.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

MOTOR EXHAUST FUMES AND LUNG CANCER
2.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the first conference on air pollution held in the U.S.A. on November 18; whether they agree with the opinion expressed by several eminent U.S. health officers that there is a connection between lung cancer and pollution of the air by motor exhaust fumes; and, if so, whether they have any action in mind to lessen such pollution.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes". A preliminary report on the recent United States national conference on air pollution has been studied by experts in this country. Although certain speakers at the conference repeated the suggestion which has been made elsewhere, that a connection exists between lung cancer and exposure to motor exhaust fumes, I understand that no new evidence was produced to support the theory that there is a causal relationship between them. Further research is, however, being carried on, both in this country and the United States of America, which will, it is hoped, throw further light upon the problem.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask the following supplementary? In order to resolve all doubt on this subject, are Her Majesty's Government doing everything they can to encourage research into the invention of an economical method of running urban public service vehicles on stored electricity, which would make our cities cleaner and quieter?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know that that is really a fair supplementary question. I can tell my
394
noble friend that if he can find a way of doing that, he will not need any Government help: he will be a millionaire overnight.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED NATIONS
2.37 p.m.
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 if they will state, with regard to the United Nations Organisation, what member countries, if any, are still in arrears on their undertakings with regard to contributions and the amount concerned for any such member country.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, according to the most recent information, published on October 10, two Member States of the United Nations, Bolivia and Chile, then owed arrears of contributions in respect of 1956 totalling some 35,600 dollars or ·07 of 1 per cent. of total contributions due for that year. On the same date the following thirteen Member States owed arrears of contributions in respect of 1957: Austria, Bolivia, Chile, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Lebanon, Paraguay, Uruguay, Yemen. Total arrears were approximately 2,467,000 dollars or 4·8 per cent. of total contributions due for 1957. With your Lordships permission, I shall circulate more detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following are the detailed figures referred to:
On October 10 the following Member States were in arrears of contribution to the United Nations:

Arrears Dollars

Contributions for 1956:

Bolivia

19,845

Chile

15,730

Contributions for 1957:

Austria

76,000

Bolivia

19,838

Chile

109,957

China

1,943,043

Colombia

5,735

Ecuador

9,582

Honduras

474

Hungary

202,193

Israel

25,081

Lebanon

2,500

Paraguay

620

Uruguay

54,921

Yemen

17,382

LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, which gives such an alarming picture of lack of enthusiasm by Members for their "club", is he able to state what sanctions can be applied to delinquents?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, while not entirely agreeing with the remarks of my noble friend—though I thank him for his reception of my original reply—I do not consider that 4·8 per cent. is as bad as he suggests. As to sanctions, Article 19 of the United Nations Charter states:
"A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organisation shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member."
No Member State has hitherto been deprived of its vote in the General Assembly under this rule.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask whether the members in arrears with their subscriptions have access to the resources of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret to say that, no longer being an expert in this matter, I cannot answer my noble friend's question. It is not exactly in line with the Question on the Order Paper.

EXPORTS OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT TO CHINA
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that restrictions on the export of electronic equipment to China have been shown to be injuriously curtailing the business of British manufacturers ready and anxious to sell to that market; and whether they will arrange for the granting of export licences in cases of goods of this nature which are demonstrably intended for China's industrialisation programme.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the present embargo list, announced on August 15 last, at the end of a detailed review in the Paris Consultative Group, affords ample scope for expanding trade. The items of electronic equipment which, by agreement with our friends and Allies, may not be exported to the Sino-Soviet bloc have direct and important uses in the military field or are eminently susceptible for designing up-to-date weapons or producing them. Few of these items have industrial applications to any extent which we think significant. The embargo inevitably affects the business of some Western exporters. Her Majesty's Government look carefully at all applications for licences for the export of electronic equipment to China, and will continue to grant licences in any cases where they can properly do so.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his Answer. From that I gather—is this not correct?—that there is a more flexible approach now in this matter. If that is so, it will be heartily welcomed by those manufacturers in this industry who, up to date, have been kept out of the China market for the sale of the more advanced equipment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as I think the noble Viscount knows, the list was revised this year. But, as a matter of fact, the embargo applies only to a very limited range of electronic equipment. I think that for the last five years £77,000 worth of electronic equipment has been exported, having received a licence, while only £4,000 worth has been refused a licence.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the more advanced electronic equipment is coming along now in a great rush, and that there will be many more applications for export in the future than in the past? Do I understand that it is in regard to that that there is a more flexible approach?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes. The Government are anxious to give licences in any cases where they can do so, subject to their undertaking.
LORD REA: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that licences will be given favourable consideration in suitable cases,

397
does that refer to consideration by Her Majesty's Government, or does it mean a reference back to the Paris Group?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it means consideration by Her Majesty's Government.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FORESTRY POLICY
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's present policy on forestry; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on April 3 of last year it fell to my lot to draw attention to the Watson Report on the subject of timber marketing. It has again fallen to my lot to-day to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper and to draw attention to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the light of that Report and their statement of July 24 this year. In that statement they drew certain conclusions, and with the permission of the House I will quote what was said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211 (No 199), col. 180]:
"The Government have carried out a review of forestry policy. In the light of current conditions—strategic, economic, agricultural and social—they have reached the following conclusions. The planting programmes of the Forestry Commission should be fixed for periods of ten years at a time. For the five-year period 1959 to 1963 the programme will be about 300,000 acres which allows for some increase over the present annual rate of planting. For the period 1964 to 1968 the planting programme will be reduced to about 235,000 acres, when the Forestry Commission's existing plantations will begin to come into full production."
The House will remember that in 1945 Her Majesty's Government laid down a programme to produce, over fifty years. 5 million acres of productive woodlands. It was then estimated that by the end of the period one-third of our requirements would be home-produced. It would appear from the statement on July 24 last that the 1945 target has been abandoned, and we owners can see no reason for this change. We appreciate that targets must be flexible but we can only infer that the target of 5 million acres has been
398
reduced and we should very much like to know the reason.
We have heard, too, a great deal about the Departmental Committee on Forestry, and the statement given to the House on July 24 was apparently based on that Report; but we have never heard anything about the Report, and no White Paper on it has been issued. We should be most grateful if Her Majesty's Government could give us information on this matter. We are grateful, and more than grateful, that the old maintenance grant has been replaced by the new management grant, as mentioned in the statement, and we are equally grateful for the increase in the planting grant.
We were told at that time that the system of felling licences would be eased; and for that, too, we are grateful. We appreciate that there is a need for its continuance. We understood from that statement that dedicated woodlands would no longer require licences, and we were told that a statutory instrument would be laid. It has not yet appeared, and I am wondering whether Her Majesty's Government can give us information on when it is likely to be laid.
The grants announced on July 24 were made contingent upon the recommendation in the Report of the Watson Committee that a Woodland Owners' Organisation (as I shall call it) would be formed, and I am very pleased to announce—and I have authority to do so—that that condition has been fulfilled and that a Woodland Owners' Organisation for England and Wales will be formed; the resolution for that purpose was passed last week. I believe that one is to be formed in Scotland, and I am hoping that those Scottish Peers who are speaking may mention something about it. Believe me, a lot has gone on behind the scenes in the formation of this organisation and there is still a great deal more to be done.
We still have a large number of problems to face, not the least of which is finance. I have mentioned the new management grant and also the fact that the planting grant is continuing; but at the same time as Her Majesty's Government announced these arrangements they announced that the thinning grant would be terminated. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government realise the grave concern that this decision has caused. We

399
have all heard of cases where private owners all over the country were encouraged, immediately after the war, to plant a great deal. Those young plantations are just reaching the thinning stage. I would also point out here that the Watson Committee never contemplated the removal of the thinning grant. It is being removed just at the time when those young plantations are coming into production from the thinning point of view. I would also add that owners of these woodlands were not consulted. Do Her Majesty's Government realise that this fact has, quite frankly, undermined confidence?
There are large quantities of thinnings which may be coming on to the market and very large numbers of them will be coming from the plantations of the Forestry Commission—even more, in fact, than from private woodlands. My information is that in 1949 the Forestry Commission's output of thinnings was a total of 7¾ million cubic feet; that in 1956 it was 13¼ million cubic feet; and that they estimate that they will produce 25¼ million cubic feet by 1965 and 44¼ million cubic feet by 1975. I am told that the estimate for the same period, 1965–75, of thinnings from private estates will rise from 14 million cubic feet to 17½ million cubic feet. May I quote from a statement that the then Minister of Agriculture made on December 5, 1952? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 508, col. 1959]:
"The whole forestry programme must to some extent depend on whether there is a good outlet for the thinnings."
He also added that
"… the forestry programme to some extent must depend on this and a market must be found."
We are frankly very worried about the thinning position and we hope to get reassurances on it.
May I now come to deal with the older timber and timber in general? As a result of the lack of interest in the 19th century and of heavy selective fellings in two world wars we have been left with a great deal of second-rate timber, and this has caused a serious problem. If we cannot sell our second-rate timber we shall have no cash coming in for replanting and restocking. The problem is partly one caused by the sawn timber trade and the troubles are due to the
400
difficulties of that industry. Again may I quote from what the then Minister of Agriculture said on December 5, 1952? He said [col. 1963]:
"I want to refer to sawn softwood supplies. It is common knowledge that while the paramount need of this country at present is to preserve the safety of its balance of payments, 95 per cent. of the softwoods used in this country are imported and cost foreign currency Every bit of sawn softwood produced from home produced sources is thus of great importance."
I should like to know whether the present Government stand behind the statements which were made at that time.
This is all leading up to what is really the main point of my Motion to-day: the present state of the markets. Grants and administrative machinery are all very well, but I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House recognise that they are only a means to an end. The end itself is to develop a healthy forestry, and that involves finding suitable markets for such mature timber as we have, and more particularly for the inferior timber I have referred to that has been left after the two world wars and for the increasing volume of thinnings. Markets are very hard to find to-day; sales are difficult; prices are low and they reflect the difficulties of the home-grown timber trade industry.
May I quote one small example on my own property? I had a man, known as a Bodger, who used to make chair legs on the estate. He has had to go out of business. Noble Lords who have been at the Royal Show in the last couple of years may have seen him in the forestry section, making his chair legs as an exhibit. He made them with a simple lathe in a simple hut in the woods. He has been there for many years and he used to work in the beech woods. Now he tells us that there is no demand for chairs and chair legs for schools, and that is the reason he had to go out of business. I would emphasise that here is another small industry which has died as a result of the situation to-day. The sawn-timber trade has fallen away. We hear all over the place of mills closing down, big ones as well as small ones. I believe I am right in saying—although I am open to correction on this statement—that mills as far apart as Liverpool, in the North, and somewhere near Gloucester, in the South, are cases in point. Frankly, my

401
Lords, the bottom has fallen out of the market; and I am sorry to say so, but the national policy of virtually duty-free imports does not help.
May I suggest one or two steps to try to help improve the position now that the traditional outlets have fallen into decline? May we be assured that the Government will stand behind their past pledges that markets will be found for home-grown timber in the nationalised industries, which they themselves said would be found, and in Government Departments? Again, may I quote from the same statement made on December 5, 1952, of the then Minister of Agriculture [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 508, col. 1960]:
"In respect of home-produced pit props, it is the policy of the Government to ensure that all the home-grown timber which is suitable for use in the mines shall be so used."
At that time we took it that this meant all forms of mining timber. My latest information is that the National Coal Board have stopped buying British mining timber or, at the most, are confining their purchases to areas where producers are close to the mines. I am told that if there were a reduction of 7 per cent. in the imports of mining timber the position would be put right. I believe it is a fact that the railways have abandoned the manufacture and repair of wooden wagons. That may be necessary for the situation to-day, but have they ever thought of giving a trial to hardwood sleepers? Could not the Government persuade the Transport Commission to do this? It is general on the Continent; why should it not be done here?
I now turn to what I believe has been a very great storm: the subject of the fencing of our new motorways such as the Preston Road and the new Yorkshire Road from St. Albans to Birmingham. I understand that up to now Swedish softwood has been used for these new roads. I am told that it has been used because pressure-creosoted softwood was specified. Yet English oak is available at a lower price; and those who have it available are finding it very difficult to sell. I am sure it would last almost as long. Could not the Government be persuaded to try to use this? Would the Government, too, try to encourage the starting of new processing plants? I am sure that they have been doing so to a certain extent; but could not such things as pulp mills and
402
chipboard factories be encouraged by the Government? The Government are in a strong position to foster such developments by their control over capital expenditure and by their allocation of industry.
I now come to another aspect of the problem: the high cost of transport. We have found, both locally and nationally, that transport is a costly business. Timber value itself is low compared to its bulk and weight. In both world wars it was found necessary to subsidise transport for timber because of that. That is not being done to-day, but I believe that the problem merits investigation by the Government. May I give as an analogy the cost of sugar beet? I understand that sugar beet to-day is carried from the farms to the factories at a certain set price. Could not the same be done for timber? Could there not be some sort of arrangement such as that? Then C-licence lorries often drive home empty. Could some arrangement not be made for them to carry timber instead of doing so?
Second-class timber, I am told, could be made into cable drums, and there are surely a number of other uses to which such timber could be put. I mention all these suggestions because I again want to emphasise the point that at the moment the bottom has fallen out of the market, and we want help from the Government, and otherwise, to do all that we can to put this right. Are the Government really sympathetic? We on our side should like the nationalised industries to buy more in this country and to buy British, which, so far, they have not done to a great extent.
In the statement on July 24 the Minister stated [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211, col. 181]:
"The Government recognise the importance to the forestry industry of an efficient home-grown timber trade. They believe that the measures now announced will be welcomed by the trade as well as by woodland owners, and will help both to plan ahead with confidence."
My Lords, the Government hoped that what they announced in that statement would be received with pleasure. Whilst it was to a limited extent, so far as the owners are concerned it also met with a great deal of disappoinment. This has largely arisen from the apparent abandonment of the 5-million acre target and the apparent neglect by the nationalised industries of home-grown timber. These

403
points leave us in doubt whether the Government stand behind forestry generally, and we want reassurance on this.
I should like to ask the Government three main questions. First, do they stand behind the past pledges of Ministers and really wish for an expanding State forest coupled with an expanding private forest supported by strong selling organisations of the timber trade and of the organisations of woodland owners? Secondly, would they again assure us, in no unmistakable language, that they desire a stable, prosperous, and expanding home timber industry? The third question is: May we have confirmation that the nationalised industries will buy more, and will buy British? We urgently hope for reassurances on these points. I feel bound to draw the attention of the House to the only too general feeling among foresters that forestry to-day is not regarded as so important as it was thought to be a few years ago.
My Lords, I have tried to express some of the anxieties that have been felt by private woodland owners all over the country. I have also tried to express their gratitude for what has been done and is being done. But we still want more. I am afraid. Other noble Lords will, I trust, develop some of the points that I have raised, and I hope that we shall hear quite a bit from the Scottish side. Finally, I should like to add that I sincerely hope the Government will be able to reassure us on some of the points I have raised to-day. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.4 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, in rising to support in many ways the noble Earl who has moved this Motion, I must confess that I feel a trifle nervous at the order of batting this afternoon. I am followed by the whole of the eleven on the other side, and for that reason I feel in a rather difficult position. However, I would warn the eleven who follow me to be a little careful in their criticisms, because on reference to the last but one debate we had in this House on this subject, when we discussed the Watson Report, I find that no fewer than four of the noble Lords who spoke are now in the Government. I therefore warn those who follow me what may happen to them if they are too critical this afternoon. Not only are those four noble Lords in the
404
Government, but the Government speaker on that occasion has had a lift and is now able to occupy another position.
In our last discussion on the Watson Report the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, speaking for the Government, made this statement. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 1083]:
"… everything that has been said … will be studied with great care by my right honourable friends."
According to the noble Earl who has just sat down, the Government do not appear to have exercised very much diligence in the study of what was said, and I hope that, before we depart to-night, the Government will be able to tell us something of what plans they have in mind for the future of the forestry industry.
With the object of promoting confidence and stability within the home timber industry, the Watson Committee were asked to consider measures and report. The words "confidence and stability" seem to ring a bell—though not the bell some of your Lordships may be thinking of! There is a similarity between the words "confidence and stability" in forestry and the words "healthy and thriving' in agriculture, a position which we discussed a short time ago. I hope that the Government really do mean what they seem to suggest in the words "confidence and stability". I wonder if the Minister will be able to tell us whether, in the opinion of the Government, there is more confidence and stability in the forestry industry to-day than there was when we discussed the Watson Report. The noble Earl who moved this Motion does not seem to suggest that that is so, and the latest Annual Report of the Forestry Commission is not full of enthusiasm and encouragement, except possibly in the field of private forestry. The Commission still encounter problems, and in the future these may become increased and not lessened.
We are told in the Commission's Report that the forest year of 1957 was "uneventful"—a very striking remark—and it would seem that there was a decline in the Commission's activities in some directions. When progress is aimed at and hoped for, and where production is so essential, uneventful years are not likely to satisfy the desire to reach the goal which we hope still awaits well-planned

405
and organised forestry operations. I hope that the next Report from the Forestry Commission will tell us of great events and great achievements.
It is obvious from the statement of July 24, to which the noble Earl has referred, that recognition has now been made of the unlikelihood of reaching the hoped-for area of afforested land—a vast area, so far as this country is concerned—which was set as our national aim a few years ago. When the nation embarks on a big undertaking, I think it is desirable that it should endeavour to carry it through to the desired result. It may be disastrous if, upon reconsideration after five or ten years, it is found necessary to diminish still further the foresters' efforts to develop their industry and to change materially the scope of finance and assistance which can be given to them. I think that this is extremely important.
I thought that in some respects the July statement was an unfortunate one, but I recognise its good point—the increased maintenance grant is acceptable to small woodland owners. We look to the Government to strengthen, if necessary, the ways and means which should be open to an industry which enjoys, as forestry does, the efforts of both State and private enterprise, to carry out as nearly as possible what it has set out to do.
I have made reference to the noble Lords who follow me. It is apparent from the list that the owners of woods and plantations are well represented in your Lordships' House, so I need not speak on their behalf this afternoon. There are other interests involved in our consideration, and I want briefly to record another side of the picture. Progress in the industry is essential, not only for the well-being of the owners and their agents and the executives of the Forestry Commission, but also for the well-being of the men who are engaged day after day in the many manual and mechanical operations that keep things moving. Employees in the woods on private estates can turn their hands to other estate work as occasion requires, and if they are diligent, intelligent and of good behaviour, and the financial position of the owner is sound, they are more or less secure. On the other hand, those who are employed by the Forestry Commission are particularly dependent for their livelihood upon confidence and stability in the industry. It is therefore
406
important from every angle that in seeding, planting, thinning, felling, marketing, processing, transporting and replanting, the Forestry Commission should be enabled to work at full capacity in order to achieve the final result.
According to statistics, the peak year of the Forestry Commission was 1954. In that year the area planted was 70,000 acres. This dropped to 50,000 acres in 1957. The area acquired, including both land purchased and land leased, covered 77,000 acres in 1954, and again there was a drop, in 1957, to 56,000 acres. In other words, there has been a drop both in the area which has been planted and in the area which has been acquired. I am advised that for the ten years ended 1956 it was planned to plant 900,000 acres, but in fact only 61½ per cent. of that programme was achieved. For these reasons, and maybe for others, the regular labour force employed by the Forestry Commission in England and Wales declined from 8,792 in May, 1950 to 7,318 in October of this year, a very considerable drop. No doubt most of these figures are generally known, but I thought it desirable to record them again in order that the trend of events in this important forestry undertaking might be appreciated.
It is clear that the Forestry Commission have experienced, and are experiencing, difficulty in acquiring suitable land for afforestation. Up to the present they have relied upon private negotiation and good will on the part of owners to help in trying to reach the acreage quota which has been set. It may be that if the Government come to the conclusion, as I hope they will, that more and still more afforestation is essential in our economy and for the future national activities and survival, then the use of powers of compulsory purchase will have to be seriously considered. On October 29, 1957, when we had a debate on forestry in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Huntingdon spoke in favour of compulsory purchase, but the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said that it was not Government policy at that time. Perhaps in future there may have to be a revision or re-thinking of that policy.
I am in favour of voluntary negotiation in respect of all land purchases, if they can be carried out in this way, but compulsory

407
purchase procedure must be adopted in certain circumstances. In future, more realistic prices, bearing some relation to market values, can be offered, and that may ease the difficulty of obtaining land for afforestation. Prices paid in the past may not have been very attractive. I notice that the average price as declared by the Forestry Commission in their Report is on the low side, although I limit this observation to England, as my experience has not made me familiar with prices in Scotland or Wales. If an owner has something to sell, then he has the right to expect fair compensation in the way of a purchase price, according to the market worth of the commodity, be it land, timber, livestock, corn or any chattel or property. I hope that noble Lords have noticed that I mention corn, which is rather a sore point with me in regard to agricultural prices. There should not be any attempt on either side to drive hard or sharp bargains. I hope that such has not been the case in the past in connection with the purchase of areas for forestry purposes.
I should like to say a few things about mining timber, to which the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, has already referred. I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to what the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said on April 3, when he was dealing with the question of imports. He said that imports from the Commonwealth countries of pitwood, wood pulp and newsprint from any source are duty-free. The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, has already mentioned the question of imports, and I want to endorse what he said in that respect.
I notice from the Forestry Commission's Report that last year consumption of home-grown timber in the mines showed an increase of 8 per cent., mainly attributable to sawn mining timber; but at the same time a build-up of stocks in merchants' yards indicated production in excess of demand. I wonder whether the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to tell us the position in regard to pit props in stock at the present time. I apologise for not having given him notice of this question, but I looked for him yesterday in the hope that I might tell him what I was going to say. I should also like to know whether there is close co-operation between the National Coal
408
Board and the Forestry Commission for the full supply of the requirements of the Coal Board. Here again I would endorse what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, and hope that British products are receiving priority and that the importation of pitwood free of duty is not harmful to British production and the employment of British forestry labour.
I want now to deal with a matter which may be important, so far as my own county is concerned, and I should like to pose a question to the Minister in connection with the Forestry Commission's depot and mills at Brandon. Rumours have been circulating in the county that it is intended to close this depot, and I understand that no denial has yet been made at top level. I think there has been a local denial, but not one at top level. It can be readily appreciated that the closing down of this depot, generally fairly full of sawn and other mining timber whenever I have passed it, would materially affect the business life of the small country town of Brandon, and it might make the men working in the depot redundant and liable to unemployment. Men who have become skilled in their work are worth retaining. It might also affect the working of the forests around the town such as Thetford Chase and other forests. If the Minister is unable to reply to that question at this stage, perhaps he will be willing to reply if I table a Question on the subject.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but it may be convenient if I intervene now to say that I have just had the reassurance of the Chairman of the Forestry Commission (it is an advantage to have him sitting behind me in this House) that there is no intention whatever of closing this depôt at Brandon. That is from the highest level.
LORD WISE: That news will be received with great satisfaction in the district, when it is announced from the absolute top level.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The Chairman of the Forestry Commission has

409
given me the assurance—and it is his depôt—that there is no intention of closing it—
LORD WISE: I referred to him as "top level."
EARL WALDEGRAVE: —at the moment, anyhow.
LORD WISE: I thank the noble Earl.
I hope that the decision announced in July in regard to the cessation of the thinning grant will not mean a curtailment of work on private woodlands. Some figures have already been given, but I have culled these further figures from the Report. Last year 860 schemes in regard to thinnings were approved in Great Britain by the Forestry Commission. These cover 11,607 acres and an estimated output of over 3 million cubic feet of timber. That is a goodly contribution to our national output, and the cost to the Exchequer amounted to only £47,000. That £47,000 was, I think, well spent, and it could be renewed without much trouble. It would appear to me that these were worth-while operations, since they not only added to our timber output but helped to improve our future prospects of production and of maintaining healthy and thriving woods.
In connection with thinning and felling work undertaken by the Forestry Commission, I would call attention to the point that apparently it has now become part of the Commission's practice to employ private contractors to carry out work which in the past was done by private labour and by the Commission's own employees. The volume of thinnings sold as standing to contractors increased from 14 per cent. of the area thinned in 1954 to 38 per cent. in 1957. Naturally, I do not know the terms under which private contractors are employed (and I do not propose to refer to "top level" at this moment in that respect), or the merits or demerits of the action in the eyes of the Commission. But I wonder whether the procedure is a profitable and correct one from the national standpoint. The great beauty of our forestry discussions, as I think is recognised on all sides, is that they are so open and free. We can approach an industry and occupation which absorbs our interest with criticisms, suggestions and inquiries, in the hope that good may accrue from such discussion in the nation's interest and for the benefit
410
of those who seek to leave some tangible record of their labours in British wood, plantation or forest.
3.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF BRADFORD: My Lords, I should like to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, expressed his apprehension about the batting order of the eleven that follows him, and I echo that apprehension. It seems to me that that eleven shares a certain weakness which has become apparent with our eleven which is at present appearing in Australia—that is to say, a weakness in its openers—and it seems to have been necessary to effect a promotion from the second, third or even lower eleven to be an opener on this occasion.
The noble Lord has also drawn a parallel between agriculture and forestry which I think is very apt. Agriculture has often been described as the Cinderella among the industries of this country. I think perhaps that characterisation has ceased to be apt and that the mantle, or perhaps I should say the glass slipper, fits better the younger sister of agriculture, which is forestry. This young lady has been even more restricted and cold-shouldered than her elder sister, agriculture. She was allowed out for a brief fling under licence, under very strict control, for a period after the war, but that fling was a very brief one indeed.
There is an almost complete lack of forestry tradition in this country since the days of the "wooden walls". We are, I believe, a nation of tree lovers, but we are certainly not a nation of forest lovers. There seems to be a complete lack of appreciation of the multifarious roles which forests can play. Added to that, in the last century we have opened our market to the virgin forests of the world, and the result has been the complete neglect of what could and should be an immense national asset, a neglect which I believe is unique among civilised countries, and which has been only partly remedied since the creation of a Forestry Commission and our national forests.
There are many different aspects of the importance of a thriving forestry industry in our national life. I might mention the strategic, economic, social, meteorological and scenic aspects; the effect of soil fertility, water supplies, and others. The strategic aspect, which until

411
recently I suppose was the most important, now appears to have gone with the wind and the nuclear age. Other aspects are insufficiently understood, and their importance, I believe, much under-rated. We have no need in this country for the thousand-mile shelter belts that Russia is now planting. We have no need to plant millions of acres of bare mountainside as China is doing, for flood control and for timber. It is inevitable, I think, that we must concentrate on the economic aspect, as it dominates so much of our thinking and must be uppermost in running a forest industry, as it is the point where our main difficulties lie to-day.
The man in the street would probably say, "What is all this fuss about forestry? I hate conifers anyhow, and timber is a material of the past." He thinks of this as an age of steel and concrete, of oil and plastics, and now nuclear power. But it seems to me that all the advances of science serve to underline two things in this context: the first is our natural shortage of industrial raw materials, except for coal, and the second the growing importance of timber as a raw material. We now import over £400 million worth of timber and timber products, one-tenth of our total import bill. The pattern of consumption is certainly changing, but the uses of timber as a raw material are ever growing. Some of your Lordships may have seen a book which was published shortly after the war, called The Coming Age of Wood, by the Deputy Director General of F.A.O. Forestry, which follows up the theme of timber as the raw material of the future.
I was interested the other day to see a scientific article in The Times entitled "A Challenge to the Chemist", with a sub-heading "New industry based on wood still in the future." This article stressed the problem of the utilisation of lignin which is, after cellulose, probably the most important material available from wood, and which is a chemical storehouse of raw materials. If the problem of lignin can be solved, then the use of wood for raw materials for chemical purposes is almost unlimited. There is evidence to show that timber will be an even more important raw material in the future, and both the Watson Report and the Zuckerman
412
Report stress that importance. If this is the case, utilisation of timber is bound to increase and our bill for imports will mount, if we assume that the world will be content to go on stripping its forests and sending us the produce.
As the virgin forests become exhausted—and they are becoming exhausted—costs are bound to mount even if supplies continue. In any case, to my untutored mind, unfamiliar with the intricacies of international trade, it seems to me that there must be many advantages if as much of this market as possible is to be supplied from home sources, assuming it is economically sound to do so. Here I believe we are on strong ground, and it can be shown to anyone's satisfaction that not only do we produce some of the finest hardwoods in the world but we grow softwoods of comparable quality far more rapidly than most of our main suppliers—for example, the Scandinavian countries. That is apart from certain specialist lines, such as joinery timber. During the war, we became almost self-supporting in our hardwoods, and produced, I believe, about one-third of our softwood needs, almost entirely from private sources.
The post-war policy for forestry aimed at supplying eventually 30 per cent. of our needs and building up a national forest of 5 million acres both national and private. I do not believe that this was a really ambitious policy, and yet now, apparently, it has been cut down. Even if we are satisfied, we shall still have the smallest forest area, proportional to our size, in Europe. This country has now invested over £100 million in its national forests, and I believe that that sum—a very large one—could bring a manifold return if our policy were a wise one. The produce of these forests is increasing fast and the markets depend very much on the use of thinnings which are coming from those forests.
But what of the brighter side of the industry? Here I must declare my interest as a producer. I believe the picture has both its bright and its gloomy sides. It is bright in the way the response has come to the appeals to rehabilitate and plant our woodlands. Private owners are now planting a bigger annual acreage than was forecast in the post-war forest policy and the rehabilitation of private woodlands has been proceeding at a satisfactory rate both within

413
and without the dedication scheme. But I am convinced that it could proceed much faster still and it is in the national interest that it should proceed faster. I should like to quote one sentence from the Report of the Committee on the Marketing of Woodland Produce, the Watson Committee, where it says:
"… every additional acre of timber grown by the private owner means that the State is saved an outlay many times greater than any assistance given."
The limiting factors are, I believe, economics and confidence. This is the gloomy side of the picture. There is no activity in which long-term confidence is so important. Those who plant trees do not expect even their sons to get most of the benefit from their present plantings, but possibly their grandsons. Tree planting is not only a long-term investment but an act of faith in the future, and it must he supported by a belief in the future of private ownership. Unfortunately, at present confidence is very low, but it could, I believe, rise enormously if a strong lead were given by the Government.
The other major limiting factor is the economic position of forestry. A forestry programme requires the investment of large capital sums. The pattern of ownership has been changing considerably. It is often thought that the woods of this country are owned by a few very large landowners. Certainly there are still large landowners with large areas of forest; but with the break-up of large estates, a process which has been going on now for so long, the pattern has changed considerably and ownership generally is in much smaller parcels and even, to a great extent, in farm wood-lots. Such forest businesses, both large and small, must be self-supporting, and even large owners in these days have not large reserves of capital and cannot in any case afford to let their capital lie unproductive. Solvency inevitably depends on sales, and that at present is the rub.
Woodland owners have in two world wars lost not only practically all their best timber but, in many cases, also, in the last war, thriving immature plantations which would now be the main bread-and-butter lines. They are left in general, in many cases, with second quality hardwoods for which traditional outlets are shrinking, and shrinking fast, and which must be sold if they are to
414
remain solvent. Markets are undoubtedly the crux of the problem. We appreciate help in the form of grants, and obviously they are a help, but I believe that they are merely a pittance when they are set against the ever-rising costs of forestry. We appreciate the new management grant, but much of the benefit of that has been off-set by the withdrawal of the thinning grant, which I think was probably the greatest encouragement of all to the proper tending of young plantations.
I believe that I speak for all forest owners when I say that owners would he glad to be rid of grants if adequate markets were available for their timber. The Government statement of July 2 expressed the hope that private forestry could dispense with all but nominal grants in twenty or thirty years. I believe that every private owner would echo that hope if adequate markets were available for his produce; but when he sees the mines taking less and less of his timber, the railways ceasing to make or repair wooden wagons, and the new roads fenced with imported softwood or concrete posts, while apparently little is done to encourage new industries to use home-grown timber, he can surely be excused for thinking that this part of the Government statement is a pious hope with no practical support behind it.
if I might, I would quote an example of an extremely keen private owner, one who retired from the Foreign Service at the end of the last war, who took over an estate in rather poor condition, with its woods at least half devastated. The timber was gone and he found about 300 acres of woods, half of them completely devastated. He was obliged to make both ends meet. This he could do as long as there was a reasonable market for his hardwoods and as long as that market remained stable. Now he is unable to sell sufficient for the solvency of his business, and he has had to dismiss half his staff. I believe that that is not an isolated case. Not only has be had to dismiss labour, but this means the neglect of much of his past work. I believe it is in the light of cases such as this that failing markets for hardwoods are so serious. Surely we are in a bad way when English oak will not sell at home but American and Japanese will. The fencing of the new motorways has been mentioned by several speakers. I have here a photograph of a new road

415
in Derbyshire round the proposed Staunton Harold Reservoir which has been fenced entirely with home-grown oak. It looks extremely handsome. I believe it is durable, and I hope it will outlast the imported softwood of the new motorways. If it can be done on this one new road, why not on the others?
I believe that one of the great difficulties has been a long-standing prejudice against home-grown timber, a prejudice that has grown lately, and this exists especially in Government Departments, in the nationalised industries, and among local authorities. Part of the reason, undoubtedly, is that during the vastly accelerated war-time production a good deal of the produce was hastily and not too well prepared and not well seasoned. I believe that this has had a major effect. But it is too much to condemn home-grown timber on that account alone. Undoubtedly there has been a lack of good seasoning and of grading methods. That, I believe, can be put right. The home trade and the producers have not been as well organised as the importing trade, but new organisations are now being formed which should put that to rights. This, however, is not nearly sufficient in itself. I believe that two things are even more essential: confidence and adequate markets. I hope that the Government will feel able to state in unequivocal language that it desires to see a stable, prosperous, expanding, home timber industry. I hope that the Government will also be able to urge on Government Departments and on the nationalised industries that they should at least not discriminate against home-grown timber. And I hope that they will be able to encourage the setting up of processing plants for woodland produce.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long, but there are two other points I should like to make before I close. One is the very considerable effect that estate duty has on private forests. Its effect can be completely crippling on an industry whose finances are in any case extremely wobbly. I believe that if there is any form in which inheritance should be encouraged it is in timber, as it is in a great many other countries. As things are, an heir inherits a burden which he can virtually never lift and which is a veritable millstone around his neck.
416
For my last point I should like to quote a few sentences from a special supplement in The Times of recent date. They read as follows:
"Technical development is being pushed forward with equal vigour in the woods and the mills. Everything possible is being done to increase the yield of saleable products from each tree and to achieve balanced utilisation of species. Everywhere the accent is on good housekeeping and the elimination of waste."
Unfortunately, that did not refer to the United Kingdom; it was a description of the forestry industry in British Columbia, the most heavily forested province of Canada, which I suppose has the biggest reserves of forests in the world. This report goes on to mention a number of other interesting things about the utilisation of sawmill waste and the fact that 90 per cent. of the sulphate pulp produce in British Columbia comes from that same sawmill waste.
I believe that the research which is going on in this country is most excellently done, but it is quite insufficient for the purpose. The Timber Development Association are doing extremely good work, as also are the Forest Produce Research Laboratory, under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Forestry Commission's own research department. But I am quite certain that there is need for far more research on forestry methods and on utilisation, both mechanical and chemical, and perhaps the chemists might even be able to solve the problem of the utilisation of lignin. The Government must reaffirm their support by practical measures. We have had enough reports and inquiries and pious hopes; there is great need for action.
3.50 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, crisis is typically attended by confusion, whether it arrives suddenly or insidiously. It is always there, for various reasons, and we should recognise its existence. I should like to preface my remarks with those words, because in Scotland (and I am the first speaker who represents that area North of the Border in this afternoon's debate) we have reached the point where neither merchants nor proprietors are able to deal with the impasse which has occurred in the softwood timber trade. Previous speakers—I am honoured to be associated with the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, who has raised this

417
debate—have made points all of which have been most pertinent, but most of them have referred to hardwood. We in Scotland can grow the very best softwood, and I feel that for a moment I might dwell on the history of the afforestation policy in the North and afterwards make suggestions and proposals to alleviate what is becoming a very serious situation.
In the White Paper on post-war forestry, published in 1943, it was recognised that the Forestry Commission would have increasingly to interest themselves in the marketing of timber, not only because the sales from State forests would increase enormously but also because private sales were becoming their concern as the result of a dedication programme which they succeeded in obtaining and from which I think most of our woodlands enjoy the benefits. But I do not think that at that time it was sufficiently foreseen that, as the result of two world wars, an enormous spate of young timber would be coming into the market. That is, in fact, what has happened as regards the thinnings of our forests, whether they are national or private, as has been made perfectly clear by the Forestry Commission and all who have knowledge of sylviculture.
We in Scotland have now come to a stage in our journey along the eighty-year road—and I am glad that previous speakers have made it clear that it takes at least eighty years, and that it is only our grandchildren who will enjoy the doubtful benefits of what is rapidly becoming a depressed industry. It is only after these eighty years that we can hope for results. In the meantime, we have, in some way or other, to ease the crippling burden of the running of our forests. We have to find a market—that is the whole point—and we have not been able to do so. There is an enormous amount of pit-wood coming forward in Scotland at the present time. The most recent figures show that the Forestry Commission themselves in Scotland are turning out nearly 7 million cubic feet—that is, Hoppus feet—per annum; and we have yet to find ways and means of disposing of it. It is a serious state of affairs.
Your Lordships should know that except for a Swedish type of sawmill at Troon, and a very small chipboard factory in Annan, which can manage to deal with only 1¼ million cubic feet, the
418
rest of the Scottish woodlands are finding it increasingly difficult to deal with their thinnings. For example, in the Island of Mull, which I happen to know well, there are some 5,000 acres of Forestry Commission woodlands which are now in a position to be thinned, yet the thinnings cannot be disposed of in any way. Once an owner, as a private individual, is in competition with woodlands which are non-profit-earning, or there are finances available to thin them without expecting profit, he finds it increasingly difficult to get on with the job with his timber merchant.
We who come from Inverness, in the far North, have waited for no less than ten years to realise the dream of a pulp mill. That, I feel, is essential. I hope that the Government, who have done so much to promote industries elsewhere, notably the strip mill in the Clyde, will think seriously of a pulp mill for softwood timber in the North of Scotland. We in the North suffer not from bad woodlands, but from the freight rates, which really make it quite prohibitive to get timber away to the South. I should like to add that the Scottish Regional Coal Board have done their part in accepting our timber although we get no benefit from the freight rates—they call them the "frights" in Scotland, which is a most suitable name.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked a most innocent question when he asked where the British mines got their pitprops. I am sorry to tell your Lordships that they are almost entirely imported. That seems a most unfortunate state of affairs. In Scotland we have only three classes of timber—pitprops, which present the main problem; boxwood, where again business suffers great damage from importation, and a certain amount of sleepers, 7 per cent. of which have been considered sufficient to supply British Railways' needs. Yet in the year 1958 we had the whole of our sleeper market destroyed by importation. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who I see sitting in front of me, will bear in mind that the sleepers that came in were almost entirely Russian. I cannot understand why the Board of Trade thought it necessary to go to Russia to draw timber when there is plenty of soft fir available on their doorstep. I hope that that will be borne in mind, because it seems to be extraordinarily muddled thinking.

419
We have done our best as private individuals to promote the growing of timber, but those who have dedicated would, I feel, have every right to reconsider certain clauses in that dedication, because, as many speakers have already said, carrying on with only small grants and further State assistance without any guaranteed market is a difficult matter, and it would be much better not to dedicate our woodlands and to turn into sheep walks some of our hillsides which we had thought of planting out with trees. A comparison between agriculture and forestry production and methods is a very apt one, but no speaker has so far made this point, which I should like to emphasise: that forestry wages are increased to the level of agricultural wages whenever there is a rise, but unlike the latter industry there are no price reviews or guaranteed markets for the timber which the men are working. I think it is high time that we should look after that section of the business and not be badly flooded out by competition from the Forestry Commission.
I ask your Lordships not to think that I am hostile to the Forestry Commission. The reason why I am speaking high up in the batting order—unworthily high—is that my father was the first Chairman of the Forestry Commission and I have a great admiration for all their works. But it seems to me that there is one real criticism of this august body. I may be wrong, but as a layman I get the impression that, while they have enormous zeal and enthusiasm, and are all very charming people, they do not seem to have a head for business. On the one hand, you see an energetic section of that body urging you to spend more on trees—they never stop trying to get more acreage under forest; and if you cannot plnat it yourself they are quite prepared to take it away from you. But what is on the other side of this organisation? Is there any correlation between the marketing and planting? If there is I have still to meet it. But I hope they will realise that as private individuals we have reached the point where it is becoming increasingly difficult to go on planting trees without the assurance of some kind of future.
4.0 p.m.
THF EARL OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I, for one, and I am sure all other noble Lords here this afternoon, whether, like so many of us, they are engaged in the
420
forestry industry or not, will welcome this very important Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire. As he so aptly put it, the forestry industry of this country is at a crisis in its affairs. The bottom has dropped out of the market. We have had limited debates on forestry in the past two years: on the Watson Committee Report, in April of last year, and on the Zuckerman Committee Report in October last year. On the latter occasion the noble Earl Lord St. Aldwyn, who replied for Her Majesty's Government stated on behalf of the Government [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 205, col. 574]:
"… the Government have decided to carry out a thorough review of the bases and objectives of forestry policy, taking full account of all the economic, social and defence factors involved."
This wording allowed one to expect that something as considered and detailed as the White Paper of 1943 would be forthcoming, and to hope that a radical change of emphasis would result, taking account of the changed prospects of this time, fifteen years later. All we have had is the statement of July 24 this year, coming nine months after the time when it was promised.
This short Government statement on forestry does not seem to do anything more than continue the policy of 1943 and to give some aid to small forest owners. This latter aspect is, of course exceedingly valuable, and will certainly help towards enabling them to put their woodlands in order, if they have not already done so. I was going to say a great deal on the removal of the thinning grants, but so much has already been said by other noble Lords that I will confine myself entirely to supporting and endorsing the remarks of my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire about the removal of those grants. It is a tragedy silviculturally, as well as economically, because it may lead to late thinning in order that the thinning can be conducted at a time when some payment will be made; and such late thinning will consequently impair the quality and growth rates of the plantation.
After all the time that elapsed before the statement was made, and considering all the material and information available to Her Majesty's Government, that statement seems ill-considered, unimaginative and even hasty, a product more of the period of thinking about the necessity for

421
anti-inflationary measures than of the long-term future of an industry which depends upon plans made for a generation or two ahead, rather than for five years, or even the current year. In view of the statements of Her Majesty's Government in the last few years, I am sure that no harm is meant, and that no lack of support is implied for this country's forestry industry and that at the end of this debate we shall have more elucidation and explanation of the statement and of the aims of Her Majesty's Government.
Our home forestry industry is not, as yet, a big one. In economic terms it is really very inconsiderable, and as such perhaps does not merit a great deal of consideration. It has, however, made a large contribution in two world wars to saving our nation. Before the last war it provided only about 4½ per cent. of this country's timber and timber-product needs, but during the last war it provided nearly one-third; and after the war, as we have heard from other speakers, there was little standing timber left of any age, or at any rate of any quality.
The past record and difficulties of the industry are well known. Perhaps less well known is the enormous amount of planting which took place in the postwar period and since the inception of the Forestry Commission. It was stated in this House as long ago as February 23, 1955, that the average imports of timber and pulp in the previous five years had been £24 million, while home production for those five years averaged £10 million. So far as I can discover from the latest available figures, the situation is still much the same. The Report of the Forestry Commission for 1957 gives the quantity and value of their production and the quantity licensed for selling from private woodlands. That does not mean to say that the quantity licensed for selling from private woodlands was actually felled, but that generally follows very closely. The value of the two together would still be about £10 million.
It is suggested that imports are now of the order of £400 million, so that our contribution is now only 2½ per cent.—or 4 per cent. if one sticks to the old figures of 1955. Incidentally, the output of private woodlands seems to be about one-fifth less than in 1953, the year of the Scottish windblow, when, owing to the
422
sudden increase in the amount of timber available for the market, it could not be absorbed and the price fell appreciably, only to recover when the windblow had been consumed. That leads me to think that the market cannot now absorb more than is being produced at home at the moment. Although I have not given the noble Earl who is to reply any notice of this question, I should be glad to have the up-to-date figures of the imports of both pulp and timber, and also those of home production.
I hope that what I have said will have revealed the relative insignificance of the industry at present, with an output of less than 0·1 per cent. of that of agriculture—and a mere pittance compared with that of the National Coal Board. It is stated, however, that the contribution of the nation's forests to the economy by the end of the century is expected to be equal to about one-third of the national consumption. On the basis of £400 million of imports now, production therefore must rise from the present £10 million to £133 million in the coming forty years; in other words, a thirteen-fold or fourteen-fold increase is foreseen—an average annual increase in output of something of the order of £3 million. To a tremendous extent this will be in the form of small thinnings, as the enormous acreage which has been planted begins to yield.
How on earth is this enormous quantity of small thinnings to be absorbed when we are virtually in glut conditions now? I hardly think that, with the way the trade is organised at present, and without very great expenditure on the provision of processing plants, it is feasible to absorb this expected gigantic increase of output. Quite apart from the mills and processing plants required, think of the houses, the social facilities and so on needed to cope with this tremendous increase, not to mention the strain on our already congested road system.
Are we right to insist on the creation of this enormous national forest in the present foreseeable circumstances? It has been judged, and often stated, that this is desirable on economic grounds to assist our balance of payments. The industry will therefore have to be put on a basis very different from its present one if it is to be able to cope with this ever-increasing output. Surely, rather than

423
thinking in terms of a strategic reserve, outmoded in the present nuclear world, we should think, first and foremost, in terms of the potential contribution to our national economy. In that respect I suspect that the emphasis should be on the production of artificial timber substances, rather than on growing timber to sawing size. Those processes would be better done here than abroad, as has already been suggested by my noble friend Lord Bradford, and on two counts: first, to keep the manufacturing and processing at home, and secondly because this country, by reason of its rainfall and climate, is more suitable for rapid growth and suited least for slow-grown structural timber. Production of slow-grown timber should, to my mind, be left to countries with colder climates, like Canada, Finland, Sweden, British Columbia, Russia and others, where it can be produced and transported in bulk by ships and dealt with at the ports of entry.
If we must have a reserve of sawn timber, I feel that provision of this should be left to the Forestry Commission, who make use of the least productive land, by and large, and produce slower grown timber, on the average, than does private forestry. Private forestry should be encouraged to produce short-rotation timber for processing, which can be done in one generation. The advantages of the dedication of private woodland as timber-growing land are considerable; and it is a sad commentary on the general feeling of insecurity at the moment that, for death duty and taxation reasons, so little timber land has, in fact, been dedicated. Out of the one million-odd acres in England at any rate—I do not know about Scotland and Wales—only 251,000 acres are dedicated.
As I was saying, the emphasis has been on the creation of a strategic reserve; in fact that has been done by Act of Parliament. The 1951 Act laid down that a reserve of standing and growing timber is to be supplied. Private owners, consequently, have not been encouraged to produce short-rotation timber, except in exceptional circumstances. In industrial areas, where there is heavy air pollution, private owners have in some cases been encouraged to grow spruce on a twenty-five year rotation, because it is the only timber that will grow, and then only for a short period. I am sure that the time
424
has come for a division of the responsibilities of the private owner and of State forestry towards the aim of creating a large and significant industry. State forestry should in the main be encouraged to produce heavier sawn timber, and private owners should be encouraged to produce smaller sizes of timber on short rotations for processing. Obviously, no sharp division could ever be made because of the suitability of different types of land for different types of production, but the emphasis could be placed in that direction.
The main point, I wish to make is that the July statement makes no reference to one of the two main recommendations of the Watson Report which calls, in paragraph 159, for a Central Consultative Body. I have been trying to develop the argument as I have gone on that the aims of State and of private forestry should be different and I think it follows that their control should be separate. At present we have in this industry a state of affairs which prevails in no other industry to my knowledge. The State sector exercises not only control over but also management of the private sector, and yet their outlooks, once we get away from strategic considerations, must differ markedly particularly as time goes on. State forestry has complete security of tenure; private forestry has security for only a generation or two on top of which the Forestry Commission who exercise control—and have done so in a remarkably fine and efficient manner as the years have gone on—are answerable only to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in person.
Surely it would be much more reasonable and proper and practical if the Ministry were responsible for the Forestry Commission, on the one hand, and for private forestry on the other, being itself advised by a body such as was envisaged in the Watson Report: a Central Consultative Body with an independent chairman and some independent members. In saying "an independent chairman" I do not intend any criticism whatsoever of the present Home-grown Timber Advisory Committee which has as its Chairman that great and respected forester whom we have with us this afternoon, the Chairman of the Forestry Commission, Lord Radnor. But I respectfully submit that as the aims of State and private forestry should differ, advice to

425
them and about them should be independent. In the words of paragraph 160 of the Watson Report (if your Lordships will forgive me for quoting), the consultative committee should have to undertake the following duties, among others:
"To obtain and collate statistics on home-grown timber, State and private, including production by categories, and to form estimates as to future trends and changes;
"To review the adequacy of existing markets both immediate and in the future;
"To advise upon and encourage development of new industries and the expansion of existing industries, where necessary, in order to absorb projected surpluses."
A fourth recommendation was:
"And to make recommendations if and when necessary for the financial assistance to the industry as they may consider appropriate."
I believe that a consultative body with aims such as those would perform a very worth-while function. It may be appropriate also for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take over the Forestry Commission sections which administer and provide advice to private forestry; they might equally take over the research establishments and operate a Forestry Advisory Service for the benefit both of the private owners and of the Forestry Commission, in the way that they operate National Agricultural Advisory Service.
The idea of a central consultative committee was welcomed in the debate on the Watson Report in April, 1957, and the door was left open by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, when he ended his remarks on these recommendations by saying that the Government would certainly give them—the recommendations concerning the consultative committee—the serious study they called for. I would therefore ask the noble Earl who is to reply to tell us, if he can, why no reference was made in the July statement to this idea of a Central Consultative Body; what the Government think of this idea, and whether they consider that the time is ripe for private and State ownership to be separated; and finally, regarding the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he thinks it is time for the Ministry to assume responsibility for private forestry on the one hand, and for State forestry, in the form of the Forestry Commission, on the other. In this last connection I must remind the noble Earl that in the debate on the
426
Watson Report he set up to be a protagonist of adding another F to the M.A.F. and F.—though for a slightly different reason, because he was talking of the integration of forestry and agriculture. We had also another protagonist for adding "F" to the initials, and that was the late and respected advocate of a sound and healthy forestry, the late Lord Jowitt. My Lords, that is all I have to say, and I hope and sincerely trust that the Government can give the industry some real assurances that they mean and intend to promote a prosperous forestry industry in the foreseeable future.
4.17 p.m.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, in addition to the reasons that have been expressed for thanking the noble Earl for introducing this Motion, I have an additional reason for being grateful to him, because I was one of the signatories to the Watson Committee's Report. When that Committee reported two or three years ago I felt that their Report was not received with that immense enthusiasm for which we had hoped; but I cannot help feeling more than gratified this afternoon because so many noble Lords have referred to the wisdom of the Watson Report. If the Government are going to move in the direction of the suggestions we made, it will perhaps be a case of better late than never.
I was very glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, specifically announce that the Woodlands Owners' Association is in process of being formed because that was one of our particular recommendations in addition to the one just mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, who has just spoken. I hope that all woodland owners will join it. We recommended the formation of this body at the time, I well recollect, because we foresaw an immense flood of thinnings coming from the Forestry Commission plantations in five or ten years' time, and the owners would have only the good will of the Forestry Commission to rely upon if they were not to be completely swamped.
But if, aided by the offer of quite substantial maintenance and planting grants, we can get this organisation formed, as I hope we can, I think the private owners will have much more chance of securing a share of the market, which I hope will by then be much stronger than it is now. We have heard

427
during this debate that the future use of timber and wood should be well assured in new and fresh directions, and although the market has fallen very badly just at the moment, that has happened to other commodities and in trade of other forms, and perhaps the pendulum will, before not too long, swing in the other direction. After all, a good deal of money has been invested, both by the Government and by private owners, in forestry during the last few years—and by "a few years" I mean, in the life of a tree, thirty or forty years.
It may interest your Lordships to know that the total Parliamentary vote to the Forestry Fund between 1920 and 1957 amounted to £89 million, of which by far the greater part went to the building up of State forests. Although this figure is not strictly comparable, during the year up to September. 1957, a total of £821,000 from the Forestry Fund was spent on private forestry. Had that run at the same rate over the thirty years (which I do not think it did), it would have meant that about £30 million was spent on private forestry. There is, therefore, a pretty considerable investment to be taken care of if it is at all possible. I should think that all forest owners and all agriculturists must have learned by now that Government pledges are, to put it mildly, subject to review. I remember, when I was starting in active politics, the repeal of the Corn Production Act after the First World War, which entirely reversed the very strict and strong pledges given to the farmers by the Government of the day.
However, the facts which remain all the time are these. One is that no Government, so far as I can see, will ever introduce protection in regard to timber. The present Government are involved in other great issues, such as European Free Trade; and they cannot, and do not mean, I am perfectly certain, however much we press them, to introduce protection for the timber trade. I think we must make up our minds about that. It would be a very difficult thing to implement, for this reason: that although many speakers have said that we must guarantee markets for timber, there is the other side of it, which is that the quality of the timber to be guaranteed must be good.
428
It is true that there is a large amount of second-rate stuff about now which is very hard to sell. But it is equally true that during the war, when the importation of timber almost stopped, it was found, for instance, in the mines, that a lot of pitprops were not up to quality, and a prejudice was formed against them. In the last fourteen years that prejudice has been largely removed, yet there was a prejudice against home-grown timber, simply because the men who used those pitprops did not like them. Men who are working in the mines naturally want the highest quality, and it is up to us to produce that. The other thing that sticks—and I think we must recognise that it will continue throughout the twentieth century—is the process of death duties, which gradually extracts all the capital which would otherwise be used, at no great cost to the Government, to replant our timber.
The other point which I feel is influencing the change in policy, and why we may not now get the 5 million acres under forestry by the end of this century, is the emergence of a new factor. I do not know whether this is so, but I think that the Government may be reviewing the position in the light of nuclear fission. It may well be said that nuclear fission and atomic explosion will end a war in a couple of weeks and that you will not need to have reserves of timber lasting five or six years. I do not know whether or not I am right, but those are the kind of factors that crop up all the time. Then, one often finds that noble Lords say one thing while they are on the Back Benches but—not necessarily through any fault of their own—do not find it quite so easy to carry their words out when they get on to the Front Benches.
In my view, a really important factor why we should continue forestry is the need for conserving rainfall—and in the vast urban population that we now have we must have water. In Wales (on behalf of which country I am speaking this afternoon, as opposed to Scotland, for which other noble Lords have already spoken), English towns always like to come to us to get their rainfall. They have nowhere else to go apparently. Probably they must go where the rainfall is heaviest.

429
Having tried to make a case why forestry should exist, even though the factors change somewhat as time goes on. I would say once more that the private owner still has a great part to play. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the exact figures of planting that has taken place. This represents a further point in favour of the argument, which has already been presented, why one should look after the investment. In the first decade of postwar forestry, ended September, 1956, the Forestry Commission planted 584,000 acres, representing 61 per cent. of its target. During the same period, the figure for private forestry was 165,000 acres, representing 82 per cent. of its target. In the last two years private forestry planting has been running at about 200,000 acres a year, and that is the maximum ever envisaged for private planting in any White Paper programme. There is the picture.
The particular point to which I wanted to refer this afternoon, so many general aspects having already been dealt with, is the actual administration by the Forestry Commission of their policy of integration: that is, the integration of the farms and the forests. It has been mentioned only once in the debate this afternoon. Now, what exactly do they mean by this in practice? I yesterday obtained some figures about afforestation in three of the counties in Wales to which the Forestry Commission turned their particular attention. I was told that in the counties of Carmarthen, Cardigan, and Brecon, 60,900 acres had been planted up to the end of the last planting season, and that the approximate area to be planted in the next three seasons is 12,500 acres. I am not quite clear whether that means per annum or is to be spread over the three years. The land in hand for planting is 32,000 acres, so I would suppose that the 12,500 acres is a yearly plant, although do not know.
Now, that country is, of course, a very productive sheep-walk country. In the past the Forestry Commission have planted huge blocks of conifer, and there are now vast silent forests in which no light reaches at all. The sheep have been removed from them, to say nothing of the obliteration of magnificent scenery which is a great tourist attraction and which in
430
a few years' time will completely disappear in these vast forest areas. What does genuine integration mean? I think it means the planting of forests in sheep country which would achieve the highest common factor of interest, one with another; that is to say, that large shelter belts should be planted. There is also the aspect of changing over from these huge blocks of forest to the planting of much smaller areas. Integration, which appears to have come fairly smoothly in England, has not come quite so smoothly in Wales, although I am the first to agree that the relations between the Forestry Commission and agriculture in the last few years under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Radnor have improved out of knowledge.
I believe that integration is the answer to what we want to achieve. Farmers have begun to see that a good forestry policy is necessary in the interests of the nation. Sometimes it has been argued that the rural de-population of central Wales can be reversed by afforestation, but I am not quite sure how true that is. It can effect something in the very early stages, when there is a good deal of thinning and other work to be done, but as the area planted becomes bigger and bigger it requires almost no maintenance at all and it would seem a pity not to be able to use local labour or even local farmers on part-time work. That is beginning to happen among the smaller farms, but, of course, farmers with 5,000 or 6,000 acres of sheep-walk do not want to turn themselves into employees of the Forestry Commission. There are thousands of sheep still there.
I would suggest as forcibly as I may that there should be closer consultation between the Forestry Commission and the agricultural committees or farmers' organisations in the counties concerned about which land should be taken for forestry and which should be retained as food-producing acreage. That seems to me to be of vital importance. I would stress that closer planning for forestry and agriculture could be the right development in that part of the world. Then, I believe, there will be almost no friction and things can go forward on the scale and at the pace that are desired.
I hope that the Government will be able to tell us whether they are reversing

431
or slowing the programme of 5 million acres. It is much better to say whether that is so. They say that a review will take place every five years, and naturally we hope that the review will be in the right direction. I often wonder whether the Government can really guarantee a full market. What the Government can do, I think, is to hold the ring and help to secure favourable conditions for the creation of a market. We should not always be running to the Government; we should be ready to help ourselves. But I think that we are entitled to say that we should have the same treatment as has been accorded already to other industries, especially in the starting of new factories, in our case for the manufacture of such things as pulp board. I do not think that we should ask for any more than is given to other industries over and above what is necessary to safeguard the investment made, or try to put forestry in a more favourable position than is accorded to other industries.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I want to approach this question from an angle different from that of my noble friends who have spoken this afternoon. They have nearly all spoken as producers of timber. I am connected with a firm which makes objects of wood and is therefore a purchaser of timber, and of English hardwoods at that, so I feel that I ought to enjoy a certain popularity with some of my noble friends who have spoken, although I hope that it will not be measured by the scale of the contribution which my firm can make to their needs. Of course, the purchases of one small firm are infinitesimal, but even an output of only some £60,000 worth of wooden objects a year does give one a possibility of making some conclusions, though I am afraid they may seem of a somewhat obvious nature.
My first conclusion is that if one does succeed in designing an article which finds favour with a client, or a group of clients, there is no difficulty whatever in selling it at a profit. My second conclusion is that if, by reason of difficulties of machining or the amount of waste, the use of British home-grown timber is uneconomical, there is a tendency to use imported timber—however odd that may sound.
432
Continuing from these conclusions, I suppose that it is possible for the manufacturers of any article to find clients and adapt their wares to their needs. In the case of the manufacturing trade in the timber industry, the capacity of small firms to make these adaptations is limited. It is really limited to matters of design. Anything in the nature of experiment in new processes or research is completely outside their capacity. I think I am right in saying that nearly all the manufacturers of wooden articles in this country, including even the furniture manufacturers, are comparatively small firms.
First, let me take the subject of waste. I have heard it stated that on the average one-third of all timber sawn in this country is left as waste. I suppose that as manufacturers, as opposed to sawmillers, we can possibly find some use, by fresh ingenuity in designing smaller objects of work, for some of this waste; nevertheless, it is inevitable that there should be a considerable residue. I understand that recently in the Liverpool area and in Monmouthshire, in particular, processing plants have been set up which turn waste products and thinnings and other types of wood waste into cardboard, fibre-board and paper. No doubt that is of the greatest assistance to producers and manufacturers within economic range of these plants, but outside that range there seems to be nothing whatever. Nor, in the bewildering complex of committees, federations and associations in which the trade is organised, does there seem to be any body which can give worthwhile advice about the disposal of such waste material, still less provide any facility for processing.
My own knowledge of these matters is so limited that I would not have presumed to address your Lordships at all had I not noticed that the same subject had been dealt with recently in a far more comprehensive and forthright manner, and, of course, with greater authority, by some of the leading men in the industry. For example, Mr. Philip Reece, the Director of the Timber Development Association, recently said:
"It is generally conceded that if you are to stay in business you must produce what the public want. That is not quite the same thing as believing you can persuade the public to want what you have got. I do not believe that our solution is to be found in merely trying to persuade people to use wood. I do believe,

433
however, that we can increase the sale of wood by designing wooden articles and components better and cheaper than our competitors."
He then goes on to investigate the amount of research which is being devoted by what I might describe as the competitors of timber—the chemical industry, metallurgical industry, the asbestos industry, and so forth—and he reckons that on an average 2 per cent. of the turnover of those industries is being devoted to research, compared to timber, where it is about one-thirtieth of one per cent., probably less than one-sixtieth of the average rate of all British industries combined. He goes on to say:
"The battle is not between one raw material and another; it is between one finished article and another, it is between one design and another, it is between the 60,000 back-room boys I have mentioned and your back-room boys, and the odds are about 300 to one."
Mr. Bryan Latham, another well-known figure in the timber industry, has dealt with the same matter and seems to suggest that, in his opinion, although research is going on in various parts of the world, there is not sufficient co-ordination between the agencies of research and the practising timber man. Speaking with all the restraint that one would associate with a member of the Forestry Commission, he seems to support, and quotes in approval, what Mr. Reece had said. One may wonder why, in the face of these expert views, more has not been done by the trade itself. I can only surmise that the importers, who have the biggest financial interest in the trade, have not so far been particularly interested in the problems of the producer or manufacturer in this country. Their function is to marry up demands for sawn timber of specified dimensions with suppliers from all over the world, and they may have no contact at all with the actual timber they sell.
So it seems that, despite the great variety of organisations which exists (and more seem to be formed every day; I went into a new one myself the other day, with, I may add, considerable misgiving) there seems to be no organisation which really assists the needs that I have mentioned; that is to say, the better utilisation and new methods of utilisation of home-grown timber. I notice that a well-known figure in the trade has expressed himself somewhat forcibly on the question of these committees. Writing to the Timber
434
Trades Journal, Mr. Robert Batcheller ends up by saying:
"Sufficient committees exist for the purpose of the home trade, and for the landowner. All that is required is that they are immediately co-ordinated for the benefit of all—particularly the consumer, who after all is on the receiving end of all this latest planning chaos."
I am not, of course, qualified to say whether these comments are justified, but I should have thought that it was common sense to study the requirements of the consumer.
We have heard a great deal this afternoon about finding new markets, and that is one way of putting it. But another way to look at it is that the markets already exist, and if the consumer is not satisfied with home-grown timber in its present form I should have thought it would be right for the Government to use their good offices to see that he gets it in forms that will satisfy him, whether by grading, processing or in any other way. If the consumer-end of this business is satisfied, everything else will fall into place.
4.46 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, being a grower and producer of timber and a promoter of forestry for many years, I should first express an interest in forestry. Secondly, as it has been announced this afternoon that The Woodland Growers' Association has been started in England, I should like to say that we are on the point of completing the formation of the Scottish branch. I rather hope that the actual title has not been settled, and I think that perhaps "Timber Growers' Union", or some such name, might be even more appropriate.
The difficulty of selling and the misfortune of having to accept lower prices have been discussed at length; and I may add that the anxiety is widespread throughout the timber trade. The effect is bad upon the confidence of growers, and there is less revenue for them to replant and to carry out their share of the national reafforestation programme. The Forestry Commission are just as much concerned. Certain causes are clear and definite, such as the changeover by the railways from timber to steel wagons; the movement from wood to cardboard for box-making; the use of foreign timber for fencing along trunk roads; and the temporary reduction

435
in orders from the National Coal Board for pitwood. This has hit the home-grown industry very hard—I hope that it may be only temporarily—and we must all try more than ever to counteract and overcome a serious trend. If some markets are disappearing, others are being found and more must be found.
Though we may dislike it, we cannot begrudge the steel industry their success in securing the changeover from wood to steel, but they can be reminded that the valuable benefits and advantages to them of protection against imports and the making of substantial revenue available to them for pushing their products are not available for the growers of trees. The oak and other hardwoods of England are severely hit by this; and it will be worse if European timber in place of English oak continues to be used for fencing on trunk roads. It is well known that the strength and quality of English oak are satisfactory and that the life of fencing of English oak will be thirty to forty years. We ask the Government and the Department concerned again to take these points into consideration, and we submit that on balance the national advantage favours, and strongly so, the use of home-crown oak.
The slowing down of orders recently for conifer thinnings and sawn material for the mines has caused much worry. We hope it is true that the National Coal Board will shortly be placing fresh orders for timber grown in this country. We thank them for previous contracts, and we urge a closer co-operation now. We ask them to take more from British forests in the coming year and a smaller percentage from Europe.
In Scotland, the relationship and co-operation between the miners and forestry is friendly and strong, and the Scottish miners take almost 100 per cent. of their timber from the woods in Scotland. We thank them for this. The annual output in Scotland is about 12½ million cubic feet, and of this, 10 million cubic feet or so can be absorbed in the Scottish mines. This leaves 2½ million cubic feet—a surplus steadily increasing—to be utilised for other purposes or to be sold to the pits in the North of England. It will help immensely both State and private forestry in the North of England and in Scotland if the mines in the
436
North of England will use a larger percentage of home-grown timber. It is a fact that the economic dependence upon this is very great indeed, and I hope it is correct that friendly discussions are taking place in London now and also on the spot. I think it is appropriate to appeal, on behalf of all who are engaged in forestry, both workers and woodland owners, most strongly to the National Coal Board, to the miners and to those who buy the timber for them, for their good will and confidence in our produce, and for their support at a time of vital importance and great difficulty. If the Government could make any announcement as to the prospects in regard to this it would be most welcome.
An all-out effort is needed now to come together. We maintain that the use entirely of home-grown timber in Scotland and, to a lesser extent, in the North of England, shows that we can compete in quality and price with European timber, and we trust that this can be confirmed by the National Coal Board and the miners. At present, the percentage of home-grown timber used in the North of England, as, for instance, in Durham, is believed to be quite small, and we ask to be allowed to provide an increase during the coming year and future years. If the National Coal Board can continue during 1959 and subsequent years to take an increasing percentage of the volume of British grown timber, the worst part of an acute marketing problem will be overcome. If there are any ways in which any of us as representatives of forestry can help to achieve this solution, our services are at anyone's disposal.
I would strongly support the demand by my noble friend Lord Lovat for pulping plant somewhere in Scotland, and also for an additional board factory. The enterprise by Bowater in the Mersey, preceded by the Airscrew-Jicwood chipboard factory at Annan, are surely two of the best assets to British forestry for a long time, helping to counteract the loss of other markets. It is to be hoped that these will be extended and that far-sighted plans may be under contemplation now, because from now on the conifer forests in the Highlands and the West of Scotland will be needing a much bigger outlet for their produce, and they are too far from the mines to benefit substantially from an improvement south of the Border.

437
Though marketing has been the principal subject to-day, we are equally concerned with the creation of new forests, the re-planting and re-establishment of felled woodlands and the improvement in quality of our existing woods. Official recognition has often been expressed of the severe damage to British woodlands during two wars, with financial loss and correspondingly increased costs of reestablishment, but practical attention to this seems to be less evident when official decisions are made. For twenty years or longer we have to go through a period of re-afforestation that must be costly for all who undertake the planting and growing of timber, and more costly for private forestry, with its large percentage of small woods and a higher proportion of hardwoods. I think we should all like to be sure of a more enthusiastic policy for forestry, and to have declarations emphasising this—declarations which will restore confidence.
It seems possible that the Government may have been under-estimating the future advantages of several things, such as a more encouraging lead and inspiration now, and the creation now of more woods and of better woods. They may be under-estimating the cost of establishing woods of a high quality and the benefits of many kinds, as have been mentioned already, both socially and with regard to employment in the country districts: the financial advantage to the nation of making more use of our land and natural resources, increasing the wealth of the country and saving currency on purchases from overseas. One might emphasise again the opportunities, particularly now, for increasing employment of a healthy nature at a time when unemployment is increasing.
I would remind the Government that after the war woodland owners were asked to re-establish their woods. They were told that our timber was so precious that felling must be limited, and this at a time when prices were very good. Now that prices are lower and sales are difficult, the official attitude seems to have changed and to be more lukewarm, We hope that this is not so. Much of these felled woodlands remain to be replanted, and though it has been shown that progress is good, it is important to replant quickly and not to allow the felled woodland to waste and deteriorate. The sooner it is planted, the sooner it
438
will reach a more productive stage. In this connection, though there was disappointment a few months ago with the abrupt and unexpected termination of the thinning grants, we should acknowledge and express recognition of the usefulness of the grants now approved. I should like the Government spokesmen to tell us that they wish all private woodland owners, as well as the Forestry Commission, to make all speed to replant.
The costs for all owners of all woodlands of all sizes are growing, but for smaller woodland owners they are worse in proportion, and for the first time there is a special encouragement and financial help for the owners of small acreages of woodlands. For example, for woodlands of 200 acres, if five acres are cleared of scrub annually and five acres planted annually a grant of £300 is obtainable. If the Government intend home-grown timber to have a market in the future, will they encourage also the more active afforestation of the smaller woods, and will they also encourage during the next live years a more intensive scrub clearance programme in all woods? Will they show that it is of importance to get rid more quickly of these wasted areas, and will they, above all, encourage all who are associated with the Government in any way—their own Departments and nationalised industries, also—to be as helpful as possible in "buying British"?
There was a suggestion that the Forestry Commission are not able to secure their land in large enough acreages and quickly enough. I feel that there is a preference for the present policy for the acquisition of land, but this imposes upon landowners and farmers a responsibility to help by making suitable land available. As a farmer and landowner in Scotland, travelling about the country I feel that the required acreage should be obtainable without injury to farming. I think that it is agreed among all concerned in farming that this is so and that it can be done with reasonable consultation in advance and by integration of land, agriculture and forestry. Finally I would submit that in comparison with the position in all other countries the target of 5 million acres as laid down for this country a few years ago is very modest and should easily be accomplished, and I once again urge that we endeavour to achieve it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Duke sits down, may I ask him a question? The noble Duke and other noble Lords sitting on the other side have made complaints that the National Coal Board has not given all the support to the forestry industry that it could do. The noble Duke also said that our prices were competitive with imports from other countries. Could the noble Duke tell the House the approximate price of pit-props from this country and the approximate price of imports?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I hope the House is in agreement with me that I made no complaint at all against the National Coal Board. I asked them for greater co-operation in the future and I made an appeal—I hope a most friendly and courteous appeal—to them. I said to what extent we are dependent upon their good will and support. In regard to the prices and quality, the specifications, lengths and preparation, I submit that we can compare very favourably with the imported article; and if there are any complaints from the mines about home-grown timber I think it far better they should be made at once and gone into, and we should avoid any material which is not suitable.
5.5 p.m.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, as a backwoodsman I feel I must apologise for intervening in this debate, because I know it is your Lordships' policy to thin out such noblemen, replacing the hairy faces by feminine tresses. I thought we had knowledge of this subject which might be useful. Unfortunately, I think most of my thunder has been stolen by previous speakers, and I should not like to weary your Lordships by repetition. There are, however, a few points which I think I can still make.
We all know that forestry, except in the case of the Forestry Commission, was in the doldrums up to the First World War and between the two wars. Then, after the last war, forestry got its "New Look", and in that regard I think due thanks must be given to the Party represented by noble Lords opposite who brought in that scheme. Everything then went well; we planted up to the hilt of the labour and finances available ten, twenty or thirty acres per year, as laid down by our instructors in the Forestry
440
Commission. Now, after those twelve years, our thinning grant has been cut. Your Lordships have heard what other noble Lords think of that. I think it is a breach of faith on the original undertaking, especially as in 1947 the agricultural wage was £4 10s. a week and it is now £7 16s.—and quite rightly so. But, as has already been pointed out, we have no "February Price Review".
This perhaps is all destructive criticism. Let me try and do something constructive. The Scottish Lords have all said that they want more pulp mills in Scotland, and I am perfectly certain that in England the same thing is required. We should like the Government to go into the question of more pulp mills. A few very good ones have been put up; there is one at Ellesmere Port, and one for hardwoods in Chepstow, Monmouthshire. Could not forestry be treated more like agriculture in the way of draining grants and road grants? After all, you cannot grow trees unless you can drain the land, and you cannot expect timber unless you can pull your woods out.
Much has been said about roadside fences, so I will not quote the Preston By-Pass which I went down yesterday, but I should like to quote one little experience of my own. I had a good deal of land opencast coal-mined, and the Coal Board restored it very well and put up the fences. The fences were of concrete and wire. Eight years afterwards those fences have completely crumbled. After all, when a good bullock scratches himself on a concrete post it does not give; it breaks. On another part of my estate I was digging up an old fence made of chestnut hardwood. As a matter of interest I found out when it was put in; it was exactly eighty-five years ago, and it was really as sound as when it was put in; and that fence was not even treated. So when we ask the Government to put up wooden fences instead of concrete, we are asking them to do better and not worse.
There is one other point, and I am afraid it again hits at the Coal Board. There is a wood-wool factory in Herefordshire, and 200 ton lots of imported Baltic pitwood, six feet long by six inches across, are being sold by the Coal Board to the factory. I believe that the manager is very pleased with it; he says that the quality is so good and uniform

441
that he is able to cut down his orders from the local landowners and the Forestry Commission. I think that we ought to learn that it is all the same firm. It has been mentioned that strategically a large reserve of forests is not necessary. That may be so. I feel, however, that, even if there is a nuclear war which is over in a week, the country which has a good reserve of timber will be in a better position to face the future. In any case, surely from an æsthetic point of view we want to have our countryside adequately covered with good trees—not the broken down woodlands which we saw after the last war. Surely, too, socially we want to have a thriving population such as in agriculture, working and living on the land.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I apologise, first of all, for not being present to hear the opening stages of this debate. Especially I would apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, to whom we are most grateful for bringing about this debate. I am particularly sorry that I was not present to hear his speech. I am not going to apologise for intervening in this debate because I consider that this is a matter of great urgency and one that will not wait. If I repeat what has already been said, I am sorry; nevertheless. I do not think it will do any harm, because it cannot be rubbed in sufficiently hard enough.
Forestry is a longer-term problem even than agriculture. It is not a matter for Party politics. One can have twenty different Governments in the life of a plantation, because it takes from sixty to eighty years for trees to mature, and you can go through quite a number of Governments in that time without doing any harm. I am not trying to "crack up" the landlords, but I submit that over the past few hundred years the landlords have more than played their part in forestry. It is true to say that during the last two wars they cut immature trees which would now be of great value to them; but they produced trees at a time when the country was down on its knees; and had it not been for them the country would have been in sore straits. Please do not think that I wish in any way to detract from the work of the Forestry Commission, because I do not. I have the greatest admiration for the Forestry
442
Commission. I think they are doing excellent work. We have excellent relations with them. They are most helpful on every occasion. I cannot speak too highly of the co-operation which they show.
But I would remind your Lordships that it is impressed upon us again and again by the National Farmers' Union that there must be security of tenure for farmers. May I ask: what about security for forestry programmes? Who can possibly afford to continue to plant for these enormous forestry programmes without some hope of security and a reasonable guarantee of prices showing a remunerative return? As was mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Lovat, wages keep on rising. But what about sale prices? They do not go up; they do not keep in line. We had another rise in wages the other day. We were asked to dedicate our land to forestry. We did so—some of us not without misgivings; in fact. I took a great deal of persuading. I remember arguing very strongly with the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, whether this was the right policy. For a long time I did not take part. Then I thought about it again, and I am now taking part. I am planting from 200 to 300 acres a year, as I am sure are many other people. This programme takes a big slice of capital to maintain. Unless we get some security we cannot possibly continue.
Apart from the resources of private owners, I understand that there is locked up in the Forestry Commission about £1 million in money. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government can afford to throw away that vast sum, whatever they choose to do to the poor private owner. As Lord Lovat pointed out, thinning of our softwoods must he done if we are to look after our woods properly and if the woods are to get the necessary air and light. To get the complement of increment at the right moment the producer has got to thin; and he cannot afford to thin unless he can get a guaranteed market. The Coal Board in Scotland have reached saturation point, so far as thinnings are concerned. If we look at the potentialities of the thinnings which are coming from Great Britain, and especially from Scotland, in the next five or six years, we see that we must

443
find some outlet for the thinnings or the whole programme will fall flat.
It is not possible to build up a sound foundation for a forestry programme in a night. We know of the chipboard factory in the South of Scotland and we know of the pulp mill in Cheshire; but may I point out that distances tell a very strong story in prices, and we must look ahead. We shall have an enormous number of thinnings corning from Scotland alone, both from the Forestry Commission and from private owners, and we must have some means of dealing with those thinnings, such as a pulp mill. I earnestly desire that the Government should start as quickly as possible helping to establish a pulp mill in Scotland in order to deal with the enormous numbers of thinnings that are bound to come forward within the next five or six years.
I do not specify the place where a pulp mill should be, because that can be decided later by experts and by the acreage of the plantations called for. But a pulp mill, or sonic other means of dealing with these thinnings must be found; we cannot afford to wait. Pulp mills and such-like take time to build, and if it is intended to lay the foundations for a prosperous forestry policy, that building must be done at once—there is no time to lose. So I say: get your pulp mills now. Do not wait for the O.E.E.C. Report. We cannot afford to wait. I hope that we shall have some satisfactory reply from Her Majesty's Government showing that they are aware of the immensity of the problem; that they will not just note it, but will do something to help us on this vital matter which brooks no delay. We want confidence and leadership and we want more woods, and better ones
5.19 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I wish to raise one matter in connection with this debate that has not received much attention—namely, the major part that transport plays in the whole of this question. It is extraordinary that to-day we find the Transport Commission looking around in every direction for freight, yet, while there is all this freight in Scotland, and more freight offering later on because pulp mills and chipboard factories and the rest may come in, nothing—or
444
very little—has been done to get away from the old prosaic method of taking the timber from the woodlands to the railhead. It is quite well known to all of your Lordships that recently the Army have been able to devise machines capable of going cross-country. If we have faith is forestry—and I hope we all have—then it is about time that the British Transport Commission had faith and invested money in improving methods of transport: for at the present time, as has been mentioned several times in this debate, it is the cost of transport that prevents the sales we want.
Much has been said of the policy of the National Coal Board. In Scotland, at the present moment the Board are taking over 85 per cent. of Scottish timber for the mines, and there is every reason to believe that within a very short time they will take about 100 per cent. But we have to remember that pit props are not as popular as they were. The mechanisation policy which the National Coal Board are carrying out necessitates the use of steel. Steel has to be used in conjunction with pit props, and I feel that the Board have really done a wonderful job in combining the two materials, because after all, it is the miner who must have the last word on safety, and there is a feeling, quite understandable, that there must be some steel protection in certain of the pits.
The other day I read that Sir Brian Robertson had stated that he welcomed very much the policy of Her Majesty's Government in making all these new roads, and felt that the more roads they made, the better. I am quite sure that what he had at the back of his mind was that if we can get more roads the congestion of traffic will be such that people will have to go by rail, and that that will probably solve, or help to solve, the passenger problem. But it will not solve the freight problem. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will go into this matter as one of extreme urgency and do something to induce the nationalised railways to work in closer co-operation with the National Coal Board and other organisations; because at the present moment there is a gap between their work.
The other day I went to see some wood being drawn out of a considerable area of woodland. It was quite impossible for

445
the wood to be drawn down in the ordinary way, and the people who were doing it said: "If only we had some of those mechanised means of lifting the timber and hauling it down, it would improve its quality. We should get it far more quickly and cheaply." At present there is no organisation in the British Transport Commission which deals specifically with the hauling of timber out of woodland. Surely that is one of the first things to be done. I believe that if the right policy is pursued there is no reason why in sixty years' time there should not be a population of 250,000 people interested in forestry in the United Kingdom. I believe it can be done, and our climate is far more suited to the production of timber than to ordinary forms of agriculture. That is surely so in certain parts of the Highlands, where we can grow finer timber than can any other place in the world. If only the whole matter could be gone into with the assistance of the Ministries concerned! I feel that they have neglected what is a very important aspect of our future economic position in that they have not considered (perhaps because they do not believe in it) that it is necessary to use special means to deal with this very particular industry.
I have here details of the method by which rates are charged for conveying timber from place to place. Reading this, I find it quite obvious that the higher cost—which the National Coal Board, for instance, must take into account—which arises when timber has to be moved any distance over sixty miles is such as to make the acquisition of that timber almost prohibitive. We have to remember that we are competing with foreign timber which for most of its way is waterborne and comes into this country at very special rates. This Island is so small compared with areas on the Continent that we do not have the rivers down which we can float timber. But we have railroads which are not in heavy use because they have not been adapted to the necessity of meeting this tremendous demand by all interested in forestry. Something must be done at once, or we shall be swamped by the normal growth of that which everybody has been encouraged to plant; and it will mean rot and ruin to a great many people if the stuff cannot be moved from where it is grown to where it can be utilised.
446
I feel, therefore, that this debate is of the utmost importance. I do not think that we can blame Her Majesty's Government for not improving means of transport, but I feel that there has been a lack of drive by forest owners and persons who convert timber to other uses, in not meeting the British Transport Commission and pointing out to them—it is their business—that the Commission are losing traffic day by day and will be quite unable to meet the abnormal demands that must result from the increased amount of thinnings which will be brought into the market in future.
5.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I must declare an interest, as I am, in a small way a grower, producer and retailer of timber. At the present moment I am entering into the second decade of a dedication scheme and on this occasion I should like to offer a tribute to the officers of the Forestry Commission for all the assistance and encouragement they give—which they have certainly given to myself in carrying out this project. While we have not always agreed, we have always been able to agree to disagree.
I should also like to welcome the new management grant that was announced earlier this year. I feel very distressed at the withdrawal of the thinnings grant, because, as has been stated already to-day, thinning is one of the most important forestry operations. If it is not carried out properly and at the proper time it might as well not be started at all. I myself, have witnessed this on the estates which I now manage. There was a large forestry programme up to the First World War when most of the woodlands were cut out some before time, some when they were ripe. My grandfather, who then managed the estates, lost heart, and for forty years no thinning was carried out. What a task we have had to try to bring those woods back into order! I doubt whether I shall be lucky enough to see the results of my labours; probably my son will. I just hope so.
That is why I think it is such a great pity that the thinning grant was dropped, because in these difficult times it gave at least some encouragement to wood growers to thin their woods at the proper time and not to wait in the hope that the market would improve. I should like

447
to say how grateful I am for the Scottish clearance grant which has been made. I come from an area of scrub where if woodland is cut this year it has to be planted for next year, otherwise the chance is lost and the scrub will be as high as, if not higher than, these Benches. At the present moment I am doing an area of 150 acres, cut ten years ago, where the average height of the scrub is now 10 ft. Every acre of that has to be cleared before we can put even a single tree in it. I say for my part that the grant is a great asset.
Now I come to a point that has already been pressed this afternoon, and I wish to press it again; that is, the need for better organised marketing. As I have said earlier, I am, as I call it, a retailer of timber in a small way. Although the estate has been dealing with such work for the last ten years. I have taken an interest in it only over the last two years; and I have been staggered at the lack of enterprise which has sometimes been shown when we have been trying to get markets. There are the old-established markets; timber has gone to the pits here and there; but there is little drive to try to get into new markets. Some people want the timber to sell itself to the consumer! I feel that more could be done by endeavouring to get the wares to the consumer and to prove them to him. We should have an article which we can sell him at a competitive price and which will do the job he requires.
In this connection, one strives against one great obstacle, and that is the antipathy which exists in a great many places against home-grown timber. If one goes into the building trade one finds that in many places they will not look at it. I have had to resort to giving timber away to try to prove my point that home-grown timber is as good as imported timber. If it is not possible to provide the right class of timber the grower should not try to compete, but where he can provide what is wanted he should try to do so. Home-grown timber is gradually creeping into the market; but it is a long battle. In many specifications of local authorities and other bodies putting out building specifications foreign timber is specified. I think that everything should be done to encourage the withdrawal of that small
448
part of specifications, so that where home-grown timber is available it stands a chance of being used.
The next matter I wish to speak about is one on which a great many things were said by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn: the problem of transport. It is the key to the whole forestry operation. It is our nightmare that we live with at the moment. I myself, in a very small way, have been delving into the problem and experimenting and trying to find methods of improvement. There is one method which I should like to suggest to Her Majesty's Government, and I would ask whether they will pass it on to the British Transport Commission. Have they ever considered the use of low-loading trailers in connection with what I might call low-loading wagons? The timber could be loaded on to the trailer, taken to the railhead and put on to a flat wagon and taken by train to its destination. It could later be taken off the wagon and delivered to wherever it has to be sent. In that way a great deal of manhandling would be eliminated.
At present, if timber is transported by rail the timber has to be put on the bogie on the right side, then taken to the goods yard; from there it is again transported, and it has to be manhandled again when it is sent to its destination. It has to be manhandled four times. It should be possible to devise a means on the lines I have explained (rather badly, I am afraid) to reduce the manhandling to two occasions instead of four. That idea is adopted when furniture is transported by rail. If furniture is being sent from one end of the country to the other enormous boxes are filled with the furniture and when the person sending it arrives in the North of Scotland, or wherever he is going, he finds the boxes are there. Surely the same can be done in many other cases. I understand that the brick trade adopted that system, and I think that the timber trade can follow suit.
The last thing I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government is whether they could consider giving assistance to people who try to invent or produce forestry machinery of various kinds. I am doing it myself in a small way in connection with machinery for wood-cutting. I know a young man who is devising an implement for bringing timber out of the woods. It is similar to a small motor

449
caterpillar and it is man-driven. We hope that if it is successful it will replace the use of the horse. A horse is useful, but unfortunately people cannot be found nowadays to look after it. One would like to think that if a person was prepared to put his time and energy into this field the Government would be prepared to give some reward for it. That, my Lords, is all I wish to say.
5.36 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am very grateful, as I am sure all your Lordships are, to the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, for having inaugurated this debate. We have had a most useful discussion. It has covered a wide field. It gives me the opportunity, which I welcome very much, to state where we stand in regard to forestry. There have been many extremely constructive points raised and constructive speeches made, which I am sure my right honourable friends, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, will consider with the care they deserve. It seems to me that this has been the best type of debate which takes place in your Lordships' House: a body of very considerable experts giving, soberly and in a considered way, their constructive suggestions on an expert subject.
If I had to pick out any two speeches for their value in this connection, I should like to thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, for their constructive speeches. But I cannot help feeling a little disappointed that there were still so many of your Lordships who were pessimistic and painted rather a gloomy picture, because I do not believe that it is warranted. Those noble Lords seem to think that the Government are dragging their feet over forestry. They have alleged that there has been a great loss of confidence in the future—the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, stated that point very strongly. They seemed to think that the Government have abandoned their oft-repeated objective of building a great estate of forestry in this country, both in private and in State hands, and they implied that Government assistance., when it is forthcoming, is both grudging and inadequate. It is certainly
450
not anything that the Government have said or done, or have neglected to say or do, that has given rise to this gloomy view. As recently as July 24 last the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a statement in your Lordships' House which reaffirmed the Government's recognition of the importance of this industry.
The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, asked two specific points in connection with this. He asked whether we could know what the party of officials who had been set up to advise the Minister had said. The answer to that, quite shortly, is "No". Their report was a departmental report of the type that Ministers must have to advise them on these subjects. It is not for publication and it will not be published. The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, also asked about the Statutory Instrument that was to be laid in regard to felling licences. I can give him a more encouraging answer on that question, because I can say that this Statutory Instrument is already agreed in draft and will shortly be laid before Parliament. If Parliament accepts it, as I have every reason to hope it will, it will mean that dedicated owners (if that is the correct description of them) will no longer require felling licences.
I think that we might now spend a moment or two in enlarging upon the statement made on July 24 last. The point which the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, made was that there was no mention of the 5 million acre target, and that that must be taken to mean that the Government had rejected the whole programme and the whole basis which that target implied. I am sure that there is a misconception here. This target figure was first suggested, I understand, by the Forestry Commission in 1943. It has never been either accepted or rejected by any Government since then. In 1945 Mr. Tom Williams said—and I quote from Hansard:
"These are very large proposals which will need careful consideration, and for these reasons the Government cannot at this stage be finally committed to acceptance of this programme."
My Lords, that kind of target figure was rather in fashion in those days, and I am sure that we should not read too much into it.

451
It is much more important for us to remember that when the whole of our forestry policy was revised by Ministers recently they took the view (it was announced in the statement of July 24) that there should be an immediate increase in planting; that the planting to take place in the next ten years should be half a million acres and that the planting which was to take place in the next five years should be at the rate of 60,000 acres a year, which was an increase, over the previous rate. The Forestry Commission already have over a million acres of plantation; there is at the present time some three-quarters of a million acres of effectively managed private woodland; and after what was announced on July 24—that there was to be this immediate increase in planting—surely we can accept that the Government have not abandoned their objectives in forestry. The programme is very formidable and I think that it completely disproves the charge made by the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, that there has been a radical change of policy and an abandonment of the Government's objective.
So much for the State forests. What about the private owner? The proposed new rates of grant then announced mean that private forestry will receive in grant aid in 1959 half as much again as they will receive in the year 1958. There will be a total increase of £420,000, and I think noble Lords may like to hear some of the detailed figures. In the financial year 1958, dedicated estates are expected to receive £387,000 for planting. For the next year the estimate is £514,000. The maintenance grant, which will cost this year £104,000, will go up next year to £305,000, and the approved woodlands grant will go up from £34,000 to £80,000. "Yes", say the pessimists, "but we lose the thinning grant and the poplar grant". Certainly we lose the thinning grant and the poplar grant, but I venture to suggest that an exchange whereby you lose £60,000 and gain £420,000 is not wholly a bad one—and that is what the position is.
The Government accepted the proposal that management grants should be introduced on the scale which the representatives of the woodland owners themselves proposed, and accepted at the same time
452
that the planting grant for owners of approved woods should be doubled. That meant that some other forms of grant had to be sacrificed, and that no special grant could be made available for thinning—which, after all, is one of the operations included in the proper management of woods. Quite apart from that, there is more than one technical opinion, so I am informed, about silvicultural value of very early thinnings. The new system has made money available for general silvicultural management, and by not tying it to a particular operation it gives greater freedom to the owner. Taking it all round, the new grant system will give more money to owners and particularly, at the urgent request of the United Kingdom Forestry Commission, to the small owners. On average, the management grant should give them something like 13s. for each productive acre, as against the 5s. 6d. of the maintenance grant. That is more than the Watson Committee recommended, even allowing for the fact that the maintenance grant would presumably have gone up as a result of the review which has taken place, and which has resulted in the increase of the planting grant from £17 to £20 an acre.
I think it is again worth while reminding your Lordships of the actual rates which are payable. They are 18s. for the first 100 acres. 12s. for the next 100 acres, and 7s. for the remainder. All this is against the old maintenance grant of 5s. 6d.—and that in itself was only on a proportion of the dedicated area. These increases are really very substantial. To take a not untypical example, a 250-acre dedicated woodland estate, clearing, say, five acres of scrub a year, will receive in future a grant of about £330 a year, or about £6 a week. That is equivalent to more than three-quarters of the cost of a full-time skilled forestry worker, and an estate of 250 acres of woodland would not have to employ a great many workers. I hope that I have been able to show noble Lords that neither in the State nor in the private sector are these gloomy suggestions of lack of faith by the Government in the future of forestry justified: nor is there any lack of concrete evidence that the Government are willing to give necessary assistance.
Let me now turn to the difficulties of the market, for the other main charge in the opening speech by the noble Earl,

453
Lord Buckinghamshire, was that the market had collapsed—I think that was his phrase. Other noble Lords rather reinforced that view I am afraid. The noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, even went so far as to say that he saw no prospect of reviving it at all. At least, that is what I understood him to say, and unfortunately he is not in his place at the moment. I do not want in the least to be complacent about the difficulties of the market. I fully realise that there are substantial difficulties—after all, I am a woodland owner, on a small scale—and that we have got to face these difficulties; but let us not exaggerate them. Let me first take the question of mining timber, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and to which he asked me to give particular attention. The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, also raised this question.
This year, as we all know, the Coal Board was forced to reduce its level of mining timber stocks, and this has had the effect (as in every case where stocks are being run down) of reducing purchases; and it has led to difficulties. But here I should like to emphasise two points which nobody has been charitable enough to raise this afternoon. The first is that the National Coal Board, in reducing its purchases, reduced its imports by 31 per cent., whereas it reduced its purchases of home-grown timber by only 7 per cent. This readjustment of stocks by the National Coal Board is expected to be complete by the end of the year, and I am glad to be able to tell noble Lords that the Chairman of the Forestry Commission, Lord Radnor, informs me that only on Monday of this week he had a complete reassurance from the Coal Board that its policy to buy as much home-grown pitwood as possible, subject to price and quality being suitable, remains unchanged. That is one of the assurances that we have been asked for over and over again, and I am happy to be able to give it. The National Coal Board hopes that purchases of home-grown pit-props will shortly return to their normal level and resume the upward tendency which has been so notable during the last few years. Let us not forget what a huge market there is in this country for pitwood and how little of it in England and Wales is supplied by home-grown timber.
454
There is another question which I confess is more difficult. It is how to provide markets for the large volume of second quality hardwoods, especially oak, under private ownership, particularly in England and Wales. In the past, the traditional market for this timber has been the railway wagon trade, the making and repairing of wagons and wagon bottoms. Here is a challenge. We cannot expect the Transport Commission to go back to wooden wagons. We have to find other markets for these woods and I do not see why that problem should be insoluble. My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire asked what had happened about using this timber for cable drums. The situation is that about two years ago it was agreed to give a trial to home-grown hardwood for cable drums. This trial is not yet complete, but it should be within a short time and we must hold our thumbs and hope that it will be found suitable. The British Transport Commission are trying out sleepers of home-grown wood. They may be a little rigid about it, but perhaps pressure can be reasonably brought to bear, by hard bargaining and negotiation, to see whether a decision cannot be speeded up. The noble Lords, Lord Bradford and Lord Forester, spoke of fencing as another use for second quality hardwood. Stakes, fencing and gates are normally produced on private estates.
Above all, the real fears that have been expressed to-day concern the large quantity of home-grown softwoods which will be coming forward to find a market. I will return to that point in detail, later, but at this stage I will just say that I reject the suggestion that the solution of this problem lies primarily at the door of the Government. It is not correct that the Government should solve these problems by the restriction of imports or by pulling any chestnuts out of the fire. Restriction is not a solution that is open to the Government. I thought that my noble friend Lord Dynevor made that point very well. We live by our export trade and drastically to restrict imports in this fashion would be contrary to our whole trade policy and inconsistent with our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
It was suggested that we could compel the nationalised industries to use all our home-grown timber. I do not think that it is possible for us to use any sort of

455
compulsion. Again, there is the feeling in some parts of your Lordships' House that the National Coal Board, the Transport Commission and other bodies are prejudiced against home-grown timber. I find that difficult to believe. The National Coal Board take one-third of all the timber felled in this country. They have taken nearly 30 million cubic feet in ten months, and there is still room for great expansion in England and Wales, as I have tried to say. It is the case that south of the Border the supplies of pitwood taken by the National Coal Board represent only 40 per cent. of requirements.
I think that English owners should regard this as a challenge. I wonder how soon they will be able to match the 90 per cent. of home-grown timber which is used in the Scottish Area. The excess production in Scotland, which the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, mentioned, can be absorbed and must be absorbed, I think, by sending the overspill, to use a housing term, into the North of England. This can be done without any embarrassment to English growers, because they are taking so small a percentage of the market now. Your Lordships will be glad to know—and this is the assurance for which my noble friend asked—that the conversations which have been going on between the trade and the Northern Area of the National Coal Board on this subject have been going very well. I do not think that we can say that any of the Government Departments, the Ministry of Works or whichever one may be chosen, have any bias against home-grown timber. If they have, I should be the first to condemn it.
We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the Ministry of Transport's road fencing. I am assured that they are willing to use home-grown timber where it compares in price, quality and performance with the imported article. The Electricity Council are willing to take home-grown timber, provided that it is of similar grades and gives them service. The General Post Office is prepared to accept Scots pine, larch, Douglas fir, Weymouth pine and Norway spruce. British Railways, as I have said, have agreed to undertake the trial of hardwood sleepers, and they already take Scottish-grown sleepers in large quantities. The railways have
456
miles of fences, and though they use concrete posts they have no prejudice against timber as such. If they have, it is up to the timber producers to break it down, not to the Government.
I do not say that nothing can be done or should be done to persuade these bodies to take more home-grown timber. Nor need the present specifications, if they are felt to be over-rigid, be necessarily accepted as immutable. It is a matter for hard bargaining between commercial enterprises, each of which should be fully conscious of its own responsibility and of the national interest. It is all very well to say that if production rises, new markets or extensions of existing markets, must be found. Here I would thank my noble friend Lord Gage very much for what he said in that connection.
We have also heard a good deal to-day about traditional outlets. I look upon "outlets" as a feeble word. We have to find markets in which to sell our goods. "Outlets" makes one think of water dammed up and someone taking out the bung, so that it just flows out. It is not going to be so easy as that. We have to go out and sell. As my noble friend Lord Lovat said, we must give great credit to the Forestry Commission for the initiative they have taken. It was they who encouraged the setting up of the Cowal "Ari" sawmill in Argyll. By giving guarantees of supplies, they enabled the very successful chip mill at Annan to be set up, as well as the hardwood pulping plant at Sudbrook, which has been such a godsend to growers in South-West England, and the softwood pulping plant at Ellesmere Port.
My noble friend Lord Airlie referred to the O.E.E.C., and it was the United Kingdom delegation who took the initiative in this matter. I think that it was a sensible thing to do, for it led to the appointment of a firm of distinguished consulting engineers to advise on whether small-scale pulping plants would be feasible in this country.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but what I tried to emphasise was that thinning is an essential part of forestry practice, and that, somehow, we have got to find a way of marketing those thin-flings, otherwise it will be "Goodbye" to forestry.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I agree absolutely with what the noble Earl has said: new markets have to be found to utilise thinnings. But where I would part company with the noble Earl is that I do not think it is for the Government to do this. I think it is for the woodland owners and the Forestry Commission to find new markets. The forestry industry cannot run to the Government and say, "Set up a pulp factory and buy all our wood at guaranteed prices."
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, that was not my proposal. I hope that the Government will help: that is what a Government is for.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Well, the Government have to do a great many other things, apart from helping private industry, although of course they will help private industry at the proper time. What I want to emphasise is that once we have got the Woodland Owners' Association, what a great partnership we shall have between the Forestry Commission, acting for the State forests, and the private owners in this sphere!
This brings me to what I think is really the crux of the whole problem. I was delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, say that the landowners both in Scotland and in England and Wales have decided to go ahead with plans for the formation of the Woodland Owners' Association. If I may break off for a moment, I should like to refer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, about the consultative committee. He asked why nothing was being done about that. Briefly, the action on the proposal made by the Watson Committee that a consultative committee or council should be set up was deferred by agreement with the growers and the representatives of the home timber trade on the Advisory Committee on Home Grown Timber. The proposals have not been lost sight of, but we felt that the first step was to set up the Woodland Owners' Association and get agreement between the two sides of the industry before proceeding with this other matter.
May I go back to the Watson Report, which we debated in 1957? I remember my own speech on that occasion—I have
458
been reminded of it to-day—and also I remember a notable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who said that enough cold water had been poured on the Watson Report to float off all the private woodlands in England. I confess that I fell into the trap—because on mature consideration I think it was a trap. It seemed at that time that an idea had grown up that the Watson Report was going to come up with a panacea, an easy solution to the problem; that there would be some swingeing tariff, or a marketing board, or massive Government assistance, which would solve all our problems at once. If the Watson Committee had advocated solutions of that kind—which, incidentally, would have been right outside their terms of reference—the Government could not and would not have accepted them. It was wishful and not very intelligent thinking—I say it now, although I was one of the offenders—to think at that time that we could hope, or even suspect, that that kind of thing would come forward.
British forest owners, I am sure, have a future if they will help themselves, They need help while they complete the process of recovery after two world wars during which woodlands have been devastated, and the Government are providing that support in the most effective way: first, by the grants to the dedicated owners—50 per cent. up next year; and secondly, by helping owners by making a substantial contribution towards putting the Woodland Owners' Association on its feet. There must be a body which is thoroughly expert in all the problems and potentialities of the private owners, which will represent them in conducting negotiations with the Government, with great public bodies, for markets, for the amendment of specifications and so on; and a body which can ascertain the facts and organise supplies and make its weight felt. This is the body that I feel will really meet the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage; this is the body that will help to look for new markets and will lobby, whether Government Departments who are users of timber, or private industry using timber.
There is another extremely important development which should be a great comfort to noble Lords who were feeling gloomy earlier this afternoon; that is, that the English timber trade have recently

459
agreed, in principle, to set up a marketing organisation for England and Wales. This really is a step in the right direction. I hope that I shall not wound the feelings of too many of my friends if I state my absolute conviction that sometimes in the past there has been a weakness of approach by both growers and merchants. In too many cases insufficient efforts have been made either positively to sell all the material that is available or to combat prejudice if it should be there. There is a great tendency to assume that if, because of changes in the pattern of industrial consumption, a traditional market declines, the Government should step in and replace it. The Woodland Owners' Association and the timber trade would, it seems to me, be the organisation to give prizes, more properly than the Government could, to the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, when he has ingenious ideas for moving timber out of the woodlands. But it will do much more than that. This will be the organisation which can go into the problems so properly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, about transportation costs, and whether we can get rates equalised throughout the country, and questions of that kind. It is not until we have got ourselves organised in the industry that we can hope to get a solution of these difficulties.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Earl says; but how long have we to wait before these bodies are fully in existence to give us the information we want?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: These bodies are in the hands of woodland owners. We shall wait as long as it takes the woodland owners to form these bodies and to get them going. The Government can do no more than pay these large sums towards their establishment, and it is up to the woodland owners to get the bodies established.
This is a competitive age and it is not sufficient to expect a purchaser to buy. Positive efforts must be made to sell. This really is the whole point. It was Emerson who said that if you made a good mousetrap people would tread a path through the woods to come and get it. I have always felt that, if not taken with care, that could be a most misleading statement. If that were the case I cannot see why industry spends hundreds
460
of millions of pounds a year on advertising; and I cannot see why politicians in another place have to go and address their constituents from time to time. It seems to me that we have to pray in aid another poet here, and I should like to quote against Emerson's mousetrap W. S. Gilbert, who, I think in Ruddigore, said:
"If you want in this world to advance,
Your own merits you're bound to enhance.
You must stir it and stump it and blow your own trumpet,
Or, trust me, you haven't a chance."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is the noble Earl comparing Gilbert with Emerson?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Oh dear, dear!
EARL WALDEGRAVE: That is really what we must think about this afternoon. What we must do is to say now that we shall not succeed in the difficult stage that we are at if we expect markets to be found for us by the Government or anybody else. We have to go out to sell this product, which we are not ashamed of and which is not an inferior or low quality product at all.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: More for the jungle than for the forest.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Here in Great Britain forestry has two enormous assets: it has a soil and climate particularly fitted and favourable to the rapid growth of trees, and at its doorstep a vast market. English forests—British forests have a vast market.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Thank you.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I said thank you for correcting "English" to "British".
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Great Britain is the largest importer of timber and timber products in the world, and at present we produce only 10 per cent. of our requirements.
I should like to take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Lonsdale He asked me—he did not give me notice of this question—the value of imports. As I understood what he said—I will read it

461
carefully in Hansard to-morrow—although I do not think his figures were quite correct, his estimate of home production was about £10 million. In the view of my advisers that is too low. The figures I have here are that the import of wood and wood products is about 1,000 million Hoppus feet, worth about £370 million, and the total round wood felled in Great Britain is estimated at about 100 million Hoppus feet. Therefore, that is about 10 per cent. of the imports, and not 2½ per cent., as he said. But, still, it is a very small amount; that is the great point.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: The figures I gave were for 1955. The announcement in this House on February 23, 1955, was £10·3 million home production, and £241 million, average, for the previous five years' imports. From the recent Forestry Commission Report I found that licensing to private woodland owners for felling, including those under the quota, was 41 million Hoppus feet. The Forestry Commission output was rather less than 20 million Hoppus feet in the 1957 Report.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I have not the figures in front of me. The point I want to make is that the percentage of home-grown production is very small. I have no doubt that the figures quoted by the noble Earl are correct, and perhaps we can talk about them afterwards. I want to stick to the point that these figures are very small and we have an enormous market which we can bite into. As to production, it is an absolute fallacy to imagine that there are still these vast virgin forests in North America and Scandinavia from which timber can be got with no trouble at all and transported here at a price which is less than the British owner can possibly compete with. That picture is quite out of date. The days of cheap extraction from the accessible virgin forests are almost at an end, and the consumption of timber and of timber products in North America, for instance, is perfectly astonishing. Their newspapers, for example, are rather larger than ours, apart from anything else.
Against this, in this country we have a soil and climate which can produce good timber in greater volume than in almost any other country. The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, made that point, and
462
I was glad he did. I am told that on comparable land yield from Britain can be three times that of the Scandinavian forests. This means, therefore, that in the long run we can produce on better terms. These advantages at the moment are more potential than actual, since the economic as well as ecological balance has been disturbed by two world wars. That is why the Government at the moment are providing the assistance required, by substantial grants, to help the industry to get on its feet again.
I would again say to your Lordships that it is really time to give up this depressing and unnecessary gloom about the future. There is a great opportunity here. With proper attention to management by the grower, and to preparation and sale by the merchant, British woodland owners have nothing to fear. So I can accept the challenge that my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire made. I have nothing to add to or retract from what my predecessor said from this Dispatch Box on April 3, 1957, when he reaffirmed the Government's confidence in the future of private forestry. I hope I have said enough to reassure noble Lords and to clear up any doubts that there may have been in their minds, and to enable the noble Earl to see tit to withdraw his Motion.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships much longer. I should like, first of all, to take this opportunity of thanking the "eleven" to which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, referred. I am afraid that I must include him in the "eleven", because one of our "eleven" scratched. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I am delighted that three of them come from North of the Border. May I say that I am delighted that the noble Earl who has answered for the Government has, in a sense, accepted my challenge. In another sense he has thrown out a challenge to us. I should like to say here that we woodland owners fully realise that it is our job to find markets. What we are asking the Government to do is to come into partnership with us and help us to find them. I hope that this may be done partly through the Woodland Owners' Association. May I also say that it is news to us that the

463
5-million acre target had never been accepted or rejected. The term I used was that it had been apparently abandoned.
There is one other point I should raise, which is that many of us woodland owners, particularly the smaller ones, lack the labour to carry out the necessary work in our woodlands, often because they are too small. That is where I hope that these co-operatives which are being formed—in which I declared my interest last year—will help. May I say that we are grateful for the grants? I said this in my opening speech, but I should like to repeat that we are grateful for the new management grant and for the increase in the planting grant. As the noble Earl quite rightly said, the new management grant will be of particular benefit to the small woodland owner. It is aimed at him, and he is the person we are out to help.
My noble friend Lord Lovat asked me—he regretted that he could not stay—to make one point for him about transport. One of the difficulties over English transport—and possibly it is a point to bear in mind for the future—is that it costs £20 to transport timber from Inverness to London, £15 from the Border to London, and only £10 from Scandinavia to London. That is a point we shall have to look into once again.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is that the figure for rail or road?
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: I understand that the first two are for rail, and the other, presumably, is by sea. With those few words I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EMERGENCY LAWS (REPEAL) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ADOPTION BILL [H.L.]
MANŒUVRES BILL [H.L.]
NATIONAL DEBT BILL [H.L.]
SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

  DELEGATION TO COUNCIL OF EUROPE
  DELEGATION TO COUNCIL OF EUROPE
  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
  FOREIGN ORDERS FOR BRITISH SHIPYARDS
  FOREIGN ORDERS FOR BRITISH SHIPYARDS