Sitting of 10 July 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    I.L.O. Convention (Forced Labour)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement of the position in Colonial and Trust Territories in relation to the International Labour Organisation Convention on the abolition of forced labour.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the Convention (No. 105) adopted at the International Labour Conference last year. That Convention has already been applied in 28 of the overseas territories for which the United Kingdom is responsible. Consultations with the remaining territories are still proceeding.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he give the House any indication how long it will take to complete the process in the remaining territories, and can he give an
    548
    assurance that in the twenty-eight territories to which he refers none of the forms of forced or compulsory labour as defined in the Article I in the Convention now apply?
    Mr. Profumo: I can give the latter undertaking which the hon. Gentleman asks for. I am afraid that I cannot say how long it will take; but good progress has been made during the six months since the United Kingdom ratification. It may give the hon. Gentleman some sort of perspective when I say that only eleven out of eighty members of the I.L.O. have so far recognised the Convention.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it happened that there has been such a long delay in the ratification of this Convention? The original Convention was made in the years before the war, and there was a directive from the Secretary of State ten years ago. What stands in the way? What are the impediments to the full implementation of the Convention?
    Mr. Profumo: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are two separate Conventions. The first, to which I think he refers, and which was in 1930, has been ratified and is now applied in all United Kingdom overseas territories. This is a different Convention with which as much progress is being made as is physically possible.

    Women Students (United Kingdom)
    Miss Vickersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many women from the Colonial Territories are in training in this country to become doctors, nurses, teachers, and social welfare workers; and from which territories they come.
    Mr. Profumo: 164 for medical training; 4,652 for nursing; 286 for teacher training and thirty-nine for social welfare. They come from thirty-six different territories.
    With permission, I will circulate a full table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Miss Vickers: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he thinks, in view of the fact that there are 13,000 students in this country from Colonial Territories, that women are getting their fair share of this work?
    Mr. Profumo: I hope so.
    Dr. Summerskill: What is the size of the aggregate population which these few women have to serve?

    Territory

    Medical Training

    Nursing

    Teacher Training

    Social Welfare

    Aden

    …

    …

    …

    1

    1

    1

    —

    Bahamas

    …

    …

    …

    1

    9

    —

    —

    Bermuda

    …

    …

    …

    —

    15

    5

    —

    Falkland Islands

    …

    …

    —

    1

    —

    —

    Fiji

    …

    …

    …

    …

    —

    2

    —

    —

    Gibraltar

    …

    …

    …

    —

    7

    11

    —

    North Borneo

    …

    …

    —

    2

    5

    —

    Nyasaland

    …

    …

    …

    —

    7

    —

    —

    Northern Rhodesia

    …

    3

    6

    3

    —

    St. Helena

    …

    …

    …

    —

    3

    2

    —

    Sarawak

    …

    …

    …

    —

    3

    5

    1

    Seychelles

    …

    …

    …

    —

    9

    —

    —

    Somaliland

    …

    …

    —

    2

    —

    —

    Hong Kong

    …

    …

    15

    420

    5

    5

    Cyprus

    …

    …

    …

    2

    30

    10

    —

    Mauritius

    …

    …

    …

    7

    17

    15

    1

    Sierra Leone

    …

    …

    4

    183

    11

    2

    Gambia

    …

    …

    …

    1

    10

    7

    —

    Nigeria

    …

    …

    …

    34

    1,052

    123

    11

    Barbados

    …

    …

    …

    2

    520

    8

    —

    British Guiana

    …

    …

    14

    147

    7

    1

    Jamaica

    …

    …

    …

    15

    1,485

    12

    8

    Trinidad

    …

    …

    …

    21

    331

    10

    3

    Dominica

    …

    …

    …

    1

    21

    —

    —

    Antigua

    …

    …

    …

    1

    60

    —

    —

    St. Kitts

    …

    …

    …

    1

    21

    —

    —

    British Honduras

    …

    …

    —

    3

    1

    —

    St. Lucia

    …

    …

    …

    —

    24

    1

    —

    Grenada

    …

    …

    …

    —

    70

    —

    —

    St. Vincent

    …

    …

    …

    —

    41

    —

    —

    Montserrat

    …

    …

    —

    11

    —

    —

    Anguilla

    …

    …

    …

    —

    2

    —

    —

    Kenya

    …

    …

    …

    14

    44

    14

    —

    Tanganyika

    …

    …

    4

    28

    8

    2

    Zanzibar

    …

    …

    …

    7

    9

    3

    1

    Uganda

    …

    …

    …

    16

    56

    19

    4

    GRAND TOTALS

    …

    164

    4,652

    286

    39

  KENYA

    Minister for Local Government (Statement)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement in the Kenya Legislative Council by Mr. Wilfrid Havelock, Minister for Local Government in the Kenya Government, to the effect that democracy is not one man, one vote, represents the policy of the Kenya Government.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): In criticising a proposal that a "city manager" type of administration should be introduced in local government, the Minister observed
    Mr. Profumo: I could not give an answer without notice. If the right hon. Lady puts the Question on the Order Paper, I will be glad to answer it.
    Following is the table:
    that in his own view the proper spirit of democracy was better defined as an opportunity for representatives of all sections of the people to have a say than by the slogan "one man, one vote". This seems to me a sound approach.
    Mrs. Castle: In a situation when we are trying to put over to the Africans the idea of multi-racial Government and when many of them fear that this is being pressed as an alternative to the prevention of their enjoyment of full democratic rights, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is very unfortunate that a Minister in the Kenya Government should seem to cast doubts on the validity of the principle of universal suffrage, and will the

    551
    right hon. Gentleman say that, so far as he is concerned, his objective for Kenya is the operation of full democracy as we understand it in this country?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the Labour Party document, "Plural Society", which the hon. Lady knows, was quite sensible when it declared that a genuine democracy had not been reached until racial consciousness had withered away. I do not think anyone can say that we have yet reached that stage in East Africa.
    Mrs. Castle: Looking to the future, would it not be far wiser and better for all European leaders in these Colonial Territories to say that they fully accept the implications of our colonial policy, which is ultimately towards full self-government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is in danger of getting out of perspective. All Mr. Havelock did was to point out the manifest fact that a system of "one man, one vote" does not by itself constitute democracy and that other features of society are the main test whether or not a country is democratic.

    Constitution
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the widespread demand in Kenya for an early constitutional conference, he will arrange for such a conference to be held later this year.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir,
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the African elected members have made new constitutional proposals in an attempt to have discussions about developing a much more peaceful and settled Kenya and that the proposals for a new constitutional conference are supported by all the non-European elected members in Kenya and one European, Miss Cook? In view of that, will the Colonial Secretary use his influence to secure an early conference?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I am aware of the new proposals, and there is a Question about it later on the Order Paper. I see no signs that the necessary participants in such a conference, if held, would get beyond the point of disagreeing about the agenda, which was the rather unfruitful
    552
    result when I tried the procedure last November.

    Legislative Council (African Representation)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he discussed with the Governor of Kenya the recent African demand for increased representation in the Legislative Council; and what further constitutional adjustments he intends to make.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must obtain the advice of the Government of Kenya on the memorandum making a variety of proposals for constitutional change, including a suggestion for increased African representation, which I have just received from the African Constituency Members. Until I have received that advice I would prefer not to comment on the memorandum. But I would remind the hon. Member that the present Constitution, under which the Africans received six additional communal seats, apart from their four specially elected seats, has come into force only very recently.
    Mr. Robinson: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to announce the decision?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot yet say.

    Clubs (Staffing)
    Miss Vickersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement in regard to the staffing of the Maendaleo Wa Wanake Clubs in the Central Province, Kenya.
    Mr. Profumo: There are seven Government community development officers, eight Government homecraft assistants and 194 homecraft assistants in local government service helping these clubs do the Central Province. They are assisted by voluntary workers and others employed by the voluntary agencies.
    Miss Vickers: By how many have these numbers been cut? I understand that these clubs mean progress for women and that some of them are short of staff and will not be able to carry on if the emergency fund runs out.
    Mr. Profumo: I have no actual figures. I know my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I will see what I can do to get more accurate information.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Constitution
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the outcome of the discussions by African provincial councils in Northern Rhodesia of the constitutional proposals for that territory.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Castle: Will the Colonial Secretary confirm whether or not it is true that three of the seven African provincial councils in Northern Rhodesia have rejected the Government's proposals outright and the remaining four have severely criticised many details of them? In view of the fact that members of the Executive Council of Northern Rhodesia have also criticised the proposals, does not this show that there is a formidable body of hostility towards the proposals which the Minister ought to take into account?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We would have a more profitable interchange if the hon. Lady would read my Answer, from which she will see that dissatisfaction was expressed by four councils and that in the three others certain aspects of these proposals were welcomed.
    Following is the reply:
    All seven African provincial councils met specially in the latter half of May or early in June to debate the Northern Rhodesia Government's proposals for constitutional changes. In formal debate all the motions carried reiterated the earlier demands of the African members of the Legislative Council for parity of representation between African and European unofficial members. The motions adopted by four of the Councils were in the form of a rejection of the proposals and contained no suggestions for their adaptation or improvement. The motions adopted by the other three welcomed certain aspects of the proposals whilst adversely criticising others, and two of these expressed agreement in principle.
    In six councils there were constructive discussions in committee before the debate. The discussions revealed a disposition to welcome such aspects of the proposals as the continued presence of the Governor in Executive Council; votes for British protected persons; the desire to get away from racial representation as soon as possible; the disappearance of European members nominated to represent African interests; the proposal that Africans should vote for European candidates as well as vice versa; and the special provisions for chiefs and headmen to be registered. A common
    554
    feature of these discussions was a suggestion that the franchise qualifications should be lowered.

  BRITISH CAMEROONS

    African Staff (Training)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have been made by the Government of the British Cameroons for the further training of African staff; and when these proposals will be put into operation.
    Mr. Profumo: Pre-service and in-service training schemes are already in operation in both the Northern and the Southern Cameroons. I do not know of any additional proposals.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Member say whether these schemes were started this year? Not very long ago his right hon. Friend, in answer to a question of mine, said that new proposals were about to be made. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether these schemes are the result of those proposals, or whether new proposals are still being adumbrated in the mind of the Government? In view of the fact that there are only twenty-six Africans, as against 161 expatriates, can the Minister say that further training will be urged on as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Profumo: Certainly. My right hon. Friend is extremely anxious to do that. I am confident that the Governments concerned appreciate the need for training Africans for posts at all levels in the public service, and they are implementing this policy as rapidly as possible.

  SIERRA LEONE

    Co-operatives
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of Africans and Europeans, respectively, employed by the co-operative movement in Sierra Leone; what steps are being taken to train Africans for responsible positions in the co-operative rice and cocoa societies; and what amounts are being allocated to the development of co-operatives for the year 1958–59.
    Mr. Profumo: One hundred and fifty Africans and no Europeans are employed

    555
    by the co-operative societies, eight Europeans and 115 Africans by the Government co-operative department. Training courses are organised by the department. The sum of £67,100 is provided for development of co-operatives in 1958–59.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank the hon. Member for that very detailed reply to my Question. Does he not agree that one of the most effective ways of developing democratic experience in territories like Sierra Leone is to develop a co-operative activity? Does he not also agree that in Sierra Leone only a very small percentage of the population is engaged in these activities? Indeed, I think it is the smallest proportion of population in the whole of West Africa. Does he not further agree that in the light of these facts more encouragement should be given and more money spent upon training competent co-operative workers?
    Mr. Speaker: That supplementary question is too long.
    Mr. Profumo: I am not sure that agree with the hon. Member's last point, but I can tell him that considerably more progress has been made under a Conservative Government than under the previous Government.

    Native Administrators (Grants)
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent a system of grants-in-aid to native administrators in Sierra Leone has been introduced by the Government; how far these have enabled them to employ more competent staff; what rates of pay they receive; if the proposals to introduce a system of annual conferences at which representatives of the chiefs and the people can discuss common problems with representatives of the Government have now been accepted; and when the first conferences will take place.
    Mr. Profumo: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Swingler: I am much obliged for that information. Cannot the hon. Member give any figures of the number of representatives of organised African workers? Is it not very important that there should be representatives of the organised African workers who have
    556
    first-hand knowledge of their living conditions? Could we not therefore have a set of figures of those who actually represent the trade unions of the Africans?
    Mr. Profumo: When I have full information I will write to the hon. Member—and I will get the information as soon as I can.
    Following is the information:
    Since 1st July, 1957, the Government have been making a grant-in-aid to native administrations to meet half the salaries of clerks and chiefdom messengers, and in the case of paramount chiefs 60 per cent. on the first £500 of their salaries, 40 per cent. on the next £250 and 25 per cent. on the next £200. As a result of higher salaries introduced for clerks and messengers and the training courses now in operation, it is hoped to attract a better type of candidate. The rates of pay for chiefdom clerks now vary from £118 to £374 for clerks and from £87 to £136 for messengers. The salaries of chiefs vary considerably according to the size and wealth of their chiefdoms, and are not determined by the central Government. The proposal to introduce provincial conferences is under active consideration.

    Constitution
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposals of the Sierra Leone Government, as embodied in Sierra Leone Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1958, have been approved.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. After discussions at the end of last year, the Sierra Leone Government submitted formal proposals in March for changes in the Constitution which involve the creation of an all-African Executive Council under the Governor. These proposals have been approved. The drafting of the necessary instruments is nearly finished and I hope the changes can be put into effect quite soon. I am arranging for copies of the Governor's despatch and of my reply to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him what powers still remain to Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That will be clearly shown in the communications I shall place in the Library. I will take the opportunity of saying that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, Sierra Leone Ministers have shown every evidence of responsibility.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES

    Wage-Fixing Bodies (African Trade Unionists)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many African trade union members are represented on wage-fixing bodies in each of the territories under the administration of Her Majesty's Government in Africa.
    Mr. Profumo: There are approximately 120 workers' representatives who have been nominated to serve on statutory wage-fixing bodies in the territories in Africa for which my right hon. Friend has a responsibility. Not all of these, however, are Africans or trade unionists. When I have complete information I will write to the hon. Member.

    Banned Book
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the book, "The Gold Coast Revolution," by George Padmore, Adviser on African Affairs to the Prime Minister of Ghana, has been banned in Tanganyika, and from what other Colonial Territories it is excluded.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Because it was considered that to import it would be contrary to the public interest in Tanganyika. According to the latest information available in my Department, the book is also excluded from Kenya and Nyasaland.
    Mr. Brockway: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Is he not aware that Mr. George Padmore now occupies a very high position in Ghana, that he accompanied the Prime Minister of Ghana to other African States, and that his last book was a very strong attack on Communism in Africa? Is it not the case that this book is a factual publication of the advance of Ghana towards independence?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a decision of the Governor in Council, and there are three very distinguished Africans on the Council. Recent developments in the mind of an author cannot change the influence of a book written some years ago.
    Mr. Brockway: Only two years ago.

  TANGANYIKA

    Sisal and Plantation Workers Union
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the existing registered trade union in Tanganyika, to which sisal workers belong, has been excluded from membership of the proposed consultative council on labour relations for the sisal industry.
    Mr. Profumo: Representatives of the Tanganyika Sisal and Plantation Workers Union, formerly the National Union of Plantation Workers, are included in the membership of the recently established Joint Consultative Council for the sisal industry.
    Mr. Skeffington: Can the hon. Member say why it is that the Tanganyika Federation of Labour, which certainly represented by far the largest number of workers on the plantations, has been deliberately excluded? Is it right that the Government should give the impression that only a kind of company union is to be tolerated?
    Mr. Profumo: That is not the situation at all. The union was not originally recognised, but now that it has changed its major principles it is fully recognised. I am sure that what the hon. Member has in mind has now taken place.

    Government Scholarships (University Students)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Government scholarships awarded to Africans from Tanganyika for study at university level during 1957, and the number of these awarded for the study of law.
    Mr. Profumo: Ten in the United Kingdom, including one for the study of law.
    Mr. MacPherson: In view of the small proportion given to the study of law and the small number of applicants for such scholarships, will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to encourage more Africans to study law in view of the desirability of the courts of the Territory being staffed by Africans.
    Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these scholarships were for the study of medicine?
    Mr. Profumo: Two.

    Brewing Industry, Dar-es-Salaam
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will report on the state of industrial relations in the brewing industry in Dar-es-Salaam in Tanganyika; and what steps the Government of Tanganyika has taken in the matter.
    Mr. Profumo: A dispute over a wage claim between the Commercial and Industrial Workers Union and East African Breweries, Dar-es-Salaam, led to a strike on 16th April. Attempts at conciliation between the two sides by the Tanganyika Labour Department have been unsuccessful.
    Mr. Skeffington: Would the Minister indicate whether the Tanganyikan Government are taking any further steps? Is it a fact that Asian strike breakers have been used at one point by one of the breweries concerned? If that is so, will my right hon. Friend convey to the company concerned how very unwise that is in a country where the maintenance of good relations among all races is so very essential? Is it also a fact that the Asian strike breakers were being paid more money than the actual wage claim of those on strike?
    Mr. Profumo: I have no information about that, but I am satisfied that the Government did not neglect any opportunity of promoting a settlement and acted throughout with proper sense of impartiality.

    Makerere College (Extra-Mural Studies)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why, despite the fact that Kenya and Uganda have extra-mural departments of the University College of East Africa at Makerere, there is no university extension work in Tanganyika.
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot at present add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member, which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 11th June.
    Mr. Johnson: I have asked the hon. Gentleman this question three times and have never had an answer. Perhaps the Minister can confirm this one. Would he not agree that, with the developing consciousness of the African Nationalist Movement, it is even more important to have adult education than to have elementary education?
    Mr. Profumo: I have given the hon. Gentleman three answers. I am sorry if he does not think they are good ones. The need for extension of the education services in Tanganyika is very great, but I should be reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the Tanganyika Government in allocating available funds to one or other of the many different forms of educational activity.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Financial Discussions
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached in the official discussions with the Chief Minister of British Guiana regarding the financial needs of that territory.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The delegation from British Guiana with whom discussions are proceeding comprises: The Governor, Sir Patrick Renison, the Financial Secretary, Mr. F. W. Essex, the Minister for Trade and Industry, Dr. C. B. Jagan and the Minister for Natural Resources, Mr. E. B. Beharry. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider very sympathetically this request for additional financial aid, in view of the fact that since the Government was reconstituted there has been encouraging progress? We do not want a situation to arise where the absence of finance would lead to a new crisis.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be wiser to conduct negotiations with the delegation rather than across the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Brockway: That was an unnecessary remark.

  NYASALAND

    Federal Members (Southern and Northern Provinces)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action the Government of Nyasaland propose to meet the situation arising from the unanimous decisions of the African Councils of the Southern and Northern Provinces to elect no further members to the Federal Parliament.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir. I would remind the hon. Member that the body designated by the Governor of Nyasaland for the purposes of Article 13 (3) of the Federal Constitution as a body representative of Africans is not confined to the present members of these two councils.
    Mr. Brockway: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion of these councils reflects a very considerable proportion of opinion among Africans in Nyasaland? In view of that fact, will he look carefully at this situation and, when the time comes, apply the Preamble of the Federal Act, which requires that the inhabitants of a territory shall endorse the review?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We certainly consider seriously what the body says, but the body designated includes all members—past and present—of the three African provincial councils, and the Question refers only to the present members of two of the councils.

  WESTERN PACIFIC

    New Ship
    Mr. Peelasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new ship on order for the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific has yet been delivered.
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. Delivery has been promised by 10th August.
    Mr. Peel: Is my hon. Friend aware of the many frustrations which tend to occur in these rather remote places in getting these orders fulfilled? In view of the great importance of senior officials getting round their territories, will my hon. Friend do his utmost to overcome
    562
    the inertia which tends to be present in the affairs of these little Cinderellas?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think I can accept my hon. Friend's contention. In this case, at any rate, there has been no inertia. The building of the "Coral Queen" was started, but she was found to have inadequate stability.

  SOLOMON ISLANDS

    Gilbertese Immigrants
    Mr. Peelasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for how long Gilbertese immigrants have been entering the Solomon Islands Protectorate; whether they have been doing it under a Government-sponsored scheme; and with what success.
    Mr. Profumo: A colonial development and welfare pilot project was started in May, 1954. It proved successful and was expanded a year later and some 200 Gilbertese, mainly from Sydney Island in the Phoenix Group, are now living near Gizo in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate. A further 160 are expected shortly. A chain of partly planted islands near Gizo have been purchased to supplement the imcome of the present settlers and to provide room for expansion if necessary.
    Mr. Peel: Can my hon. Friend say whether these natives, who speak quite a different language from the people of the Solomon Islands and are a different type of people altogether, are getting on well with the Solomon Islanders and whether their health, which on their own island is completely free from all tropical diseases, has suffered at all in their new home?
    Mr. Profumo: I have no reason to think so; in fact, they are going to return a member to the local rural district council.

  SOMALILAND

    Unofficial Representation in the Legislative Council (Report)
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the recommendations of the Governor of Somaliland on the Report of the Commission on Unofficial Representation in the Legislative Council.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. This important Report was laid before the Legislative Council in the Somaliland Protectorate on 25th June, and I am still awaiting the views and recommendations of the Governor.
    Mr. Albu: Would not the Minister consider it important and urge the Governor to forward the recommendations as soon as possible? In view of the known urgency of this matter, would he consider giving rather wider circulation to what, I think, many people believe to be an excellent Report?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will put that to the Governor. He is anxious to hurry matters up. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his own very helpful work in that part of the world.

  BRITISH HONDURAS

    Sanitary Conditions and Land Drainage, Belize
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken to improve the sanitary conditions in Belize, British Honduras.
    Mr. Profumo: The Colony's Development Plan includes provision for an investigation and the preparation of plans for an up-to-date sewerage system. This was not one of the schemes put forward by the British Honduras Government for provision of funds this year, but they intend to give it high priority in their future programme.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Member aware—I am sure he must be—of the real urgency of this matter and the impossibility of further progress with health considerations in Belize until this job is tackled? Will he put it to them, as they put it to me, that this is a matter of first priority?
    Mr. Profumo: Yes, and as they put it to me as well; and the result—not the result but the fact—is that the revised development programme contains provision for £12,500 in order to make a start on the work.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when a suction dredger will be delivered to Belize in
    564
    British Honduras to enable land to be drained for urgent housing development.
    Mr. Profumo: Purchase of a suction dredger was not one of the schemes put forward by the Colony for provision of funds this year. However, when I was there recently I learned that they want to place an order now and this proposal is being examined very urgently.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the hon. Gentleman give any date for delivery, as all housing development of that kind depends on it and people are building houses right in the swamp?
    Mr. Profumo: No, I am afraid I cannot give a date.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Inter-Territorial Movement of Persons (Southern Rhodesia)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what restrictions are placed by the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland on the entry into their Territories of the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In both these territories there is an Inter-Territorial Movement of Persons (Control) Ordinance containing provisions governing the entry of inhabitants of the other Northern Territory and of Southern Rhodesia. If any such person has been convicted of a scheduled offence, or has been ordered on any previous occasion to leave the Territory, he requires a permit to enter. In addition, the Governors can prohibit the entry of any other such person if satisfied that his presence would be a threat to security or good order.
    Mrs. Castle: But is it not the fact that if any European in Southern Rhodesia wishes to go into either Protectorate he does not have to carry a pass or in any way be subject to humiliation, whereas if an African or an Indian in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland wishes to go to Southern Rhodesia he becomes the subject of humiliation? Is that not entirely contrary to the spirit of the Federation, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that what is good enough for Northern Rhodesia ought to be good

    565
    enough for Southern Rhodesia? Will he see that there is equality of treatment between the races in the Federation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that what the hon. Lady has said will be noted. The answer I have given was the answer to the Question I was asked and applies to people of all races entering those Territories.
    Mr. Paget: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the danger of famine in these Southern Rhodesian reserves, particularly Gwanda; and if it does develop, what will happen?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no responsibility for Southern Rhodesia. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put that Question down to the appropriate Minister.

  CYPRUS

    Disturbances, Omorphita
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the communal disturbances at Omorphita on 3rd July.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On the afternoon of 3rd July there was a clash between members of the two communities in Omorphita, which stopped when the police intervened. A curfew was imposed that evening and has been in force on subsequent occasions. Fourteen Greek Cypriot families have left the area since 3rd July, but there is no known case of a family being physically evicted. Turkish Cypriots who were prepared to occupy houses evacuated by the Greeks were prevented from doing so by the security forces and Turkish flags placed on a few abandoned houses were removed.
    Mr. Robinson: Do not all the reports suggest that this incident was more serious than the right hon. Gentleman's statement makes out? Can he say why there were no arrests made as a result of these disturbances, which were on quite a wide scale? Is he aware, despite the Prime Minister's indignation the other day, that all the evidence continues to show that security forces in Cyprus are treating the Turkish Cypriots with special tenderness?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this matter I recognise, will nail that abominable lie whenever he hears it.

    Incident, Avgorou
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the incident at Avgorou, near Famagusta, on 5th July.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the incident at Avgorou in which two Greek Cypriots were killed and 22 British soldiers wounded.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have received a full report from the Governor, which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what instructions are being given to British troops in view of the reports that have appeared in The Times about the origin of that incident?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the very full answer I am circulating. I am convinced that in this case the patrol commander took the only possible action. The Governor fully realises the importance of balancing the need to maintain order in the face of terrorist slogans inciting the public to disorder and the need to avoid unnecessarily strict action by security forces. But I hope the hon. Member will read my answer.
    Mr. Robinson: Does the Colonial Secretary really suggest that the word "Eoka" painted on a wall incites people to disorder? Is he aware that the whole story of this incident suggests that the tragic consequences and the reprisals which followed were wholly unnecessary?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I wish the hon. Gentleman not to think me offensive if suggest that he should read the answer before he makes up his mind. It has been failure to do that which has led to so many tragic misrepresentations before.
    Following is the Report:
    At 12.30 p.m. on 5th July a security forces patrol, commanded by a lieutenant and consisting of four armoured cars, each with a crew of two men, entered the village of Avgorou. It was a routine patrol covering

    567
    the rural areas but, in addition, the patrol commander had orders to look out for a certain wanted man who was believed to be in the area.
    On reaching the local coffee shop, a slogan 4 ft. by 4 ft. and signed "EOKA" in large letters was observed. Underneath this slogan stood a youth who, by his manner, plainly intended to be insubordinate to the patrol. The patrol commander indicated to the youth that the slogan was to be removed. This he refused to do, and the patrol commander then gave orders for him to be arrested with a view to handing him over to the police.
    While the struggling youth was being arrested the villagers came to his assistance, and by weight of numbers forcibly rescued the youth and took him into a neighbouring house. The patrol commander then withdrew his seven men, cordoned the house and called for reinforcements. A further three armoured cars and armourd personnel carriers containing a dismounted section of 24 men with riot equipmetn arrived shortly afterwards. As this party attempted to enter the house to effect the arrest the scene changed abruptly and the troops were attacked with rocks, bottles and stones (some of the latter were later found to weigh up to 6 lb.). The patrol commander then gave orders for the arrest of another man, who, in his opinion, was the ringleader, and abandoned the search for the youth.
    By this time the whole village had turned out, and as four soldiers tried to arrest the ringleader the party was charged by an estimated 250 people and driven back past their vehicles. The patrol commander then ran for ward to the leading car which was by now surrounded by villagers who were climbing over it. He managed to get into the turret when a villager standing on the front of the car threw a brick through the driver's windscreen which struck him on the side of the face. The patrol commander then took the only course left open to him and elevated the car's machine gun to high angle where he could deal with his assailant but at the same time avoid hitting the crowd. He fired one burst of approximately 15 rounds. The assailant was killed, but the remainder of the bullets hit a wall at a height of 14 feet, and there are no known cases of other persons being hit by the burst.
    A Greek Cypriot woman was killed in the disorders, but a pathologist's report has confirmed that she was not killed by gunfire. She was probably hit on the head by a stone, but may have fallen. The troops returned to their vehicles and the patrol commander gave the order for them to withdraw one by one. He then deployed his cars around the village in the form of a cordon and reported to his H.Q. A mixed force the equivalent of two companies was sent to the village and imposed a curfew.
    As a result of this incident, in addition to the man and woman who had been killed, 13 other Greek Cypriots were reported to have been taken to hospital and local clinics. Police sent to the village to ascertain details of the injuries got a hostile reception and the villagers refused to make any statements. Twenty-two members of the security forces were injured,
    568
    four of whom were evacuated for immediate treatment and two of whom were taken to the British Military hospital with suspected fractures.
    The village of Avgorou has a bad reputation and a long history of E.O.K.A. associations. The patrol commander was plainly carrying out his duties, first, in ordering the E.O.K.A. slogan to be removed, and later, in endeavouring to arrest the man whom he considered to be the ringleader of the attacks being made against his troops. Throughout the incident he acted with great calmness and restraint and the moment of opening fire was delayed as long as possible, and was then only done by himself personally to save the lives of his men and to protect his vehicles. The officer concerned has been in Cyprus for two and a quarter years and is very experienced in internal security duties.

  THE WEST INDIES

    United States Assistance
    Sir R. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been made to open discussions between the Governments of the Federation of The West Indies and the United States of America with regard to the United States offer of assistance to the Federation; and whether he proposes to send representatives to attend these discussions.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Last April, Her Majesty's Government conveyed to The West Indies an invitation from the United States Government to send representatives to Washington to discuss assistance; and the Governor-General expressed his Government's gratitude in his Speech from the Throne. Arrangements for the talks are being considered by the Governments concerned, and Her Majesty's Ambassador will be available to give any help that may be needed.
    Sir R. Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend make it very clear indeed to the American Government that their offer of assistance to The West Indian Federation is very welcome in this country?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly.

  MAURITIUS

    Population
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the population figure for Mauritius in 1958; what is the estimated population

    569
    for 1968; and what plans the Government of Mauritius have for coping with this demographic problem.
    Mr. Profumo: In mid-1957, the population of Mauritius was 587,000. If it continues to increase at the same rate as between 1953 and 1957, it will reach about 750,000 by 1968. In its recently published five-year development programme, "A Plan for Mauritius", the Mauritius Government recognise unambiguously that the basic problem facing their people is that of over-population. Under the plan, the Mauritius Government hope to develop the economy and social services of the island in such a way as to keep pace for a time with the increase in population as well as to bring greater prosperity to the present inhabitants of the island.
    Mr. Johnson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the question of over-population looms over the future of Mauritius? Since the industries will not give many more jobs to people and emigration is almost hopeless, are the Government of Mauritius thinking further on the subject of family planning? What are they going to do about it?
    Mr. Profumo: The Government of Mauritius have no actual plans about family planning, but the people of Mauritius must realise that they have the choice either to control the growth of their own numbers or to suffer a decline in the standard of living.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Argentine Meat (Foot-and-Mouth Disease)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now received assurances from the Argentine Government that measures are being taken to tighten up the precautions to prevent foot-and-mouth disease infection reaching this country through chilled and frozen meat shipped from Argentina; and what action the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations is taking to assist the South American countries in clearing up the disease.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): We are constantly reminding the Argentine Government
    570
    of our concern about foot-and-mouth disease, and I am advised that the Argentine authorities are co-operating fully in the operation of precautionary measures which have recently been strengthened. The fifth session of the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, which met in April of this year, discussed the extent to which outbreaks of this disease in Europe might be attributable to imported South American meat. Following this, the Food and Agriculture Organisation invited my Chief Veterinary Officer to accompany the chief of their Animal Production Branch on a visit to South American countries. They have just concluded their visit to the Argentine. Their purpose is to study and report upon the situation generally, and, in particular, upon the control measures which are being pursued. I welcome F.A.O.'s initiative in this matter, which, I hope, will be of benefit both to South American and European countries and ourselves, in particular.
    Mr. Hurd: In view of the very heavy cost that falls on us through foot-and-mouth disease reaching this country from Argentine meat, costing about £1 million last year, will my right hon. Friend promise to pursue the matter with the utmost energy? When he has the report of the F.A.O. experts we shall know about it and take whatever action is appropriate.
    Mr. Hare: As my hon. Friend knows, I am as interested in this matter as he is, and I will certainly follow it up with all possible vigour.

    Fisher Fleet, King's Lynn
    Commander Scott-Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the continuing unsatisfactory state of the Fisher Fleet at King's Lynn; what steps are being taken to improve and maintain the facilities for the fishermen of the port; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that following discussions with my Department plans for the reconstruction of the quay have now been prepared by the British Transport Commission. Discussions with the fishermen and other interests concerned will shortly take place.
    Commander Scott-Miller: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, which will give encouragement to all concerned, may I ask him if he is aware that he is the only authority that can co-operate with the various interests in bringing the matter to a head? Will he also remember that maintenance of the quay and of the general facilities is just as important as putting them in order?
    Mr. Hare: I will remember what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

    Deadweight Certification Centres
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future policy for the maintenance of deadweight certification centres.
    Mr. John Hare: I am anxious to provide adequate facilities for deadweight certification of fatstock for guarantee payments, but I must have regard to the difficulties and cost of providing staff for certification and for effective supervision to reduce the risks of fraud. New deadweight certification centres are continually being approved. On the other hand, where little use is made of these centres, it is necessary to withdraw certification facilities from them.
    Representatives of both producers and butchers have been consulted on the policy which is followed, and I can assure my hon. Friend that full weight is given to the considerations brought forward by interested parties before any decision is taken to withdraw facilities at any particular slaughterhouse.
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of representations he has received from the Market Rasen Branch of the National Farmers Union about the Deadweight Certification Centre, Caistor, Lincolnshire, he will give an assurance that this facility will be maintained in the area.
    Mr. John Hare: I regret that I cannot give an assurance that approval will continue to be given to the Caistor Deadweight Centre. Only a very small number of pigs are certified at this centre and there are adequate alternative facilities for obtaining certification in the district.
    Mr. Kimball: While I recognise the special difficulties there are in the administration
    572
    of the centres, I hope my right hon. Friend will look again at the very special need for the certification centre up in the Lincolnshire Wolds. I hope it will be possible for him to let us keep it.
    Mr. Hare: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely zealous in looking after the interests of his constituents. I assure him that I have looked at this matter very carefully and that I do not think I shall be able to modify my reply.

    Transactions in Seeds (Report)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now received representations from all the organisations representing the interests affected by the Report of the Committee on Transactions in Seeds; and if he win make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: Not yet, Sir, but I have again asked the organisations which have not sent in their views to let me have them as soon as they can. These and the views of the other bodies concerned will have to be carefully considered before any conclusions are reached.
    Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to expedite his consideration of the matter, or, alternatively, go ahead without waiting for these representations, because we cannot be held up indefinitely by these interests?
    Mr. Hare: I always thought that the hon. Gentleman believed in consultation with industry. I can assure him that I accept what he said and that I shall not allow any grass to grow under my feet.

    Fruit and Crops (Flood Damage)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take, in view of the losses suffered by some soft fruit growers owing to severe flooding.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the losses sustained by soft fruit growers in some parts of the country owing to flooding; and what steps he is taking to provide compensation or other appropriate assistance.
    Mr. John Hare: There has been damage to some soft fruit in some parts of the country, and I have much

    573
    sympathy with the growers concerned. The risks of such damage are regrettably part of the normal hazards of horticulture, and I am afraid there is no way open to the Government to provide assistance.
    Mr. Willey: While joining the right hon. Gentleman in expressing sympathy with those who have suffered, may I ask him if he will look at this again, because in the case of some small growers this is a calamity? Will he consider the possibility of giving exceptional relief in these circumstances? Will he also survey the drainage arrangements, because allegations have been made that they did not function properly?
    Mr. Hare: I will certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am glad that he joins with me in expressing the sympathy which we all obviously feel with those concerned. I wish, however, that townsmen would realise that this is part of the normal hazards which agriculturists and horticulturists have to face.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the damage to growing crops caused by flooding in Yorkshire; whether he will make a statement on the extent and value of the losses incurred; and what proposals he has for the protection of land in the future.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what survey he has made of the crop losses suffered in the recent floods; and what relief funds are available to assist those hardest hit.
    Mr. John Hare: Recent excessive rainfall with violent thunderstorms has caused flooding and damage to crops. The flooded area comprises some 12,000 acres of mainly arable land in Lincolnshire, about 3,000 acres mainly grassland in Yorkshire, together with small acreages in the Great Ouse and Trent areas. In addition, there has been widespread water-logging in Eastern England. The extent of the damage cannot be properly assessed until the land has dried out.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's Question, I have the greatest sympathy with those who have suffered, but I am afraid there are no Government funds available to compensate farmers for crop damage.
    574
    In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) on the future protection of land affected, my engineers have already been discussing remedial measures with the Drainage Authorities concerned, who are, of course, responsible.
    Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there have been considerable losses in corn, potatoes and root crops due to the flooding of land in Yorkshire, although he minimises what happened in Yorkshire? Does he not also realise that had the remedial measures for which we have been pressing ever since the last disastrous floods in 1956 been introduced, much of the present damage could have been avoided?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is fair in saying that I was underestimating the damage in Yorkshire, because I gave a factual reply. In fact, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a detailed tour of Lincolnshire this week and has given me a firsthand account of the damage. I regret that there is no way open to me to give the particular relief to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Hurd: If experience in the course of the next few weeks shows that there are particular areas in which farmers have been extremely hard hit, and in which some local effort is made to raise relief funds, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will look at the possibility of some support for such funds being provided out of central funds?
    Mr. Hare: I would say to my hon. Friend that these are matters for very serious consideration by the local interests concerned. From my past experience in my own county, I think it is likely, and if it is decided that special funds should be raised I think we should give all encouragement to those efforts.
    Mr. Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1947 some funds were made available to pay farmers who had suffered serious losses, but that in actual fact the losses today, particularly in Lincolnshire, are far greater because the crops are growing and the potatoes have been sold? Will he not do something more than was done in 1947, and is he also aware of the serious charges floating about concerning a lack of maintenance on the part

    575
    of certain river boards. Will he see what his engineers can do to try to speed up the maintenance work of river boards?
    Mr. Hare: I will certainly do all I can to give further assistance to the river boards with regard to the representation which my hon. Friend has just made. Otherwise, I have nothing further to add to what I have already said in my answer to this Question.
    Mr. Kimball: In view of the very serious problem in Lincolnshire, I hope it will be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to allocate an Adjournment debate on this subject so that we can straighten out this problem.

    Ice Cream
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the ice cream currently sold is made with dairy products; and whether the public demand for this quality of ice cream is increasing.
    Mr. John Hare: All ice cream must contain milk solids. Ice-cream manufacturers are not required to make returns of output, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot estimate the proportion of ice cream which is also made with dairy fats. Sales of dairy ice cream are increasing steadily however, and I am encouraged by the number of manufacturers now entering this field.
    Mr. Hurd: In view of the possibility of amending legislation, will my right hon. Friend try to let us have some more accurate information about the present demand for dairy products in ice cream? Would he also ensure that when people are receiving Government hospitality the ice cream offered is the genuine dairy product?
    Mr. Hare: I have a very definite personal interest in trying to secure the object of the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question.

    Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the advances made to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited.
    Mr. John Hare: To date, £2,775,000 has been advanced to the Corporation's
    576
    Guarantee Fund out of the maximum of £3¼ million authorised by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Act, 1956.
    Mr. Willey: While appreciating that the rate of interest is a matter for the Corporation itself, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it ought to reflect the fall in the Bank Rate, and will he see that my Question is brought to the attention of members of the Corporation?
    Mr. Hare: Yes, Sir. I am certain that members of the Corporation will read of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I will certainly draw their attention to it. In fairness to the Corporation, I think that it should be stated that of course the rate of interest is its concern, and that, in fact, the shareholding banks, which put up the capital for the purpose, have not received a penny in dividend since 1935. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there is no question of private profit being made at the expense of agriculture.

    Milk Substitutes
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the public is safeguarded against possible deception caused by the sale of milk substitutes consisting of the non-fat solids of milk and fat other than milk fat.
    Mr. John Hare: My right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are well aware of this problem. We are circulating to the interests concerned proposals for regulations controlling the description, labelling and advertising of such products, and beverages made from them.
    Mr. Peyton: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask if he does not think that the increasing use of milk substitutes would constitute a very serious threat to the dairy industry? Does he not think that to apply the names "milk" and "cream" to some of these substitutes is an outrageous and, indeed, offensive breach of the inalienable copyright of the cow?
    Mr. Hare: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said, and I can assure him that I am as anxious as he is that the industry shall be properly protected. I think that if

    577
    milk substitutes are plainly labelled the public should not be misled into believing that they are real milk.
    Dr. Summerskill: What is the penalty for non-observance of these regulations?
    Mr. Hare: These regulations have not yet come into effect. They are merely in draft, and I shall be able to give more details about them later.

  ATOMIC PLANTS (PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will make it a condition of supply of the civilian atomic plants to be exported to Brazil, Germany, Spain and other countries that inspection should be undertaken by the International Atomic Energy Agency and that such inspection should be continuous, in view of the need to prevent these countries extracting military plutonium for atomic weapons.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As the International Atomic Energy Agency has not yet worked out methods for implementing the inspection and other safeguards provisions in the Agency's Statute, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is premature.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Prime Minister assist our representatives on the Agency to work out these proposals in detail, and, in view of the urgency of preventing these countries extracting military plutonium from these atomic plants, will he ensure that it is made a condition of supply that supervision should be undertaken by the International Agency when the right procedure has been worked out?
  The Prime Minister: All we can do is what we have done—to make it a condition of supply that we should be satisfied as to inspection. The Agency is a board of twenty-three governors, representing twenty-three nations, with somewhat different approaches to this, as to other, matters. The important thing is that we should put into our contracts the right of supervision by the appropriate international agency. Since these contracts take a very long time to manufacture, it is not urgent in this case, because contract orders placed this year could not come into operation before 1961 or 1962.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a comparatively easy matter to extract military plutonium from these civilian atomic plants? Could he confirm that in any event these contracts make it possible for Her Majesty's Government to insist upon whatever method of inspection seems to them proper and desirable?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the second part of the question of the right hon. Gentleman is "Yes". We take the power to consult with the recipients as to the best method of inspection. With regard to the ease or difficulty of extracting plutonium, I have to answer a lot of scientific questions and I should be grateful if that could be put on the Order Paper. I would try to make an estimate of the ease or difficulty which, of course, depends partly on the qualifications of the people concerned.
  Mr. Gaitskell: May I press the Prime Minister on the first point again? I think he said there was provision for consultation with the purchaser as to the appropriate method of inspection, but does that leave Her Majesty's Government in a position to inspect? What happens, for instance, if there is disagreement between the purchasing country and Her Majesty's Government on this point?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that is likely to occur, but there is no doubt going to be some discussion as to what is the most appropriate international agency, and I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees that there are other agencies which could be used for this purpose.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Could the Prime Minister clear up this point? Is it not a fact that under Article XII of the Statute of the Agency powers are given to establish a permament system of inspection which would give it effective guarantees that there could not be diversion for military purposes? Since the whole purpose of establishing an agency was to ensure that there should be no diversion, would it not be possible to establish the principle that we should use the Agency?
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Member knows, as in the case of all these United Nations agencies, when we have all these Governments represented on the board with different points of view, it is quite a job to get them to

  579
  agree to a certain Statute. All I am saying is that, if we cannot get it done one way, we should try to do it the other way.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, does not Article XII of the Statute establish the principles of the system which all agree to and which could be effective?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but the League of Nations established the principle of the system and it was not effective. The United Nations has established all kinds of principles. The difficulty is to get an effective working operation of a difficult technical method and try to get the board of governors, on which there are twenty-three representing eighty or ninety nations, to agree. If we cannot do it in that particular form, it may be that there is some other agency, or some other method, whereby we can have effective control. That, I am sure, is the purpose of the House, and we have got, perhaps, three or four years in which to work out the best method.

  COMMONWEALTH AND COLONIAL TERRITORIES (FREEDOM OF TRAVEL)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister whether he will raise at the next meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers the question of freedom of travel within the Commonwealth for British subjects; and whether he will raise with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland the recent banning by the Federal Government of Commander T. Fox-Pitt, O.B.E., R.N., a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, formerly a Provincial Commissioner in Northern Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give any information about particular subjects which might or might not be raised at future Prime Ministers' Meetings.
  Mr. Stonehouse: With reference to the banning by the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, is the Prime Minister aware that there has been a whole series of banning of individuals, some of whom have made public the information, but many are known to have chosen not to make known the information because of the smear involved?
  580
  In the case of Commander Fox-Pitt, is the Prime Minister aware that the only objection which the Federation has against that individual is the fact that, after years of distinguished colonial service in Northern Rhodesia, he happens to take a different view from the official line in the Federation? In view of that, will the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a matter for the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: I thought this Question asked if I would raise this matter at the next meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I hope I did no discourtesy to the hon. Member when I indicated my view that it was never the practice to give notice beforehand of particular subjects which might or might not be raised at the Conference, should it take place in the next year or two.
  Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify the position, may I make it clear that the Question on the Order Paper particularly asks the Prime Minister whether he will take the matter up with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid I read the second part of the Question as being connected with the first part. Perhaps I made a mistake.
  Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the very difficult constitutional problems involved, would the Prime Minister consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies as well as some of the Prime Ministers, because there is increasing anxiety about restrictions which are being imposed on the free movement of quite worthy and responsible British subjects about the British Commonwealth? That is a matter which is causing great anxiety, and I would ask him to give it serious thought.
  The Prime Minister: Of course, this question and questions of migration from one part of the Commonwealth to another are difficult problems, and we know their complexities, but I repeat that I do not think it would be suitable to raise them in a general meeting of Prime Ministers, and certainly not to say that I was going to do so. I think that because of their complexity they are perhaps not suitable for Question and

  581
  Answer, and certainly not for supplementaries without much thought. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for the way in which he has made his proposal, and I shall certainly consider what he has said.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the Prime Minister think it a great pity that a gallant officer with a surname like this should not be able to travel freely in the British Commonwealth of Nations?
  The Prime Minister: I recognise the hon. Member's care of the long political traditions of the country and support of the Armed Forces.

  ROBERT BURNS BICENTENARY
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister what considerations influenced him in rejecting the request made to him by the deputation representing the Burns Federation, and which consisted of Members on both sides of the House, that the refusal of the Government to issue a special stamp to commemorate the bicentenary of Robert Burns should be reconsidered.
  The Prime Minister: The matter was reconsidered, but the Government felt unable to alter the decision. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the letter which I sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) on this subject.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that we have already seen that letter and, if Burns had written a letter so long containing so little, any demand for a bicentenary commemoration would not be necessary? Is the Prime Minister aware that it has caused great disappointment, especially to Mr. Macmillan, who was one of the leaders of the deputation, and that now that the Postmaster-General has issued three large stamps to celebrate the British Empire Games at Cardiff, he should agree to the modest request of the Burns Federation and give one stamp to honour literature in the same way as he is honouring sport?
  The Prime Minister: This Question has been postponed from day to day by the misfortune of not being reached. I have been wondering what would be the supplementary question which would be prepared, and I must say that I think it
  582
  quite a good one. I congratulate the hon. Member, but I have also prepared my supplementary answer. I would say to him, in the famous words:
  "The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
  The man's the gowd for a' that."
  Sir T. Moore: To come back to the original Question, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that I transmitted to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) all the reasons which unfortunately persuaded my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to refuse our request and that, therefore, this Question is wholly superfluous?
  Following is the letter:—
  MY DEAR MOORE,
  I am sorry that I have not written to you sooner to reply to the representations made by the deputation which you brought to see me on the issue of a special postage stamp to mark the bi-centenary of the birth of Robert Burns. My recent visit to Canada and the United States has meant that one or two matters had to be left until my return. The Government have considered this proposal with very great care and I have been into it in detail with the Postmaster General. We have reached the conclusion that we cannot reverse the decision which the Postmaster General took not to issue a special stamp.
  I do not think it is necessary in this letter to rehearse all the arguments for and against this proposal. I would only say this: that I paid, and I know the Postmaster General did also, particular attention to what I think constituted one of your main arguments; that is that the objection that special stamps for one notable person would involve having to discriminate between other claimants for this honour does not really apply to Robert Burns, who holds a peculiar place in Scotland and indeed throughout the world. After reflection, however, and. I can assure you, with sympathy with this point of view I felt that the arguments against the issue of a stamp must prevail. I know that this decision will cause disappointment but I am convinced that it is the right one.
  I would only add that the Postmaster General is considering what arrangements might possibly be made for a special franking of letters to commemorate the bi-centenary.
  I should be grateful if you would convey this decision to those whom you brought with you to see me.
  Yours very sincerely.
  (Sgd) HAROLD MACMILLAN.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Removal of Vehicles
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cars have been towed or

    583
    driven away by the Metropolitan Police since the recent order came into force.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that during the period from 1st May, 1957, when the Removal of Vehicles (England and Wales) Regulations, 1957, came into force, to 30th June, 1958, 12,675 vehicles were removed from the roads in the Metropolitan Police District.
    Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this Order is being interpreted in the way which was originally intended? Much as we admire the general work of the police, does he not think that far too many cars are being towed away which do not cause an obstruction in any intelligent interpretation of the word?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am satisfied that this is a useful piece of work. The removal of these vehicles has resulted in a reduction in dangerous parking, especially in parking at road junctions and on pedestrian crossings and at their approaches. There has been some improvement noticeable in traffic circulation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH JULY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries relating to the National Coal Board and the Report and Accounts of the Board for 1957.
TUESDAY, 15TH JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Committee stage of the Army and Air Expenditure, 1956–57.
WEDNESDAY, 16TH JULY—Conclusion of the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Chequers Estate Bill, and of the State of Singapore Bill.
584
Report stage of the Army and Air Expenditure, 1956–57.
THURSDAY, 17TH JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.
A debate will take place on a Motion to take note of the Report and Accounts of the British Transport Commission for 1957.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Calf Subsidies Schemes.
FRIDAY, 18TH JULY—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
Mr. E. Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the House will have an opportunity to consider the very serious consequences which result from the decision of the House on Tuesday night in rejecting the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great concern which this decision causes to Members as to how they can discharge their Parliamentary duties? What is his intention about the whole question generally?
Mr. Butler: I ventured to give the House certain advice and the House came to a certain conclusion. I think that we all have to accept the conclusion of the House in the right spirit, but that means that we also have to consider the difficulties under which hon. Members are labouring. I therefore ask hon. Members to give a little time to considering this matter.
I have already had several consultations and I have had many visits from hon. Members informing me of the anxieties which they have. I think that to rush into any decision would be a mistake. If may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have an opportunity of waiting upon you and discussing the matter from the point of the House as a whole. When I have done that I might be able to give some advice.
Mr. H. Fraser: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is possible, before we go into Recess, to have a debate on the plight of those whose property has been expropriated in Egypt and on what action the Government propose to take?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend raised this matter during the past week and I made a note of his wishes, which,

585
I think, are shared by other hon. Members. If we can in any way find an opportunity for this, especially when we have something to report, I think that we should pay attention to what he said.
Mr. Ross: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that for over two months of Recess the only access that we shall have to Ministers is by letter?
Mr. Butler: I think it is possible that such a form of communication may be made without eventually damaging Members, but this is the sort of matter on which it may be possible to say more before the Recess. At any rate, we shall certainly be available—I, at any rate, will be available—to give the best possible advice we can to hon. Members in good time.
Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name? If he cannot find time for the House to debate that Motion, can he give an assurance that before long there will be a public inquiry into the controversy which has arisen over the Carl Rosa Opera Company?
[That, in the opinion of this House, an independent inquiry should be held into the operations of the Carl Rosa Trust, as suggested in responsible quarters in the Press, and welcomed by the regular attenders and remaining members of the Trust, in view of the fact that, if the company were to extend its proposed autumn tour to February, as was suggested, the future Arts Council grant would have to be mortgaged and the company would be off the road from then until October, 1959; that Equity has submitted a substantial claim to the Trust for increased salaries for the chorus, to bring the year's earnings up to the level of 1957; that the present Arts Council grant is not sufficient to meet this demand; and that the whole future of the Carl Rosa may be jeopardised by the refusal of the Arts Council to continue its subsidy in spite of public money having been used to purchase the company.]
Mr. Butler: I cannot guarantee that without discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will do so and refer to my hon. Friend.
Dame Irene Ward: Thank you.
Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting again to the decision taken by the House the other night, while fully appreciating what the right hon. Gentleman has said about avoiding the temptation to rush into action which might not be the right action, may I ask whether he will nevertheless bear in mind, in considering the matter, that it is extremely doubtful whether hon. Members have any other protection, any qualified privilege of any kind, in a court outside, and that if they are to be deprived of the protection which they hitherto thought they had, they may be left with no protection at all?
Mr. Butler: I do not think that hon. Members or the House as a whole need feel that the position has deteriorated from what it was before. It has altered in one important respect—namely, that the House has taken a decision not to regard a certain case as "a proceeding in Parliament". I must warn hon. Members that a precedent has been established to that extent, but this exactly corresponds with the warning which I gave the House in my speech, that if it took other action a precedent would be established on the other side. That is the only change. The reservation which one must make on that observation is that that conclusion of the House related only to a particular matter. I do not think that in the general issue hon. Members are in more danger than they were before.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless bear in mind that, as was shown in the evidence before the Committee of Privileges, it has been the custom for the Table to refuse Questions on day-to-day matters relating to the nationalised industries and to propose to hon. Members that they should write to the chairman of the board or the Minister concerned? The decision of the House clearly makes that situation untenable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his evidence to the Committee the Clerk made it plain that if letters of this kind were not privileged the Table could not continue to give that advice? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take up this as one of the matters on which he will consult Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Butler: I understand that the Table and, I believe, you, Mr. Speaker, have already apprehended the undoubted danger to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and I understand that the Table is considering modifying its advice to Members on this matter; but I suggest that it should be one of the matters which I discuss with you, Sir, and then we can give an authoritative answer, perhaps through you, or as you may prefer, to the House.
Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for some weeks there has been on the Order Paper a Motion signed by 148 hon. Members in respect of compensation for the acquisition of land? Is he further aware that this Motion reflects not only the view of nearly half the hon. Members on this side of the House, but also a very considerable degree of anxiety on this subject? Can he offer any hope of a discussion about it?
[That this House deplores the injustices inherent in the existing law governing compensation for land acquired under compulsory powers and urges Her Majesty's Government to accept the principle of fair market value either by granting facilities on the floor of the House for the remaining stages of the Compensation (Acquisition and Planning) Bill or by introducing alternative legislation during the lifetime of the present Parliament to achieve a similar purpose.]
Mr. Butler: I am fully aware of the weight of support for this Motion and for the issues and principles involved in it. If it were dealt with thoroughly the matter would involve legislation, and the one thing which is quite certain is that we cannot put in any more legislation this summer. Since there would have to be legislation, I cannot give an undertaking about next Session. It would have to follow in the next Session. I think that my hon. Friend should feel satisfied that the Government are aware of the strength of the feeling and of the importance of this issue. If he were to accept that, it might give him some satisfaction.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that each day that we delay dealing with this problem more injustice is done? Will he bear in mind that the matter is urgent?
Mr. Butler: Certainly, but I do not think that any legislative programme has ever been fuller than that which we have at present. We cannot perform at one moment all the beneficent acts which are to the credit of this Government. We will perhaps keep this one for a little later.

SULTAN ALI OF LAHEJ (WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I regret to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have felt obliged to withdraw recognition from Sultan Ali of Lahej. We have come to the conclusion that the Sultan has for a considerable time been following a course of action incompatible with the Treaties between him and Her Majesty's Government.
The House will remember that on 1st May I reported the action which the Governor of Aden had taken to control the activities of the Jifri brothers, in Lahej. This action had to be taken because, notwithstanding his obligations under the Treaties, the Sultan failed to co-operate with the Governor in the control of their activities, as the Governor had urged him to do.
In addition, Her Majesty's Government are convinced that the Sultan has had foreign political contacts, without the prior knowledege or sanction of Her Majesty's Government, and that, in all the circumstances, he must have had advance knowledge of, and connived at, the recent defection to the Yemen of the commandant of the Lahej State forces together with a part of those forces.
The Governor and I had hoped to confront the Sultan in person with these grave matters. The Sultan, however, left London last week for Italy. Accordingly, the Governor, with my approval, conveyed to the Sultan formal advice that he should return to this country at once for an interview. He failed to comply with this advice. He has, therefore, been informed, through Her Majesty's Consul-General in Milan, of Her Majesty's Government's decision. It has also been necessary to inform him that he cannot be permitted, at any rate for the present, to return to Lahej or to Aden Colony or to any part of the Aden Protectorate.

589
Her Majesty's Government deeply regret that they should have been compelled to take this decision.
Mr. Creech Jones: We all regret the necessity of deposing the Sultan, but none of us can condone any violation of treaties, nor can we condone the intrigues that have been causing so much anxiety in that part of the world. I think that it would be well for us to say, right away, that we must, as a nation, honour our treaty obligations and, likewise, that treaties are of little value unless they are honoured by those who enter into them with us. Therefore, while it is a regrettable necesisty, none the less I feel that the Government have taken the only possible action.
Would the Secretary of State tell us whether this ban is likely to be of a permanent character? What is the position of the Treaties now that the Sultan will no longer officiate? Will the right hon. Gentleman also say whether the decision now taken is likely to involve the Sultan himself being deposed from his office?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I agree absolutely with him. The position is that the withdrawal of recognition does not affect the tenure of office of Sultan Ali of Lahej, but the fact that recognition is withdrawn, and that he is now excluded, clearly makes it impossible for him to exercise his functions. It will, therefore, now be for the Counsellors of Lahej State to consider the situation in accordance with Lahej constitutional procedures.
As to the length of time that the ban on the Sultan's entry into the Protectorate or the Colony continues, I can say nothing further at this stage.
Mr. Grimond: Can the Colonial Secretary tell us what the position in the Sultanate now is? There has been, I understand, a considerable defection to the Yemen, with a good deal of money. Is there peace in the Sultanate now?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We must get this into perspective. The number who went over with the commandant was about 140, and the sum of money involved about £10,000. The situation is calm in Lahej State.
Mr. Brockway: In view of the very serious repercussions there may be from this action, not only in Aden, the Protectorate and the Yemen Territory but in the Arab world, would the Colonial Secretary turn his mind to the constructive way of seeking the aid of the United Nations to resolve this problem, particularly as to the frontiers between the Protectorate and the Yemen Territory?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The action that I have just announced has nothing whatever to do with the frontiers, but is a domestic matter in the Aden Protectorate itself.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]
Proceedings of the Committee on Tribunals and Inquiries [Money] (No. 2) and of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [21ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Heath.]

  SCOTLAND (INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT)
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, having considered matters relating to industry and employment in Scotland, takes note of the provision made for this purpose in the Estimates for the current year."
  About seven years ago, the Opposition decided to have a two-day debate on industry and employment in Scotland. Each succeeding year this debate has been held. Occasionally, we have been accused of painting too black a picture of Scotland's prospects, but what we have sought to do throughout these years has been to concentrate the attention of the House and of the Government on Scotland's economic position.
  If ever a debate was necessary, it is this one today, because the position in Scotland is, indeed, bleak. Let us remember that Scotland's post-war unemployment rate has, on average, always been about twice that of the rest of the country. That has gone on since the end of the war, despite the fact that we have had Development Areas, advance factories, and special areas. One hesitates to think what would have been the position today had we not, in the early years following the war, devoted so much of our national income to the creation of our industrial estates, under the very wise guidance of the late Sir Stafford Cripps.
  It is, perhaps, only right at this time to pay tribute to one who had to suffer a fair amount of abuse because, rather than spend the nation's income on consumable commodities, he preferred to take the hard road, and to invest in our industrial future. So, today, there are thousands of men and women in employment in Scotland who would otherwise have been signing on at
  592
  the employment exchanges. Today, the position and prospects of Scotland are the bleakest that they have been since the end of the war. One does not want to exaggerate the conditions, but I am bound to say that they are causing concern all over Scotland, and the reasons for this concern are obvious.
  First, let us look at the latest unemployment figures. I want to make it perfectly clear that I have taken the figures for May of each year since the end of the war. The Minister of Labour issued the new figures only yesterday, I think, but even if we took those, there is such a very slight alteration as compared with the previous month that they do not materially affect the position in Scotland.
  In May of this year 77,500 people were registered in Scotland as being unemployed. This is 22,500 more than the total at the same time last year. These figures become all the more alarming when it is realised that they represent rather more than 17 per cent. of the total unemployment rate in Great Britain, while Scotland has only 10 per cent. of the insured population. In other words, of the unemployed in Great Britain, one-fifth are in Scotland.
  When the figures are further analysed they give cause for still greater concern, because, of that number, rather more than 40,000, that is, more than half of our unemployed population, have been unemployed for more than two months. If this proves anything at all, it proves that this is not seasonal unemployment but a general debility in Scotland's employment.
  In addition, we must take into account the number of people on short-time working. Although these figures are not recorded in the Ministry's return, I have, in the last two days, found out what they amount to. I think that the whole House will find them rather staggering. On 24th May this year, there were nearly 16,000 people in Scotland working short time, compared with 5,700 twelve months ago. The numbers on short-time working in Scotland today are three times greater than they were a year ago, and they must be considered in addition to all those unemployed. It is a desperate plight in which we find ourselves today.
  Moreover, I regret to say that in some of our basic industries like steel and heavy engineering, we find a serious situation. In the building trades, for example, on

  593
  which so much of our prosperity depends, there are two and a half times the number of building tradesmen, not labourers, unemployed that there were a year ago. Again, if this means anything at all, it means that the outlook for Scotland will become worse.
  The insured population in Scotland has increased much less than it has in any other part of the country. It is sometimes overlooked that very many people have migrated from Scotland since the end of the war. Taking the figures for immigration and emigration, we find that, during the last ten years, Scotland has lost 50,000 of her people. They have been driven out of the country in an endeavour to find work. This is a bad thing and Scotland will not tolerate it. I used the figure 50,000 with reference to workers, but, as I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) remind me, with those workers go also their families, which makes the position that much worse. We in Scotland regard this form of export as a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with Scotland's unemployment situation. That view was supported by the Controller of the Board of Trade in Scotland who, in evidence before the Select Committee as long ago as April, 1955, said, in dealing with questions about Development Areas and areas outside:
  "We do not regard the export of 6,000 to 8,000 people a year as a satisfactory way of dealing with the unemployment problem."
  That was said for the Government Department itself.
  As I have said, we must emphasise that the present situation is not the result of seasonal factors. There is a general decline in Scotland, not confined to pockets of unemployment in certain areas. I shall not take up the time of the House by enumerating all the factories which have closed down in recent months.
  The Secretary of State will remember the deputation I led to him as chairman of the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party's Industry and Employment Group. We then enumerated to him all the factories which were closing down in Scotland, covering the textile industries of Fife and the Borders, brickworks, farming machinery in Ayrshire, the general decline of industry in Midlothian, all this being in addition to the appalling situation which is developing in Dundee,
  594
  Greenock, the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), and at Stornoway, not to mention the awful plight which has come to Lanarkshire and the industrial belt of Scotland.
  To add a word about my own constituency, I regret to say that the trouble has spread to the Burgh of Leith, where that very old-established British firm, British Oil and Cake Mills, has given notice to close its works and discharge the 150 people employed there. The Government's policy for the fishing industry, also, certainly does not bring any cheer to the substantial numbers engaged on that industry who live within the borders of my constituency.
  What action have the Government taken during this period? One of the factors responsible for our present situation has been their policy of credit squeeze and high interest rates, which has borne particularly hard on Scotland and has meant not only that we have been unable to attract new industry but that industries already established in Scotland have closed after finding themselves unable to carry on.
  The Government have done other things, apart from that kind of indirect action, which have greatly aggravated matters. I do not want to examine all that they have done too intimately, but, in opening the debate, it is right for me to remind the House that, in the past month, we have had Government action resulting in the closing of the naval base at Invergordon, the threat of imminent close of the Donibristle naval yard, the same at the naval torpedo factory at Greenock, and the serving of notice upon, and closing of the Royal ordnance factories. These things have meant considerable unemployment, and what we resent bitterly in Scotland is that the Government have done them without taking any steps to provide alternative employment for the people put out of work thereby.
  Only recently, during the debate on the Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it perfectly clear that he had no intention of doing anything to save the shale oil industry of West Midlothian. When this was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for Scotland, very sharply, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman said that he just

  595
  did not understand what my hon. Friends the Member for Hamilton and the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were getting at. He said that the Chancellor did not say it.
  I wish to remind the House that what the Chancellor said was:
  "The best solution in the long term is to do, first, what I understand is being done at present, cut out the least productive sections of the industry"—
  At that point, an hon. Gentleman rightly interjected, "There will be none left"—
  "and, in the longer term, to help in every way we can to encourage new industries to come to the area to absorb those people for whom this industry cannot any longer provide employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 1462–3.]
  I think that he was quite clearly saying that the Government had written off this industry. His words could have no other meaning. When considering the description given to this industry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I cannot understand why he came to that decision. In column 1461 he said:
  "I recognise, straightaway, that this industry has been the mainstay of employment in West Lothian."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 1461.]
  If he really believed that, why did he not take action to preserve the industry? Why did he hand out its death warrant? I regret that on occasions such as that, and in view of the importance of this old industry to Scotland, hon. Members opposite did not show their disapproval of the Government's action. Here, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart). They at least showed their disapproval by abstaining in the Division Lobby, but, as for those who did vote, they tripped through at the behest of the Whip. So their signatures as well as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are on the death warrant for the shale oil industry in West Lothian.
  Let Scotland clearly understand who made the decision. It was made not only in opposition to those who sit on these benches, but was made in spite of a decision made by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland only in May this year. I should like to remind the House of the Report of the Committee on Church and Nation of The Church
  596
  of Scotland. This is the deliverance that was adopted:
  "The General Assembly, concerned at the increase in unemployment in Scotland, and especially at the serious risk of further unemployment in the Shale Oil Industry and the insecurity hanging over those engaged in it, urge upon H.M. Government the desirability of taking steps to protect and save from extinction this long-established and progressively-run Scottish industry, whether by remission of the tax on home-produced diesel oil or by other means."
  That, surely, is a clear and explicit call not only from those who sit on these benches, but from those who represent the Church of Scotland. Indeed, perhaps the General Assembly intended to make that deliverance when the Secretary of State was present, but for some unknown reason he turned up 24 hours late and was unable to hear about it. In case it has not been drawn to his attention, I draw it to his attention this afternoon.
  What of the future, because that is what we have to consider today? We have to consider how we propose to tackle this problem and what it is. It causes concern not only to my colleagues on these benches, but to people throughout Scotland. Indeed, one has only to look at an article by the Industrial Correspondent of the Edinburgh Evening News. This is what he said was the prospect for Scotland in the years ahead:
  "Registrations of building trade apprentices in Scotland dropped by 13·2 per cent. in 1957 compared with 1956. In England and Wales the fall was only 1·9 per cent."
  These figures certainly give us food for thought; but what effect are they having on the Government?
  The article went on to say some very nasty things about the Government, which I shall leave out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] I do not want to leave too much out, but if I confine my speech to what I think are the most important points I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will complete the picture.
  Perhaps, on behalf of those who sit on this side, I should have welcomed at an earlier stage the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade in addition to the Secretary of State for Scotland to this debate.
  To continue, Mr. John Marsh, director of the Industrial Welfare Society, at a conference in Glasgow last week which was, once again, sponsored by the Church

  597
  of Scotland's Church and Industry Committee, had this to say about Scotland's prospects:
  "Unless bold and imaginative thinking and action is encouraged now by the political parties, educationists, industrialists, and, indeed, the Churches, we are likely to have a generation of young people who will be infected by the social cancer of unemployment and who will become inescapably bitter and cynical."
  In view of the figures that I have given, I do not think that that was an overstatement of the position. I say to the Secretary of State that action should be taken quickly.
  What do the Government intend to do about industrial development? You will remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that at the start of my speech I paid tribute to what had been done by the Scottish Office and the late Sir Stafford Cripps to attract new industry to Scotland. In view of the state of affairs in Scotland today, why will not the President of the Board of Trade build advance factories for attracting industry to Scotland? It was that that did so much to help Scotland over the difficult time following the war. The record of the past years does not give any satisfaction in Scotland. The annual survey of the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank Limited takes exactly the same line as we on this side have taken. It comments on industrial development, in its report for 1957, as follows:
  "The annual report of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) noted that 'the restrictions on the building of Government financed factories have affected Scotland particularly severely, since she has, in the past, been more dependent than other areas on this form of building. On average one-sixth of all factory building in Scotland is Government financed'. At all events the area of all new industrial building being planned in Scotland again declined in 1957, and by contrast with 1956 by proportionately more than for Great Britain as a whole."
  That is the position. I point out to the President of the Board of Trade that, in our term of office, for every two feet of factory space being built in Scotland only one was being built in London and the South. Since the Government came to power that position has become completely reversed, so that for every two, or rather more than two, now being built in London and the South, only one is being built in Scotland. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had better give
  598
  some quick thought to the provision of new factories in Scotland. We certainly call for a reversal of the present figures.
  For some considerable time Scotland has been asking for a new graving dock. There is no doubt that mining and shipbuilding are the basic industries of Scotland. But if we are to maintain our place in shipbuilding, maintenance and repairing, it is essential that we should have a graving dock fit to take the largest ships coming from the shipyards of the world. Scotland has a proud record in shipbuilding. I suggest that before the debate finishes we might at least get an answer to that question.
  I had thought of saying something about roads, but after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) in the Scottish Grand Committee I do not think there is anything I need say to stress the need for a Tay Road Bridge. My hon. Friend put the case very forcibly and logically. He said that if we were to make progress in Scotland we should at least have one road that ran from north to south, and not have to ship our goods across certain rivers. Neither do I think it falls to me to say much more about the problems of the Highlands and Highland roads. That point was stressed by hon. Members representing Highland constituencies.
  In addition to improving and modernising our basic industry, post-war history has proved—if it has proved anything—that if we are to improve Scotland's unenviable record of employment we must attract still further new industries to Scotland. This means a new steel strip mill for Scotland. Hon. Members will not be surprised that I raise this matter this afternoon. I want to make it quite clear that Scotland does not regard herself as being in competition with Wales upon this issue. We are not in competition we are merely stating a demand that has existed for a considerable time.
  The case could not have been put better than it was more than three years ago, when it was considered by the Estimates Committee. I want to put this fact on record today, because so many people seem to think that this demand for a strip mill in Scotland is a development of recent months. It is nothing of the kind. I want to refer to evidence

  599
  taken from the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates—Sub-Committee E—on 26th April, 1955. It then had before it as witnesses the Scottish Controller of the Board of Trade, Mr. Allan Young, and Mr. W. C. Kirkwood, the General Manager of the Scottish Industrial Estates Limited.
  Mr. Young was stressing the need for getting new industry to Scotland, and on page 112 of the Report he said:
  "The steel industry in Scotland is geared to the shipbuilding industry, and to heavy engineering. If we were making light steel sheet and strip, that at least might be one factor in attracting up there"—
  that is, to Scotland—
  "industries that would make use of that lighter material"
  Then, at Question 706, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) said:
  "That is the point I wanted to get at. If we are trying to build up an insurance against future unemployment in the shipyards, the desirability of attracting this type of component firm to districts such as yours is more than urgent."
  Mr. Young replied:
  "I should be more than grateful. Sir, if you were able to persuade the Steel Board to put down a new sheet and strip mill in Scotland. I think that would probably do more than all the multitude of smaller things that we have been able to bring in."
  That was the opinion of the Controller of the Board of Trade for Scotland, expressed rather more than three years ago. If it were urgent then, it is more urgent today. Scotland looks forward to a decision on this matter at a very early date.
  We raise all these matters this afternoon because of the plight of Scotland and because, as the Church and Nation Report says, on page 372:
  "The responsibility for maintaining a healthy economy rests primarily on the Government of the day."
  We could not agree more with that, and we hope that the Government will accept their responsibility. Scotland is more than willing to play her part in securing and maintaining a sound economy in Great Britain. She is also willing to play her part in the European Free Trade Area—but let the Government make sure that Scotland is equipped to do the job.
  Mr. John Taylor: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has a great advantage over me in that he comes from Scotland and knows his subject inside out. I think that the whole House was impressed with the serious way in which he approached this vital problem. I feel that I ought to ask for the indulgence of the House—
  Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will not get it.
  Sir D. Eccles:—because it is the first time that I have ever spoken on Scottish problems.
  The Board of Trade has to take a balanced view of the national economy, which means that I have to think of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland. I shall try to take a balanced view of the Scottish part of our national economy. I had better declare my interest. I sit for the English county in which I live, and the only one of my ancestors who has secured his place in the history books could not have achieved his title to fame if he had not emigrated from Scotland.
  In modern times no people have made a greater name for themselves, both inside and outside their country, than the Scots. Every hon. Member, in his travels, must have been struck by the commanding influence of Scotsmen wherever fortunes are being made and great developments are in hand, especially in the Commonwealth. If one goes to a place like British Columbia one finds that it is almost like being in a part of Scotland. The accent is heard everywhere, and the names of the leading citizens are Ross, Fraser and Macmillan.
  Listening to the hon. Member for Leith I was confirmed in an old opinion of mine, that the Scots like to have it both ways; they like to go roving in search of prizes and high honours, and they also want someone to see that there is a prosperous and well-ordered home to go back to. That is a dual and very human desire, but it is not always very easy to achieve.
  I asked what sort of people emigrated from Scotland last year, and I was told

  601
  that among the considerable number doing so many had professional qualifications, and others were skilled engineers, whose services were badly needed in Scotland. That shows that the roving spirit is still alive.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: There were no opportunities for them at home.
  Sir D. Eccles: That is exactly what is not true. If the hon. Member will look at the categories of people who left Scotland last year he will find many for whom jobs were available in Scotland. It shows that the roving spirit is still alive.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the remarks of such an eminent person as the Principal of Edinburgh University—Sir Edward Appleton—who has been regretting the fact that a great number of science graduates and others who come out of Scottish universities have no opportunity of employment in Scotland?
  Sir D. Eccles: I have the utmost regard for Sir Edward Appleton, whom I think is a very fine man, but although there were many vacancies in skilled engineering many skilled engineers still went abroad. In spite of the fact that the average Scotsman is two years younger than the average Englishman it is sometimes rather difficult to find people to run some of the Scottish industries.
  But this afternoon we are considering employment inside Scotland and I should like to begin, in answer to the chief point made by the hon. Member for Leith, by asking what should be the limits of Government action to keep men and women from moving away from their homes.
  Mr. Hoy: There is a difference between keeping them from moving away and driving them away.
  Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member can have it as he likes, but the point is how far should we go to keep them from moving.
  Mr. T. Fraser: It is nothing of the kind.
  Sir D. Eccles: We have today a distribution of industry policy and we have powers to implement it. Suppose that the relevant Acts of Parliament had always been on the Statute Book. If
  602
  the principles of applying them have always been to bring work to the worker, we should have had no Industrial Revolution and no British Commonwealth, and we should have remained the impoverished and insular society of the Middle Ages.
  Mr. Douglas Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlarge upon this thesis to which he has given vent? I find it difficult to follow his statement.
  Sir D. Eccles: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the reason why we have built up these enormous populations in different parts of the United Kingdom was that people have moved away from their homes and gone there. He is entitled to say that he would have preferred us not to have had an Industrial Revolution, but if we had always had this policy we should never have had the great industrial centres in the United Kingdom.
  But times change, and in our industrialised age it looks very much as if we were deliberately trying to persuade some industry to go where it does not want to go. That is the essence of a distribution of industry policy. We do not quarrel with that policy. It is a policy which the Government and the House support. I want to see this afternoon how successful we have been in Scotland in achieving that policy and how successful we are likely to be.
  The first thing that one learns when administering the distribution of industry policy is that the general state of business has an overwhelming influence on what can be done. For a good many years we have had very prosperous times in industry, and since 1948 industry in Scotland has grown, both in size and in diversity. Production is up by 28 per cent. It is difficult to pick out particular examples, but of sizeable factories, each employing several hundreds of workers, nine have been completed since July, 1957, 10 are under construction and 10 more have been approved in the last few months. This cannot be described as a very bleak or stagnant situation. Hon. Members are also well aware of the range and number of developments outside Scotland's traditional industrial centres.
  I was very pleased to see the Glasgow Herald Mid-Year Review of Industry and Commerce giving fine publicity to these striking achievements, of which I suppose

  603
  the most dramatic is the research and development establishment at Dounreay, on which the eyes of all the nuclear physicists of the world are certainly centred. Then there are the electricity generating programme, which stretches from Chapel-cross to Loch Shin, Hunterston to Kincardine-on-Forth, the oil pipeline terminal on Loch Long, the £6 million extension to the British Petroleum Company's refinery at Grangemouth, all to be completed in a year or so, and the £6½ million Lurgi gasification plant which is being installed in Fife. All these are impressive power developments.
  In civil engineering the Clyde Tunnel and the Forth Bridge will stimulate a wider spread of industry from Glasgow and Edinburgh. Several new or expanding towns are going ahead, based on industry coming in from outside Scotland. We very much welcome these American firms and we hope that there will be more of them. Together with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) we are doing our best to attract them.
  I should, however, like to correct the statement made last Tuesday by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). He said that Scottish Industrial Estates had dozens of applications for factory accommodation from American, Continental and Scottish firms, and that Scottish Industrial Estates was unable to provide factories for them. I regret to say that that is completely untrue.
  Mr. James McInnes: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for Scottish Industrial Estates. Will he read the speech of the chairman of that body, from which I quote? He said:
  "We have had 100 inquiries for factory space from Scottish firms in the last twelve months. No fewer than twelve American corporations and one French concern have shown interest in coming to Scotland. It is a regrettable fact that we have not been in a position to offer them these factories."
  Sir D. Eccles: That speech was made two years ago, and it was not accurate then.
  Mr. McInnes: The speech was made at the end of 1956, which is a year and a half ago.
  Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member will find that it is almost two years. In any
  604
  case, the House may as well know the position today. There are no applications from American or Continental firms for factory space from Scottish Industrial Estates, and it is not correct to say that we have turned down any applications.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman departing from that part of his speech about the distribution of industry? If so, does he not realise that it is a bogus distribution of industry, that nothing is being done for the North of Scotland, and that industry is concentrating in the South?
  Sir D. Eccles: I have a good deal more to say about the distribution of industry.
  There is no doubt that a major factor in the present lack of applications for factory space in Scotland is that Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, has felt the effects of the check to industrial expansion in the last twelve months.
  Mr. William Hamilton: In the last four years.
  Sir D. Eccles: Any kind of recession or restraint in demand reduces the number of firms willing to expand and reduces still more the number willing to expand in an unfamiliar area. Most of the increase of 1 per cent. in unemployment in Scotland since the debate on this subject last year was due to national or international causes.
  Mr. Ross: One per cent.? The right hon. Gentleman had better get someone to look at his figures.
  Sir D. Eccles: Yes, 22,000 is 1 per cent.
  Steel, machine tools, wool and building are some of the industries which have been affected by the credit squeeze, or by what has happened in world trade. On the other hand, chemicals and electrical equipment, together with the food and drink industry, have expanded very well.
  Mr. Ross: I believe that the unemployment figure last year was about 54,000. At present, it is 76,000. That is an increase of nearly 22,000. A 22,000 increase on 55,000 is, with due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who used to be Minister of Education, not 1 per cent.
  Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member is simply taking a basis which is not important. Twenty-two thousand is 1 per cent. of the insured workers in Scotland.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not say so in the first place?
  Sir D. Eccles: Because everybody knows what I was referring to.
  This fact of some industries doing well while others are not doing so well is a pattern which is visible right across the United Kingdom. The first thing I would say about this is that employment today would be much more precarious than it is if the inflation had not been tackled with vigour and success. We have had to pay for the steadying of prices and for the strengthening of the £ by a reduction in the number of unfilled vacancies and by a small increase in the registered unemployed. But the result of the improving financial position we now have is that we can cautiously and safely begin to expand, and that result will benefit every industry and every area in the United Kingdom.
  It would have been much worse for Scotland if the £ had had to be devalued, or if we had been driven to adopt import controls and all the paraphernalia of restrictions on activities singled out by Whitehall because they were considered to be less essential. I should have thought that every hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency would realise that the only alternative to dealing with inflation by general monetary measures is by controls, and, therefore, by an increase in the power of London over the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ross: Everything for London.
  Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. Gentleman does not wish London to control Scotland, he had better not have a Socialist policy.
  The Government's monetary measures have worked well, but the addition of the American recession, has, of course, increased the difficulties. As a result, orders for some well-known Scottish products have fallen, particularly Canadian orders for woollens and steel products. I am glad that the United States Government has agreed to lift the higher tariff from handwoven tweed. That will particularly help the Islands. At the same time, I must record with regret that the tariff quota, which has been imposed by the United States, hits particularly hard the Scottish Border tweed industry. If
  606
  my hon. Friend the Member far Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) were here, he would be glad to know that whisky, as ever, is going from strength to strength.
  Therefore, by far and away the most important thing we can do to help Scottish industry is, both at home and abroad, to create the conditions for a general upturn in trade. We cannot expand our British output much in advance of world recovery, but we can and we are putting ourselves in a position to take advantage of that recovery, and we are encouraging others to co-operate in renewed expansion.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I have been listening with great interest to the argument. I agree that the general economic situation might affect Scotland, but could the Minister explain the point in my hon. Friend's speech that, whilst employment has been going down in Scotland, it has been going up in London? We are interested in the distribution of the existing unemployment as well as in the general economic developments.
  Sir D. Eccles: I think it is largely true that the consumer industries have done better in the last twelve months than the investment industries, and, of course, there is a large concentration of consumer industry down here in the South.
  I have made a few general remarks about the state of industry, because until confidence in an upturn in world trade returns the limits are narrow within which the Board of Trade can find firms willing to start up or extend their business in Scotland, or, indeed, in any other part of the United Kingdom where there is heavy local unemployment.
  Nevertheless, a lot has been done. We have never refused an industrial development certificate for Scotland, but we have sometimes failed to persuade firms to go there, as we have failed to persuade them to go to Wales or to the English coastal belt where there is unemployment. To increase the pressure on expanding firms we are told that we ought to refuse more industrial development certificates in the southern half of England. Well, we refuse them for new factories in London, in the South-East area and in the Birmingham area, but they can rarely be refused for an extension, and it is the

  607
  number of extensions which has had to be matched by these certificates in recent months.
  The Board of Trade is in a difficult position. We always have to judge between insisting that a certificate will be granted only if the firm goes where it does not want to go and the risk that this insistence may mean that the expansion never takes place.
  Mr. T. Fraser: The Minister has been telling us that the Board of Trade always refuses applications for new factories in London, Birmingham and elsewhere, but generally grants applications for extensions. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of the new factories are not, in fact, extensions of existing industrial establishments? Are they all extensions?
  Sir D. Eccles: No, it is when the unit which it is proposed to create is self-contained. It is fairly easy to see when it can be considered a new factory.
  Mr. Fraser: It is not.
  Sir D. Eccles: We do not have much difficulty in distinguishing between the two.
  Mr. Fraser: No, because they are always called extensions.
  Sir D. Eccles: That is not correct.
  Naturally, the state of trade has a big influence on the readiness of firms to take risks. It has always been easier to persuade big firms to go to unfamiliar places than small firms. The small firm often feels that it has not got the experience to cope with unknown difficulties in a strange area.
  The hon. Member for Leith thought that we could persuade more firms to move to Scotland if we built advance factories. We have already given the House the reasons why, at this stage, so long after the post-war scramble, we do not believe that that would be effective. In Scotland, we have on our hands, or about to become vacant, a number of defence establishments. We are ready to give assistance to any industrialist for the conversion of those establishments to industrial uses. That constitutes quite a considerable pool of premises coming on to the market.
  608
  In addition, we have now eight vacant factories in Scottish Development Areas, so we are in a position to supply a ready-made factory to anyone who wants it. Generally speaking, however, the new firm nowadays demands a tailor-made building. The days when premises were as scarce as they were just after the war have long been over, and it is our experience that the provision of a building which is not suited to the work that is to go into it has not got much attraction today. None the less, when these factories become vacant, we do all we can to find a new tenant.
  I must say that Government money for building a factory is not a big enough inducement unless other conditions are satisfactory. Apart from transport costs, which may often cancel out the subsidised rent we are able to offer, the most powerful of these inducements are, first, the feeling that management will not meet unpredictable troubles in a strange area and, secondly, that the area itself is a good place to start in and to grow in.
  The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has done a very fine job in fostering confidence that Scotland is a good place to go to, and I wish to pay a tribute to Lord Polwarth—who never leaves me alone, and quite rightly—for the energy and enthusiasm he has been putting into the chairmanship of the Executive Committee of that Council. He was appointed a member of the Dollar Exports Council Mission to Canada, where I know he made a great many speeches both in his native accent and in French, and greatly impressed the Canadians about doing business in Scotland. The Board of Trade backs up the Council, and, in particular, we stress the good qualities of the Scottish workman.
  I should like to give the House just one example of those qualities, because it struck me very forcibly. Recently, the Cleveland Twist Drill Company started up in Peterhead. The management told me it thought that it would take eighteen months for the factory to become established and for the labour to be trained to a high level of efficiency. However, only six months after production began the company is beating its competitors in North American markets. That is a remarkable achievement. I

  609
  believe that the same would be true of the labour in other parts of Scotland.
  The worst service that anyone can render to an area with unemployment troubles is to talk of nothing but its woes. I say that advisedly. I have noticed—and from time to time I have told deputations—that it is clear that industrialists are put off by an area which is sorry for itself.
  That leads me to say that the distribution of industry by Government action can be successful only if one of two conditions are fulfilled. Either the State must control all investment, as in Russia, and that means directing savings, management and labour. One would then be able to order some Scots to stay in Scotland or some Welshmen to stay in Wales or others to move and manage or work in a factory in the desired place.
  We have not got those powers; we are glad to have the only other alternative of a free society where direction of labour is ruled out. There must then be a high degree of confidence in the general outlook for trade and in the particular area to which it is wished to persuade a firm to go. Money is not a sufficient substitute for confidence. One must be prepared, as I see it after my short experience at the Board of Trade, either to bully people with strict physical controls or else to create conditions in which businessmen are self-confident and ready to respond to the kind of help which it is reasonable for the Exchequer to give them.
  I would say that over the last twenty years private enterprise has increasingly shown a responsibility towards the wider issues of national policy. We have received a great deal of help from many public-spirited firms which could have made much more money if they had not taken into their calculations the social issues involved.
  In an endeavour to further this work we are now using again the full powers to make D.A.T.A.C. loans in Development Areas—that is, Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee loans—and when the amending Bill becomes law we shall be able to give such assistance anywhere where a high rate of unemployment is likely to persist, and to give it for a wider range of objects than industry proper. Later, I shall mention one of those objects.
  610
  As we have been operating these Development Area powers in Dundee, I thought that the House might like to have an account of what has actually been achieved there because it shows what can be done by a concentration of effort in circumstances which are anything but easy. The same concentration of effort has, of course, been applied to Greenock.
  We have advertised far and wide the fact that public money was available to build new factories in Dundee. We have had very great help from the local authority. Dundee and Greenock have been plugged with every applicant for an industrial development certificate who showed the slightest inclination to go to Scotland, and the results are interesting and on the whole, I think, good.
  Since 1945, 13 firms, mainly in Board of Trade factories, have started to manufacture in Dundee. Now I come to recent times. This year six more Government-financed factory buildings have been authorised and two industrial development certificates have been issued for private factory extensions. Well over 2,000 more jobs are thus in sight.
  I should like to draw particular attention to the new factory for the Astral Equipment Company which will employ 800 workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) is chairman of the company, and I thank him and his associates for the splendid way in which they have co-operated with us. This is a very go-ahead company, and I feel sure that it will make a great success of the new plant in Dundee, where it has already had some satisfactory experience. This very day I have approved a larger extension—considerably larger than we had previously heard of—costing about £500,000 to be provided out of public funds for the National Cash Register Company, which will in time give work to more than 500 people.
  I must say a word about the jute industry. The jute industry itself is, of course, becoming more mechanised, and, in any event, would require less labour for that reason. We hope that some of the jute manufacturers will, with help from the Government, further diversify their production. We hope that very much because as things are now a great deal of substitution of other materials for jute

  611
  seems to be inevitable in certain important products, and it is this substitution which worries us. Prices for jute goods have now to be kept too high for the good health of the industry. They are kept high by the method of the Jute Control, which is familiar to the House.
  The Jute Control has made an accumulated profit of £2 million since the war. In that time the Board of Trade has spent £1·6 million on new factories in Dundee, and since I went to the Board of Trade I have authorised further factories which will cost another £1·7 million. So we have spent, or are committed to spend, a good deal more than the profit of the Control to date.
  It is a fact that at this moment the Control is making about £1·5 million a year—so high have the mark-ups to be—but these profits are bound to decline if the substitutes for jute gain the market. That is why the only long-term policy is to make public funds available for creating new employment in and around Dundee so that the consequences of what must be considered an unsatisfactory form of protection can be met without undue hardship.
  It is wrong to believe that the whole of the jute industry is doomed, as I sometimes see stated in the Press. As I understand, there always will be many important specialities which Dundee and the area around can make in competition with the world. What does trouble me is that those who have to transport goods should have to pay for jute sacks a price so much higher than the world price that they are being driven to use substitutes. So the Government's policy must be to diversify employment in Dundee, and this we are doing with a concentration of effort not exceeded in any other difficult area in the United Kingdom.
  I have already undertaken not to reduce the mark-up on jute goods without consulting the industry. I do not want to do it. I want to see more employment created; but I think we have to face the fact that at these levels of prices paper and other materials will make inroads. Therefore, it is up to all of us—I think the people in Dundee, the manufacturers, can help very much—to be imaginative and bold and to take advantage of the very considerable financial help offered for the diversification of employment for both men and women.
  Mr. John Strachey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking not to reduce the mark-up any further so long as there is abnormal unemployment in Dundee? That seems to be the important thing—not just before consulting the jute industry. Surely he is aware that if employment in the jute industry continues to fall as fast as it is falling now his 2,000 new jobs for Dundee will not even maintain the present level of employment.
  Sir D. Eccles: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot give him that assurance because there is a very large industry which makes up sacks and whose employees would lose their livelihood, with the result that the substitution would go further. What we have to do is to create as much new employment as we can and to watch this situation. It is not a successful form of protection which results in the death of the industry which one is trying to protect—if not the whole of the industry, at least a considerable portion of it.
  I want now to say a word about Greenock. Since 1945, 12 firms have moved into the Port Glasgow-Greenock area, including nine which were new not only to Greenock, but to Scotland. There have also been about half-a-dozen developments by local firms, bringing the total of jobs provided in the area since 1945 to about 4,000. Last year, arrangements were made for the Board of Trade to double the size of the large factory at Spango Valley occupied by Industrial Business Machines Ltd. Invitations to tender for this building were ready to issue when only two weeks ago the firm told us that because of technical developments it had been forced to revise its production plans.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and I both saw the representative of the firm. I regret that the extension is to be reduced to about half. I fully appreciate the disappointment which this will cause in Greenock and it is also very disappointing to the Board of Trade. However, the firm has agreed to buy the factory and the extension, and that is a guarantee that it will be established in the neighbourhood permanently. The firm has said that it will expand in the future as soon as it can. That is disappointing news for Greenock, but there is something better to come.

  613
  We have authorised the provision from public funds for an extension to another Board of Trade factory, occupied by the International Latex Corporation, which will cost about £300,000 and provide 500 jobs. We are making very special efforts already to find a tenant for the Torpedo Experimental Establishment which will become vacant at the end of next year. The hon. Member for Leith mentioned graving docks. I agree that it is of the greatest importance to the Clyde that there should be a large new dock and it is to Greenock that we expect it to go.
  I understand that progress is being made by the local interests on whom, of course, rests the main responsibility for planning the development and organising the finance. D.A.T.A.C.—the authority which considers the loan—is considering the scheme in principle and is awaiting further details. I am sure that when these plans get to the point where finance can be arranged, they will get a very sympathetic reception. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has put on a great deal of pressure, and he is a man of considerable influence.
  As we knew he would, the hon. Member for Leith had a word to say about the fourth strip mill. The House will know that the Prime Minister gave an answer to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) saying that the Government were not in a position to make a statement on the siting of the proposed new mill. The technical and social problems involved have proved particularly baffling and particularly contentious. All I can add to the Prime Minister's statement is that no news is good news for somebody.
  I want to refer to tourism, which is a responsibility of the Board of Trade.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has already dealt with two areas where unemployment is very high, but in Lanarkshire, not merely in my own constituency but over the whole of North Lanarkshire, there is a higher figure of unemployment than that for Dundee, for instance. Will not the right hon. Gentleman deal with that area of Scotland?
  Sir D. Eccles: I know the figures for North Lanarkshire and I know that they are serious. We are trying to help there,
  614
  but that unemployment largely stems from the general decline in heavy products, which is due to the recession in world trade. When world trade picks up, I have every hope that the Lanarkshire employment position will pick up with it.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: A great area of North Lanarkshire is covered by Coatbridge, where unemployment is 8 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman has got a great deal to do there if he is to do anything at all.
  Sir D. Eccles: I thank the hon. Lady for bringing it to my attention.
  I was about to say something about tourism. We can all agree that nowhere beats Scotland for a holiday, but not enough people go there as yet. When I was Minister of Works, I was proud to be responsible for ancient monuments in Scotland and I visited the abbeys and other treasures, the Edinburgh Gardens, for example, which gave me the very greatest pleasure. Those ancient monuments were well looked after and were a credit to their guardians.
  Tourists who go to Scotland will, therefore, find unique scenery and objects of beauty which will reward them for their visit, but the tourist industry as a whole has many problems which need to be considered. Last May, those were brought to our attention by a national conference on tourism, at which Scotland was well represented. It was made very clear to us that this rapidly expanding industry had a number of interesting ideas which required to be followed up. Not least there was the universal complaint about the shortage of hotels in the peak season.
  I know that that shortage is very acute in part of the North of Scotland and in the Islands, too. In the Board of Trade we are studying, with the help of other Departments, all the problems raised by the tourist trade. The House might like to know the basic figures of the tourist industry, figures which are unique in the growth which they show. In 1947, 400,000 people visited Britain. They spent £31 million here and they had paid £17½ million in fares to British carriers. Ten years later, in 1957, 1,180,000 visitors came to Britain and spent £128 million here and had paid £52 million in fares to British carriers. There is no industry earning foreign exchange which is expanding at the same rate as tourism and whose future is so good. In the Board of Trade we are now

  615
  studying, with the help of other Departments, all the problems raised by this trade.
  Mr. Woodburn: May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? There is a slight complaint that while films about Scotland get their share from the British Holidays and Travel Association, the Government have not so far given any assistance to Scottish-produced films which would do a great deal to help the Scottish industry, since they are produced with enthusiasm by the people most interested.
  Sir D. Eccles: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I will certainly consider that and write to him about it.
  I am convinced that in making this study we shall find that Scotland has particular opportunities and that perhaps they have not been developed as they should have been. I give the House an assurance that we will pay special attention to the tourist industry in Scotland.
  In the meantime, the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill, amending the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, will allow the Government, where there is high and persistent unemployment, and there is a need for an hotel, to advance money for building such an hotel. That may well attract some fresh minds and fresh adventure into the hotel business which at present, I am told, is lagging a little because it has not been possible to find the capital.
  I apologise for keeping the House so long. I was asked one or two questions which I have not answered. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will speak about shale oil and no doubt other hon. Members will raise points during the debate. Some may be Board of Trade points and I will write to each hon. Member concerned if my right hon. Friend does not have time to answer all the questions put when he winds up the debate.
  Sir Beverley Baxter: Will my right hon. Friend elucidate an important point? The right hon. Gentleman said that the whisky was going from strength to strength—we are very glad to hear that—but is he aware that that has not proved the case with the
  616
  whisky served to us in the refreshment rooms of the House of Commons?
  Sir D. Eccles: I know that my hon. Friend is an admirable judge. I will leave it to him to take the proper steps.
  I should like to record the appreciation of the Board of Trade and of my colleagues for the vigour in Scottish industry and particularly the contributions which it is now making to the export trade. It is very satisfactory to note that in 1958 the number of inquiries about export markets received by Board of Trade Office in Scotland is substantially greater than it was in the same period of 1957. I think that it is between 15 and 20 per cent. higher.
  The Canadian Trade Mission which came here last December went out of its way to tell me, just before leaving, how well it had been received in Scotland and how much it had been impressed by Scottish industry. There seems to be nothing wrong with Scottish industry, except that there is not yet quite enough of it. We are endeavouring to fill the gaps and I think that we shall be able to do so in increasing volume.
  It is sometimes very difficult to persuade a firm to go to Scotland, but I have yet to find a single one which, on going there, regretted its decision. Hon. Members who sit for Scottish seats can help the Board of Trade in this matter by advertising the attractions of Scotland for new industry.
  The Government are under no illusions about the formidable qualities of the people from whom you Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Mr. Speaker himself, the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the Minister of Labour and the First Lord of the Admiralty come. They do not allow us Englishmen to take lightly the virtues of the Kingdom from which they come. It is quite clear that a Conservative Government is not subject to the Goschen formula. From very practical experience I ask the House to share our confidence in Scotland's ability to carve out a marvellous future for her industries.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: We must pay tribute to the President of the Board of Trade for the very

  617
  nice things which he has said about Scotland and about Scotsmen, and also about the efforts that certain Scots industrialists are making to help and assist Scotland. However, I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade gave any indication what further steps the Government are taking at this time to help and assist Scotland to deal with her problems.
  Many hon. Members wish to speak this afternoon. I want to set an example by speaking for only ten or twelve minutes so that as many Members as possible may have an opportunity to speak. I want to direct my remarks to the President of the Board of Trade to the subject of industrial estate policy.
  In my own constituency, there is the Strathleven industrial estate. That industrial estate is there because of the unemployment position in the inter-war years, because of the difficulties of the United Turkey Red Company, and because of the plight of the whole of that area just prior to the war. The area itself was very happy to welcome the new industrial estate at Strathleven and looked forward with pleasure to it being made successful.
  Four factories were built. West Clox and Burroughs Adding Machines are the two main ones, and both of these factories have extended. The occupants of one of the factories had to give it up. When that industry came to the area many of us in Scotland wondered what would happen if any decline took place, because it was part of another English firm. When, in fact, decline did take place this was the first factory to close. Instead of this factory being offered to other firms, it was given over as an extension to one of the already existing factories. Unfortunately, for a fair length of time it was used only for storage.
  It was only because of the agitation of the trade union movement in the district that the firm which took over the factory started to do something about it. Nothing else has been done. No other building has been taking place on the Strathleven Industrial Estate. I was very much concerned that when one of the firms, Burroughs Adding Machines, which had been very successful and employed a large number of people, wanted to add to its factory space it was invited by the Government—I will not use the word "ordered" but coerced by the Government,
  618
  understand—to go to Cumbernauld. I should like to know exactly what happened in that particular instance.
  The President of the Board of Trade, in his speech, referred to two main parts of Scotland, Greenock and Dundee. I think that a tribute is due to the Members for those two constituencies for getting so much publicity for those two parts of the country. But these are not the only parts of Scotland that are in difficulties. In Dunbartonshire the unemployment level is 6 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) says that it is 8 per cent. in her constituency, and in Lanarkshire, generally, the figures are rising and are. I understand, about 7 per cent. We would not expect our colleagues from Greenock and Dundee to object to the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour having a look at the other parts of Scotland as well.
  I want to know if any efforts are being made to attract industrialists to the Strathleven industrial estate. There is still plenty of space there and accommodation for factories which could well be built. The President of the Board of Trade said that he never refused an industrial certificate to any firm that wanted to go to Scotland. But that is not the only difficulty. We have quite a number of very old factories which were given up by the United Turkey Red Company in the Vale of Leven and a number of industrialists have been taking over some of those factories.
  An industry from the south was interested in one of those factories. It was to be a completely new industry. It was something which would have been worth while, but although the bank was prepared to offer credit, the Capital Issues Committee refused to give its permission. It is not, therefore, merely a question of getting an industrial certificate. The capital is required also.
  We have been told that the Government expect that something will be done in connection with the military establishments and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) will, no doubt, have something to say about Dalmuir. One of the arguments that the Government have put is that Babcock & Wilcox, who will be taking over this factory, will provide alternative work for the people there. But we

  619
  already have a factory owned by Babcock & Wilcox in Dumbarton, only three or four miles away, and it has gone on to short-time, working four days a week. It is not very encouraging for those now working in the Dalmuir factory to think what will happen when Babcock & Wilcox take it over. Short-time working is in operation also in other parts of the Vale of Leven.
  In the difficult days between the wars, the unemployment figure was round about 60 or 70 per cent. because of the complete failure of the basic industry in the Vale of Leven. One of the features that strikes me today is that the people, recognising the signs that are showing themselves, are very conscious of their position. Even today, ten years after the war, there are still signs of the difficult times of that earlier period, both in the area and among the population. They welcomed the new industrial estate at Strathleven as being something substantial and something to which they could look forward as providing employment. It has, in fact, provided employment.
  I have been informed that there are American firms which want to come to Scotland. Difficulties may perhaps have been put in their way—I do not know—but we ought to be told whether these American firms have been given the assistance which they should have been given to enable them to come to this country. Would it be possible, in consultation with them, to have some advance factories for this purpose? I should like to know whether the position in Strathleven has been altered. I have asked Questions of the Secretary of State for Scotland and have had correspondence with various Departments about the Strathleven industrial estate and I have been told that the policy of the Government was to pay attention to those places where there was a high rate of unemployment and that there would be no further building at the Strathleven estate. Now, the unemployment is up to 6 per cent. May I have an assurance that something will be done now?
  We have, of course, the Blackburn Aircraft factory, which employs a large number of skilled workers. The figure has now dwindled to about 180, however, and I very much fear that before the end of the year there will be no
  620
  workers in the factory at all. I hope and trust that we may have an indication of the Government's policy about the industrial estates. Are they to be used as it was hoped they would be used? I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland will say whether there is any prospect of new building at the Strathleven industrial estate.
  5.14 p.m.
  Sir James Hutchison: I greatly appreciate the presence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to listen to this debate, because many of the questions which will arise in discussion of this important subject lead directly to his Department. It is true, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) said, that these debates have taken place every year since the first occasion when there was a two-day debate, but I do not think that at any time was it more important for us to try to look into the rather obscure future and take decisions than it is at present.
  There are two particular factors which have not come into play in our considerations before but which must enter into our thoughts today. The first is what effect the Common Market or the Free Trade Area will have on Scottish trade and what we should be doing about it so far as Scotland can do anything by itself. The second is the progress that the Soviets are making in their trade efficiency.
  If we look at recent trade returns, we find that apart from the mining and quarrying industry, in which we have always had a rather raw deal, the production of manufactured goods in Scotland has not been bad. Taking 1948 as 100, they have risen to 133 in 1957, or a 33⅓ per cent. increase. We must, however, remember when making comparisons with foreign statistics that we were not like many foreign countries which after the war started from almost nothing.
  It is true that we have not done quite so well in Scotland as in England, where the comparable figures are 100 and 143. One of the great difficulties which we have always been up against, however, is that a large consuming public—this is where the Common Market and the Free

  621
  Trade Area enter into our considerations—has always tended to attract especially the consumer-providing industries. That is why Members, on both sides, join in asking for special consideration for Scotland. I mean special consideration of Scotland's problem which may lead to special treatment.
  We deplore the fact that unemployment in Scotland has remained stubbornly about double that of England and the figures for our development areas remain disappointingly high. Since February, however, the rate of Scottish unemployment has slightly diminished, whereas in England it has shown a slight increase. Outside the black spots in Scotland, we should not look upon the present figure too tragically. I think it was Lord Beveridge who said that 3 per cent. unemployment was not to be regarded as being anything unreasonable. I should like to bring it down somewhat and say that we must not get worried if there is something like 2 per cent. unemployment, which, in any case, is probably about the percentage which is taken up by transition. While we are thinking in terms of unemployment, let us also for the moment think in terms of employment, because last year we were very close to the all-time record for employment of 1956.
  Having said that, let me now say that the prospects concerning unemployment are rather disquieting. When National Service comes to an end, and when we work ourselves into what is known as the school-leaving "bulge", unless we can provide considerably increased employment in Scotland we may find the present unemployment figures vary nearly doubled. That is something that we cannot regard with any equanimity.
  What sort of factors come into our thinking apart from the effect of the American recession, which looks as if it is spending itself and at last flattening out? I mentioned earlier the question of the Common Market and possible Russian trade aggression. Both of these factors demand 100 per cent. efficiency in industry, whether it be in Scotland or in England, and they also, in my view, demand the arrival of a Free Trade Area.
  If we recognise the progress that we have been making, and which has already been outlined by my right hon. Friend,
  622
  in attracting American industry to Scotland—and many of our plans are based on attracting it even further in the future—we must recognise that America has found a great attraction in coming to Scotland because of its easy entry into the Commonwealth market, which, however, is not as easy a market as it used to be. Commonwealth countries are tending to want to build up their own industrial development and make it a bit more difficult for the goods from this country to get in.
  If a Common Market is set up in Europe with a consuming population of 160 million, the Americans will think very hard before they go on setting up their factories in a country with a consuming population of 50 million—and a much more difficult Commonwealth trade than used to be the case—when at the same time there is the pull of a 160 million consuming public in the centre of Europe. That is why I think it so important for Scotland that the Free Trade Area should in fact come about. Otherwise, we shall find it very difficult to attract these American industries to Scotland because, as I am sure every hon. Member knows, the Free Trade Area brings us into a Common Market, and those disadvantages disappear.
  I wish to turn for a moment to the question of Government-financed factories. In this connection Scotland has done well, in that Scotland has had a high proportion of the finance which in recent years has been approved for this purpose. But we still need diversification of industry. I, and most hon. Members, have preached that almost ever since the war. We are not sufficiently well represented in the new scientifically based industries, in electronics, in the chemical industries and so on. We must all remember how all along we have been disappointed that Scotland was not represented properly in the motor car industry, or indeed in the aircraft industry either. That points the finger to the sort of industry that the Government ought to seek to attract by the methods which my right hon. Friend has indicated, and which we all know.
  The result of this lack of scientifically based industry has led to some rather disappointing, almost distressing, figures of the number of scientists, of which Scotland is training more than her share, but of whom very few remain in Scotland.

  623
  Once we have completed the training of these young scientific men, the next step is to provide employment for them and to keep them in our country.
  I am delighted that the Government are taking wider powers under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill, so that grants and loans to any suitable type of trade or business may be made available in a less restricted manner than before—provided, of course, that there is a high level of unemployment in the area.
  I should like to join forces with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) about the treatment of the Development Areas and the new town areas in this matter. I am a little puzzled—as I think was the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West if I understood him aright—about whether the Government are to help with finance concerns that want to come into one of these new town areas, with the provision perhaps of a factory into which goes Government finance and which can then be rented, if they so want it. Is the finance and help to be withheld because there is not already a high rate of unemployment? It looks to me as though we are chasing our tail in the most absurd way by trying to attract industry into one of the new town areas, where it is essential that industry should go if the population is to come—and it would be tragic to attract a large population if there is nothing for them to work at—and then, before that situation has developed, for the Government to say, "But the financial assistance which would have been available, had there been a high rate of unemployment in that area, is not yet available, because unemployment has not yet come about."
  Perhaps I have not got the picture correct in my mind, but I should be glad to know the position about Government help in these new areas in order to attract further concerns. May I take this opportunity to ask whether any other concern is offering to come to the Cumbernauld district? We know the success there has been with the Burroughs Adding Machine factory which I understand will employ about 3,000 people. That is a small proportion of the total population ultimately to be absorbed by the new town at Cumbernauld. May we be told whether there is a prospect of other
  624
  industries coming into that area, or is this the only one at the moment?
  May I make a point which I am glad to note has been underlined in various debates in another place and in the Government document, about the powers of local authorities to build? They have been rarely used. I do not know how far local authorities were unaware of the powers they had, but I hope that they will be used much more generously in the future. I understand that now Scottish Industrial Estates are available to advise local authorities in connection with these building plans and I wonder whether this has been brought closely to the attention of all the local authorities concerned.
  May I ask my right hon. Friend this question in that connection? If local authorities are, in fact, to be asked to provide industrial accommodation and to build factories for newcomers, cannot the Government think about relaxing the money borrowing rates for that purpose? In other words, could not local authorities obtain money by something like the old method than having to go, for this purpose only, to the money market? That would be an inducement to local authorities to go ahead with plans for building factories for newcomers to their areas.
  I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State one question which I will put very shortly. It arises from the debate we had on research, because research is desperately important in relation to the efficiency of industry. I think that some progress has been made in research thinking since our debate a year ago when it was pointed out how important it is to get applied research through to the user. In that debate it was shown that at least the problem was understood, but I was disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend, and the Joint Under-Secretary, say that only industry could take the thing any further.
  I wish to make another plea—I made it last year—for the small concern. It is not good enough to expect the small concern to know to what sort of research establishment it should direct itself in connection with its own business. Such concerns have neither the personnel, the knowledge, nor the staff, to be able to follow the complications of that, and often they do not know where to go. In

  625
  every other form of commerce it is a conception of trade that if a firm has something it wants somebody to buy or make use of, it goes out and tries to sell it. That can equally well apply to applied research. I know that the staff is not there. I am really pleading for a staff to be created, either under the Scottish Council or the Board of Trade or jointly.
  Once something has been discovered and this research has been translated into applied research we should start thinking of who could be benefited or how the discovery could be circulated rather like the organisation called the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, goes about urging people to economise in fuel consumption. That organisation has taken a much greater initiative than has ever been taken in applied research. I should like to see the same initiative taken in applied research. Let us at least go as far as that. When something has been discovered, when it is found that something used in an engineering concern, in a mill or in a garage may be improved—there are a million things that could be done, but about which such concerns never learn themselves and do not know where to go to learn—I think it should be the obligation of a research organization, just as it is the obligation of N.I.F.E.S. in respect of fuel economy, to seek them out and tell them.
  We have been thinking a great deal on the lines of research, technology and so on, but there has been a tendency for management not to have so much limelight turned on it in commercial enterprise as technical qualifications have had. I would now ask the Government if they will do all they can to further a scheme which has already had their blessing and which was evolved by the chambers of commerce. It is a management apprentices scheme for young people. It needs the co-operation of employers, and employers should be encouraged to make available to these young apprentices all the schooling that is needed to allow them ultimately to become managers and directors. It is a good scheme and an important conception. Any help that the Government can give will be greatly appreciated.
  In connection with the tourist trade, let me say how much I welcome at long last that tie Catering Wages Act is to be amended. No country has been
  626
  harder hit than Scotland by that ridiculous Measure and the ridiculous conditions which the Catering Wages Act has imposed on small hotels. I rejoice to hear that flexibility is to be introduced into the system. If that comes about, our tourist trade will be greatly benefited.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say that I am rather more concerned with the speech from the President of the Board of Trade than with his, although I listened to it with interest.
  It seemed to me that the President of the Board of Trade, fresh from his commercial salesmanship tour of South America, had come to the House to give Scotland the benefit of his salesmanship but, as one of the representatives of Dundee, I experienced some consumer resistance to the story he told us about Dundee this afternoon. As to the present alarming unemployment situation, I regard the right hon. Gentleman as the principal author of the increased unemployment, because a year ago he reduced the price protection given to the jute industry through the Government's jute control.
  I am not saying that all the unemployment is due to the right hon. Gentleman's action; some is due to general world conditions. A great deal of it is directly due to his action or is indirectly due to general uncertainty that he has created in the jute industry. The President of the Board of Trade may recollect that when he made his announcement last year his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) offered an estimate of the effect that the decision would have on the jute industry and suggested that it might reduce the industry by about 3,000 jobs. That has just about been the result of the action of the President of the Board of Trade, so far as one can analyse the figures.
  There was no need to take that action last summer, especially in view of the world economic climate in which it was taken. The President of the Board of Trade has told us today that the jute industry is in the process of modernisation and that that created technological unemployment. We are all aware of that. He also stressed the danger of jute

  627
  being priced out by substitutes. That danger has existed for many years. It did not suddenly come to a crisis last summer.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for balancing one interest in the jute industry with another; I do not dispute that. But the bag and sewing interests that he is talking of are a very small part of the jute industry, and if he wished to balance the interests fairly, particularly in relation to unemployment, he should not have taken the action that he did last year. We got a characteristic piece of salesmanship from the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he was glad to give an assurance that, before there was any further reduction, he would fully consult those concerned. The House ought to realise that there was consultation before the last decision. It consisted of the right hon. Gentleman inviting representatives of the industry to see him, of telling them what he intended to do and then swearing them into confidence until he made his statement in the House of Commons. The elected representatives were not given any sort of information about what was proposed until it actually happened. Therefore that kind of assurance gives no strong confidence to the industry at all.
  When the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the efforts of the Board of Trade have been directed to bringing new industries to Dundee, we are genuinely grateful. When he tells us that those efforts have so far produced factory extensions which in the end will give Dundee 2,000 more jobs, we are also genuinely grateful: but the matter has to be seen in perspective. The first of those jobs will begin to arrive in Dundee only about a year from now. The last will arrive in about three years' time. In the first six months of this year, since January, unemployment in Dundee has more than doubled. There has been an increase in unemployment of rather more than 2,500 people. The President of the Board of Trade is suggesting that we ought to be satisfied that 2,000 jobs will be created in the next three years to replace them.
  Nobody disputes that industries have to change as economic conditions change or that the jute industry must go ahead and modernise and that in the process of so doing unemployment will be created,
  628
  but we say that these things should be planned in such a way that there are new jobs before the Government, by their own deliberate action, create unemployment.
  Among a number of rather bland statements, the right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to Lord Polwarth. But Lord Polwarth, on behalf of the Scottish Council, has expressed views about jute very different from those of the right hon. Gentleman. Speaking in April, Lord Polwarth said:
  "While we don't argue that the Government should undertake to protect jute indefinitely, we do feel most strongly that it should not further reduce the price support afforded to the industry more rapidly than alternative sources of employment in the district can be built up. Not only that, but it is important that this should be known to be the Government's attitude."
  If the Government had accepted the advice of Lord Polwarth and said that this was their policy, there would not be much in dispute. It is only because the President of the Board of Trade adamantly refuses to do this that the great uncertainty hangs over the jute industry in Dundee.
  I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is a member of the Government that gave most specific pledges to the jute industry. He knows that his predecessor in office gave me a pledge in 1955 which was quite unequivocal. The then President of the Board of Trade said:
  "Unless an alternative method of safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry can be worked out and introduced, the removal of control over the import of jute goods would have a serious effect on the prosperity, efficiency, output and employment of the industry. In view of the heavy concentration of industry in Dundee and its distance from the main centres of population, there would be a danger of continuing large-scale unemployment. It is in view of this position that Ministers decided that the industry must be safeguarded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March. 1955; Vol. 538, c. 2245.]
  I do not know that anything could be more definite than that. The unique character of the Dundee unemployment is the relative geographical isolation of Dundee. There is no alternative industrial employment available today within the immediate neighbourhood. It means people uprooting themselves and going elsewhere.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Lord Woolton, who was then

  629
  in the Government as Minister of Materials, repeated that pledge elsewhere, and quite recently he has told us that he meant exactly what he said, when he used these words. Moreover, he revealed that the Government had investigated alternative action for the safeguarding of industry, and had concluded that State trading, although naturally objectionable to Conservative politicians, was in fact the only method of doing so. The President of the Board of Trade, therefore, is in honour bound by that pledge, at least until he can find alternative employment for the people of Dundee.
  A great deal of uncertainty in the city which I represent is due to the fact that it is known that the President of the Board of Trade is deeply hostile to the whole system of jute control, which has helped to preserve employment in the city. Some of the most revealing passages in the debate on the cotton industry were not his comments about cotton, but those he was provoked to make quite casually about jute. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to an interjection from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), used these remarkable words:
  "We have moved a little way on the jute problem. It was a scheme which we inherited and which I dislike very much.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June. 1958; Vol. 590, c. 910.]
  Those are frank words, but the phrase—
  "We have moved a little way on the jute problem"—
  means in practice "We have created 2,500 unemployed in Dundee". The Paymaster-General, when we wound up that debate, also referred to the jute control, and called it—
  "continuing temporarily a war-time restriction … totally at variance with every national and international practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June. 1958; Vol. 590, c. 1011.]
  "Continuing temporarily a war-time restriction" is a very different description of the Government jute control from that given in the pledge by the then President of the Board of Trade only a few years ago. I repeat that the Government are in honour bound to preserve the jute control, lat least until they can provide the alternative jobs which will maintain full employment in the City of Dundee.
  Next, I want to say something to the right hon. Gentleman about the question of providing alternative employment in Dundee. I want to press the case which was made by my hon. Friend the Member
  630
  for Leith (Mr. Hoy) in his excellent speech opening this debate—the case for advance factories. The President of the Board of Trade rather dismissed this with arguments with which we have become familiar—that, in the changed circumstances of today, as compared with the immediate post-war period of industrial development, there is no demand for these factories. I say only that, having had this argument advanced to me, I have done the best I can by my inquiries among industrialists and other people concerned on this matter, and my information is that over a very large range of industrial techniques, the new standard factory is perfectly good for getting production going quickly.
  Only a week or two ago, I talked with the general manager of one of the New Town Development Corporations, who has been notably successful in attracting new industries to his area. I put the question to him, and he said, "We should have been much less successful in getting new-industries if we had not had advance standard factories ready for them to go into." I am sure that the Government ought to reconsider that particular argument.
  There is another point which the right hon. Gentleman made about which I want to say a word or two, and it was a point on which I agreed with him. He said it was very important that all those areas with unemployment problems should do their best in all the ways open to them to make the most of their assets and make them known to potential industrialists. I think that in the case of Dundee it will be generally admitted, and I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will agree, that Dundee has proved that it has adapted itself to new industrial techniques particularly well.
  I can remember the National Cash Register Company coming to Dundee immediately after the war. I understand that this company did not go to Dundee because it wanted to do so, but because it was prevented from going somewhere else. However, it came, somewhat sceptical, as it had every right to be, because Dundee was a one-industry textile town with no great diversity of industrial skill. Yet the fact is that the National Cash Register Company has just celebrated its tenth birthday in the city. It has increased its space by five times, and now employs four times as many workers, and,

  631
  as the right hon. Gentleman has just told us, it is proceeding with a big extension.
  This is characteristic of the way in which the men and women of Dundee have responded to opportunities for new jobs when they were provided, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has paid proper tribute to the work which the local authority has done in this matter. Therefore, I do not think there can be any doubt that, if the Government give to the City of Dundee and to other areas with similar problems the help one expects from a Government today, the people of the City will rise to the opportunities given them.
  5.46 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Although I had the chance on Monday of hearing something of Dundee's problem at first hand, I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) will not mind if I do not follow him in discussing Dundee's own problem, because I do not wish to keep the House very long.
  There is some legislation that I would very much like to see announced in the next Queen's Speech next November, and that is a Bill to amend Scots law whereby movable assets can be regarded as security in the raising of loans. This would benefit all Scottish industry. Last November, I asked whether this matter could be referred to the Law Reform Committee of Scotland, and I understand that this has now been done. I should like to ask what progress has so far been made in considering what is without doubt a very difficult technical problem.
  Hon. Members will know that in England movable as well as fixed assets can be mortgaged to secure loans, either for extension or development, but I am told that even English law is by no means clear on the subject. In fact, it is becoming the acknowledged practice in England to accept movable as well as fixed assets as security, although I believe that, were this practice to be challenged in the courts, we might have some very interesting questions raised.
  I should like to give one example of the kind of handicap which is experienced by Scottish firms, under Scots law as it now stands, when they wish to raise
  632
  finance for expanding their own indus-tires. I refer to one firm in my constituency which sought finance to expand its cold storage and quick freezing plant for fish. The White Fish Authority, constituted by Parliament to help the fishing industry, can, in England, provide up to 80 per cent. of a loan for the capital cost of new development, because, as I have already stated, in England movable as well as fixed assets are accepted as security. In Scotland, this is not the case. In the application by the firm to which I refer, which is a firm in my own constituency, it was originally offered only about 25 per cent. of the total loan required, whereas in England it could have been up to 80 per cent. of a £60,000 project.
  There is controversy as to whether more cold storage plant is needed or not, but that is not the point at issue at the moment. I am trying to put before the House that we have one problem in law which adversely affects all Scottish industry. The Scottish Council (Industry and Development), in a paper which I think all hon. Members received in the last day or two, puts as one of its proposals to help the employment situation in Scotland that this question should be reviewed.
  I am concerned about this issue, because I believe that so far there have been five reports from the Committee on Law Reform in Scotland. I think I am right in saying that so far no action whatever has been taken on any of them, except that an endeavour was made to take action on one point by way of a Private Member's Bill. I ask the Secretary of State whether he will be good enough, when he replies to the debate, to say what hope he has now of getting this report quickly from the Law Reform Committee so that action can be taken.
  In Aberdeen, we are fortunate in having more diversity of industry than is the case in the constituencies of many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Nevertheless, at present we have an unemployment percentage of 3·9 per cent., which is 3,550 people out of work. I realise that that number includes 836 women, of whom 60 per cent. are, married, and a very large proportion are available only for work for a few hours a day, and there are also the temporarily stopped. Even so, it is a problem and

  633
  it is added to by the fact that Aberdeen attracts those who are out of work from the north-east counties, which have an unemployment percentage of 8 per cent. Therefore, to absorb some of those workers into established industry in Aberdeen is in itself a very tricky problem.
  When we talk of attracting new industries to Scotland we must bear in mind what are the main advantages which all industry seeks. They do not vary in any way from what new industries seek when they try to establish themselves in any country overseas. I would sum them up under five headings. The first they look for is political and economic stability of the country as a whole—political stability in that a Government basically believes in private enterprise and will not hedge it about with too many restrictions; and economic stability in that there will not be any likelihood of devaluation of the £ sterling. While many of the problems that we have discussed today have, to some extent, been due to deliberate Government credit and other restrictions, those have been for wide basic purposes, to fight inflation.
  The fact that we are now able to relax in a world where Canada has 8 per cent. unemployment, the United States the same, Western Germany 7 per cent. and we in the United Kingdom as a whole have been able to keep down to 2 per cent., is, at any rate, a tribute to our financial and economic policies in a very difficult period of world trade. In all these matters obviously what really counts is the question of timing. If it will be shown that the timing in the relaxation of those restrictions is correct, I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be considered one of the greatest that we have had.
  Secondly, an advantage which new industry seeks is a country which has not got too high taxation. We have far too high taxation, but, on the other hand, there has been a very steady improvement over the years and that must affect the attraction of all new industry. Under the heading of taxation, I want also to put the level of local rates. I think it very important that national economies should be matched by local economies to try to achieve stability of rates.
  Thirdly, there is the question of good services. In Aberdeen, we can include not only very fine services in power,
  634
  water and transport, but also excellent commercial and professional services and educational opportunities.
  Fourthly, industry seeks not to be placed too far from its main markets. That is where we in the North-East of Scotland have suffered more than constituencies of hon. Members who have already spoken.
  Lastly, there is the ability, both skilled and unskilled, of those who are to work in industry. I believe that in Aberdeen and the North-East we have a very fine, hard-working body of men and women. I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether any applications have been made to lease the R.A.F. airport buildings recently released at Dyce Airport. Under the recent contraction of the defence programme, those buildings have become available. They are completely serviced and are on an airfield.
  In passing, I should point out that it is about time that we had a direct Viscount service from London to Aberdeen. It tis always said that one has to wait until the numbers of passengers improve, but we have now reached the stage at which a great many business people who would be prepared to travel to London for the day by air will not do so unless they get a direct air service. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a prod in the right direction on that matter.
  It is not only the new, but also the older industries, we seek to develop in our areas. I was rather disappointed that during the speech of the President of the Board of Trade we heard nothing more of any results or follow-up of the Canadian Trade Mission which was over here recently. I know that many chambers of commerce went to a great deal of trouble to collect information from their various areas to submit to the Canadian Trade Mission and Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce was one. What exactly is being, or has been, done to follow up the inquiries made at that time?
  From visits to Canada, I believe it important that those who are trying to promote sales of British and Scottish products in Canada should have resident sales managers there. It seems quite impossible to assess the needs of the Canadian market unless we are prepared to send men to live there and really to understand the local requirements. For instance, it is inevitable that the Canadians are in many ways accustomed

  635
  to the packaging of American goods. They are accustomed to many of the designs of those goods. Good though we may think many of our products, unless we take that into account I do not believe that we shall have the success which many of our quality goods deserve.
  For instance, there is a great deal to be said for some of the varieties in style and sizes of women's clothing in America, which go in such quantities over the border into Canada. They have a far wider range than we have in Scotland. I see the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) nodding. No doubt, like me, she has had experience in America of the way in which one can go into a shop and buy something "off the peg" without the need for its alteration; but in this country limitations on the sizes, and sizes within sizes, if I make myself clear, which I very much doubt—
  Mr. Cyril Bence: That is not clear at all.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: No, I did not think it was. The Montreal Trade Conference, which is to take place in September, cannot force Canadians to buy 15 per cent. more British goods. Our goods have got to be better in design and quality than those of our American competitors. That is something we must realise.
  It is a very difficult thing when we are in competition with that vast country, which geographically is right on the border of Canada, but unless our people realise it, we have not a hope of diverting 15 per cent. of our trade to Canada. Scottish industry as a whole must accept the inevitability of change. Whether the European Free Trade Area comes about or not, the fact remains that the Common Market is here, which of itself challenges the management of Scottish industry to set its house in order where it is not already doing so.
  I do not wish to detain the House, but I want to ask one more question. In Aberdeen, we are fortunate in that we are not dependent on major industries as much as is the case in the industrial belt of Scotland. Nevertheless, we have one industry which employs one-sixth of our people—the fishing industry and its ancillary trades. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I have no intention
  636
  of making this a fishing debate, because I think that there will be opportunities of a debate on this subject later.
  I want to ask, however, whether the terms of reference of the Fleck Committee of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry are wide enough to take into account the effect of the actions of Iceland and the proposals of the Danish and possibly the Norwegian Governments for the extension of their fishing limits. This situation exploded after the Committee of Inquiry started its work and it would materially affect its conclusions.
  Whether a large fishing industry in Aberdeen is economic or not, I suggest that this industry must be encouraged for strategic reasons, because it gives one-sixth of our people steady work and also because, in spite of a delightful gift of English fish which I believe I am to receive later this evening. I maintain that Aberdeen fish is best.
  6.2 am.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I shall not follow the arguments of the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen. South (Lady Tweedsmuir). I intend to deal with some remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade, but I shall particularly direct my remarks to the Secretary of State for Scotland, because he is the Minister in the Government who is responsible for the well-being of Scotland.
  On 14th June the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke at a Tory rally in North Lanarkshire. He was reported in the Wishaw Press on Friday 20th June. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that reporting. The Wishaw Press is a most reputable and very fair local newspaper. No doubt the Secretary of State was affected by the beauty of his surroundings, because the flights of his imagination were very great indeed, and the distortion of statistics which he produced in his speech has to be read to be believed. I will quote what he said. If he has been wrongly reported, no doubt he will tell us.
  Mr. Ross: He will sack the editor.
  Miss Herbison: This is how the report read:
  "'In recent years,' he said, 'the Government policy has been to concentrate on the black spots and in different areas in Scotland we are getting a full share of Government-financed

  637
  factory building', Between 1952 and 1957, 40 per cent. of Government financed undertakings had gone to development areas in Scotland and during the last two years of that period had provided half the employment in those areas. Since 1957, and so far for the year 1958–9, Scotland had been getting three-quarters, in terms of value of all the Government-financed factories in the country."
  The Secretary of State was very careful indeed to speak only of Government-financed factories and in doing so he gave a completely misleading picture of industrial building generally and of Scotland's share in that industrial building. What my unemployed people in North Lanark and all those who are unemployed in Scotland want is work. They do not mind whether that work is in a Government-financed factory or in a factory provided through private enterprise.
  I want to give the true picture of industrial building in Scotland. I have extracted the figures from an Answer to a Question which I put to the President of the Board of Trade and, since I received the Answer only last week, it is very much up to date. In 1945–51, during the years of the Labour Government, of all industrial building completed in Great Britain Scotland's share was 12·2 per cent. Turning to the years during which we have had a Tory Government, 1952–57, I find that Scotland's share fell from 12·2 per cent. to 9 per cent. What a different picture from the picture which the Secretary of State tried to paint to those people at Newmains in North Lanark.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I will deal with this matter fully in my winding-up speech, but perhaps I should reply now in case there is any misunderstanding. I have not studied the detailed report of my speech, but my vivid recollection was that I was dealing with the charge that the Government were not doing their best to help Scotland. I quoted figures of Government-financed factories. The hon. Lady is dealing with a different and wider subject. I think she will find that I kept strictly to the question of what Government-financed factories had been provided in Scotland. I can assure her and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that had they been fortunate enough to hear my speech they would have found it absolutely clear.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I had the misfortune to read the report of the speech.
  Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention makes the position perfectly clear. Of course, he was dealing with Government-financed factories. His intervention makes it clear that he accepts no responsibility for any other industrial building which goes on in Scotland.
  Mr. Maclay: That is quite wrong. My intervention does not make that clear. I will deal with the matter at greater length in winding up the debate. It was not possible for my speech to be reported fully because I had no script, except for short passages. In its context what I said was quite clear.
  Miss Herbison: I have no doubt that in its context it was quite clear. All I am saying is that by using these satistics and not the general statistics the right hon. Gentleman gave a misleading picture to the people in Lanarkshire who heard him and to those who read that report.
  Mr. Fraser: Is my hon. Friend aware that about the same time a by-election was taking place in Argyll and that the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Conservative candidate in Argyll using exactly the same figures? The Prime Minister gave no indication whatever of the small proportion of factory building in Scotland. He—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Hamilton wishes to speak later in the debate.
  Mr. Fraser: I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) gave way for me to intervene. I think my intervention was shorter than that of the Secretary of State a moment ago.
  Mr. Ross: And he, too, intends to speak later.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so. Miss Herbison.
  Mr. Fraser: On a point of order. You prevented me from making a point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because you understood that I intended to speak later in the debate. I submitted to you that my intervention was shorter than that of the

  639
  Secretary of State, who also intends to speak later in the debate. In the circumstances, was I not in order in my intervention?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is allowed to speak only once in the debate. It is usual for hon. Members on opposite sides of the House to give way to one another, but when two hon. Members on the same side play Mick and Mac with each other, it is going too far. Miss Herbison.
  Mr. Fraser: I do not know what I was playing, but—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given my answer. It is in order for an hon. Member to speak only once in the debate, and I am the judge whether a person is speaking once or twice. For an hon. Member on one side of the House to give way to an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House is normal, but I do not think it is right for two people on the same side to play hand in hand with each other.
  Miss Herbison: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am not quite sure that I heard your last statement. I think you mentioned speaking hand in hand.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Previously, I said "Mick and Mac"—playing together on the same side. I think that is wrong, if Members want to speak again.
  Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend's intervention was very important and useful, because it is evident that not only the Secretary of State for Scotland, but, perhaps, the Prime Minister prompted by the Secretary of State for Scotland, has been trying to get this most misleading picture over to the Scottish people.
  A comparison of that 12·2 per cent. in the years of the Labour Government with the 9 per cent. in the years of Tory Government shows a considerable fall, particularly when one compares it with other regions. The President of the Board of Trade said that he had to take a balanced view; that he had to take into account all the regions in Great Britain. I shall try to take into account some of the regions in Great Britain.
  I find that at 14th April, 1958, the latest date to which I could get figures
  640
  applying to the whole country, the unemployment rate in Great Britain was 2 per cent. In London and the South Eastern Region it was 1·3 per cent., which is the lowest percentage rate of unemployment in the whole of Britain. In Scotland, it was 3·6 per cent—almost three times as much. London and the South Eastern Region, from 1945 to 1951, under a Labour Government, got 7·1 per cent. of all industrial building, as against Scotland's 12·2 per cent. However, between 1952 and 1957 that 7·1 per cent. jumped to 14·8 per cent.—and that in an area that has never had as large an unemployment figure as we have had.
  This Government have taken no effective steps to ensure that factory building goes to the areas needing it. They are quite content to see happening what happened between the wars—these factories growing up all round London, whilst Scotland and other Development Areas are being faced with great difficulty and serious unemployment.
  Following the Secretary of State's speech, I looked at the very latest figure of building under construction, and that is given at 30th September, 1957. I find that London and the South Eastern Region, with an unemployment figure of 1·3 per cent., have 14,714,000 sq. ft. of factory building under construction. Scotland, with its 3·6 per cent. of unemployment, has under construction 5,353,000 sq. ft.—slightly more than one-third of what is being built in London and the South Eastern Region.
  I turn now to my own constituency. The unemployment figures published apply not only to my constituency but to what is called by the Ministry of Labour "North Lanarkshire". That takes in Airdrie, Coatbridge, Motherwell, Wishaw and, possibly, the whole of the Bothwell constituency. From the latest figures, published yesterday, we find that the rate of unemployment there is 6·9 per cent. That is a very serious percentage indeed. It is over three times the rate for Great Britain as a whole, and that is the place where the Secretary of State chooses to make that kind of speech.
  These figures will increase. We are very worried indeed in my constituency about the future. When I interrupted the President of the Board of Trade he said he did not deal with Lanarkshire because

  641
  that was a place where there were heavy industries and, as trade picked up, things would be all right. That is just nonsense. I have in my constituency a very old steel rolling firm—Smith and Maclean of Gartcosh. I have here a letter from the trade union representative in that works, and this is the information he has been able to get from the management. In December of last year there were 1,100 people working there. There are now, in July, 900—a drop of 200.
  The picture is even worse than that. Of the 11 mills, three are off, no longer working, and eight are working on short time. This trade union representative also says that three of the eight which are working, though on short time, are on a week's notice to stop working. That week's notice has been extended on three occasions. He finishes his letter by saying:
  "Business is slow, and the future stated to be very obscure."
  That is the future as far as the management knows about it.
  I have another firm, the Glenbois Fireclay Company. It makes refractory bricks for steelworks and, with the recession in steel, there is a recession in the brickworks. Only last week I visited that works, and it is possible that by next Friday 250 people will be out of a job. In another part of my constituency there is the Caldercruix Paper Mills, a very old-established paper mills. More than 100 of the workpeople there are to be paid off before the Fair holidays. The colliery at Shotts, Calderhead, finishes a week on Friday.
  That is the picture of the constituency where the Secretary of State made that shockingly complacent speech. It is the picture, not only of my constituency but of what is obtaining throughout almost the whole of Lanarkshire, and the other places to which reference has been made. The unemployment is not confined inside my own constituency; many of my constituents work outside it.
  There are many things that must be done to remedy this position for the whole of Scotland, and I say to the Secretary of State and to the President of the Board of Trade that it will not be remedied unless we have a return to conscious, purposeful planning. That is what the right hon. Gentleman scorned in that speech. He quoted my right
  642
  hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and another of my right hon. Friends to show what a bad thing it would be if we had to have planning for Scotland, but it is only by conscious planning that Scotland will really have a future.
  There ought to be a much more vigorous use of the Distribution of Industry Acts. It is so easy for the President of the Board of Trade to say that what industrial building is going on in London and the South Eastern Region is only for extensions, but I think that that is just nonsense, and that, by using the industrial development certificates, he could do much to help Scotland. Then there are the advance factory buildings. We are beginning to get a little tired of the President telling us that industrialists now want tailor-made factories. That was not my experience when the factory in Shotts became vacant. There, we had more than one good, reputable firm wishing to have it.
  If the Government really went forward with the policy of expansion, I have no doubt that the building of these advance factories would be of very great use indeed in cutting down unemployment. Scotland's position will improve only if the Government really decide to have some worth while expansion. As a nation, we have suffered more from the credit squeeze and from high interest rates than almost any other part of the United Kingdom.
  The Secretary of State spoke about production, and this is the report of what he had to say:
  "With production up by one-third in ten years and efforts double pre-war, there were no signs that Britain was a decadent nation."
  In that part of his speech the Secretary of State was careful to talk about increased production over ten years, making no mention of exact figures like those for 1952–57, the kind of figures he used when he was talking about Government-financed factories. Indeed, he made no mention of the first part of 1958 in speaking of increases in production.
  I shall repair the omission. Under the Labour Government, from 1946 to 1951, we had an overall increase of production of 34 per cent. Under a Tory Government, from 1951 to 1956, the increase was 16 per cent. No wonder the Secretary of State wanted to mention the

  643
  years of a Labour Government when talking about production levels. It just was not quite honest, in a propagandist speech of that kind, to say that. To take the last two years, 1956 and 1957 together, there has been an increase of 1 per cent. in production over 1955. What a different picture this represents compared with the one painted by the Secretary of State.
  I have here the report of his speech in the Wishaw Press. There is a lovely photograph of the right hon. Gentleman, and above it there is set out his statement, "North Lanark a highly marginal seat". If mine is a highly marginal seat from a Labour point of view, what is the Secretary of State's seat from a Tory point of view? Immediately underneath the report of the Secretary of State's glowing picture of the state of affairs in Scotland, the Wishaw Press had a paragraph, "Unemployed in the County". It was not malice on its part; it was just a place to put the information in. This is what it says:
  "According to the latest Ministry of Labour monthly returns, Lanarkshire's unemployed has risen by 1,225 to a total of 10,282."
  This was in juxtaposition to the bright, lovely, but senseless picture presented by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Maclay: When I referred to marginal seats, I did say that I knew quite a lot about them from my own experience.
  6.23 p.m.
  Sir James Henderson-Stewart: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has, as usual, made her case with great vigour and strength. There was a time when I was obliged to reply to her on behalf of the Government. Fortunately, I do not have to do that now. In any case, I wanted, in the few minutes which I shall occupy, to turn to two other matters.
  The hon. Lady has, quite naturally, been dealing with her own area and its industrial and employment problems, and she has been dealing with the need for new factories. My part of Scotland is not a large industrial area, but, nevertheless, we have our troubles. I am thinking not of Fife generally, but of East Fife, which I regard as a typical country district in Scotland. There, too, we have seen and suffered from the results of the recession
  644
  In two of the small villages there, old-fashioned linen mills have either closed or are closing. The same must be true in many other country areas throughout Scotland. Not a word has been heard yet on behalf of areas such as these. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has them in mind, but I wonder whether they receive the attention to which they are entitled. We have heard that there is a great concentration of power upon Dundee, the Board of Trade, the Scottish Council and the Ministry of Labour all bending their co-ordinated efforts in a determined endeavour to increase the diversity of employment there. I accept that, but when a small factory in a country district closes, surprisingly little happens.
  I write to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). He very courteously replies and takes the matter up at once with the Board of Trade and the Scottish Council. He does all he can, but the fact is that very little happens. I should like to see a representative of the Board of Trade or the Scottish Council, or of both, go quickly to places where this kind of thing happens and report on the situation so that somebody at the centre will then be able to take action.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan indicated assent.
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) apparently agrees with me that, in those out-of-the-way country areas, there tends to be neglect.
  It is not deliberate neglect. It comes about because the organisations which are available have not the resources to cover the smaller areas as well. I wonder whether the time has not come for there to be an inquiry into whether the efforts of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, the Scottish Council, the Scottish Office and the local authorities are sufficiently co-ordinated in their consideration of all these matters of declining local trade. I put that very seriously to my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Scottish Ministers.
  We ought to create a better and more well-integrated machine which will act more quickly.
  Mr. Bence: It will need powers.
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: Certainly it would have to have some power, but I do not suggest what.
  It has become almost a cliché in the House to say that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. So with Scottish Ministers. They must not only feel anxiety—I am sure they do—but they must demonstrate their anxiety by action. It must be shown that they are taking steps to remedy troubles.
  I give another example. In Anstruther, along the fishing coastal strip, there has not been the closing of a factory but there is a need for additional employment. Anstruther Town Council writes to the Scottish Council to ask, "Is there any chance of our having new industry?" A polite reply is sent, but nothing else happens. This is because the Scottish Council has not the resources to do more. I blame nobody. I am merely saying that we do not seem to have in Scotland a sufficiently powerful, co-ordinated central machine for watching the decline in trade and for taking action where it happens, bringing all the nation's energies to bear upon it.
  Turning to the other side of the picture, I wonder whether, for its part, the Scottish Council really knows about all the firms which might possibly come to these needy areas. I wonder whether the Board of Trade knows, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows. Is not co-ordination needed on that, as it were, supply side of the matter? At any rate, I suggest that it is well worth inquiring into.
  As I say, it is not only necessary to show anxiety. The gradual decline of the shale oil industry in the Lothians is an example of the lack of demonstrative anxiety which troubles me very much. I would not have raised this matter again today if it had not been, I am sorry to say, for an extremely disappointing Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago.
  Mr. Willis: It was shocking.
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I am sorry to have to say that, because I have a great admiration and affection for my right hon. Friend. I think that he is a first-class Minister; but he has not been
  646
  well briefed on this matter. I noticed that more than once in his speech the other night he said that he could not do something on present evidence or as presently advised, which I take to mean he has not been well advised or has not been given all the evidence which he ought to have. If anyone ought to give him the information, it is surely the Scottish Ministers. That is why I think I am in order in suggesting to my right hon. and hon. Friends, with the greatest respect, that they have a duty to perform.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer used what I call the usual rather threadbare Treasury arguments. The principal argument was one that we have heard so often, but he put it in perfectly plain language. He said:
  "The blunt fact is that the production of oil from shale in Scotland cannot compete on anything approaching equal terms with imported oil."
  That view could be expressed in another way by saying that the mining and processing of shale is an inherently expensive way of producing oil. That is quite true. But so is a large part of the agricultural production of this country. Because it is much more expensive to produce here than abroad, we do not allow the growing of wheat or dairy production to languish. We decide that in the broad national interest, taking everything into account, it is necessary to set aside those otherwise sound, financial, economic arguments and support agriculture.
  I support agriculture. I support all the measures, financial and otherwise, that are introduced in this House, and I cannot for the life of me see why we accept the principle of making an exception in the national interest in one instance but reject the principle here.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Member agree that on that principle great parts of the Highlands would be left desolate if we were to take the mere economic factor as the deciding influence?
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: That is what I am trying to say. I know that we cannot press the issue too far.
  I suppose that it could be said that shale oil and agriculture are not comparable. We produce about half of our agricultural requirements. In the

  647
  event of war, it would be a terrible thing if that half were not assured. In the case of shale oil we produce only a fraction of our total requirements. Therefore, I do not wish to press the comparison too far. But a principle is involved here, the principle being that we cannot take a narrow financial, Treasury, economic view of a matter when broader national interests are concerned.
  What are those broader interests? The Chancellor said:
  "I recognise straight away, that this industry has been the mainstay of employment in West Lothian."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July. 1958; Vol. 590, c. 1461.]
  That is still the case. The Chancellor recognised that there are now 2,300 people engaged in the industry. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) told us the other day that in the last two years 1,000 men had been paid off. That is a serious matter for Scotland and The Lothians. That is an example of a broad national consideration that must be taken into account.
  I therefore plead with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office to look at this matter again. We may dress it up in any way we like, but the plain truth is that this is a dying industry because we are taxing it out of existence. The Chancellor is quite right in saying that the Excise duty is only half of the Customs duty on imported oil, and if one adds the difference over the last so many years one gets a vast sum amounting to millions of pounds. That is all right statistically, but it does not face Scotland's present industrial plight.
  I do not take the view of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) in, if I may say, his somewhat exaggerated language when he spoke about the desperate plight of our country, the bleak outlook and other phrases which he quoted from a Church authority.
  Mr. Hoy: It was a quotation from a committee of the Church of Scotland.
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I am sorry; I meant to say that I thought that the quotation he gave from the gentleman who spoke in a committee was an exaggerated phrase. He was a representative of the Church Committee. I am hoping to agree with the hon. Member.
  648
  While we do not want to exaggerate the black side of the picture, it would be equally wrong to exaggerate the bright side and pretend that there is no trouble. There is trouble, and I give the Lothians as an example. It cannot be right at this time, when there is heavy unemployment in Scotland, for the Government to countenance the extended and continuing decline of what is an old-established industry which employs between 2,000 and 3,000 people.
  When I was in office I was shown over the establishment, and I must say that I was much impressed with the calibre of the management and men. The relations between management and men have been good over the years. I think that there is a very fine body of Scotsmen there. I recognise that it would not be much service to the industry if we granted remission of Excise duty and, at the same time, there was an immediate demand for wages that ate it all up. There would be no sense in that at all.
  Mr. John Taylor: I welcome the support of the hon. Gentleman. When he was not reappointed to the Government I said that the Scottish Office had blown its brains out, and he has proved that to my satisfaction this afternoon.
  I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman on his last point. I think he can take it that there is not a body of men in any industry in Scotland which has co-operated more closely with the management than that in the shale oil industry. Indeed, the men have sacrificed a great deal and worked at lower rates than people in comparable industries, and they would play ball if they had the co-operation of the Government.
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I am sure that we are all glad to have the assurance of the hon. Member. I was only noting the slight danger that, if a remission of £750,000 a year in tax was made and it was eaten up in the next year by a substantial increase in wages, the whole point would be lost. Clearly, labour as well as management would have to co-operate. I believe that they would co-operate.
  Therefore, I make the plea with confidence to my right hon. and hon. Friends that this is a matter in which we must take a broader view than the Treasury view. I, like I am sure a great many other Scotsmen on the Government side,

  649
  will be greatly disappointed if the Government sit back and let this old-established and still important industry, which is, the life-blood of the centre of Scotland, gradually languish. That would be a very bad thing for Scotland, and I hope that the Government will not allow it to happen.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mrs. Mary McAlister: The outstanding thing to me in any consideration of industry and unemployment in Scotland is what I can only call the consistent complacency of the Government. That is all the more extraordinary when we realise that hon. Members opposite who represent Scottish seats have the interests of Scotland at heart. There is no doubt about that.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), together with his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), plainly came out on the side of the Lothians last week in the debate on the shale oil industry. The hon. Member for Fife, East, who has come out even more plainly today, said that it was difficult to be complacent, or words to that effect, about the fate of the shale oil miners. Unfortunately, however, he then went on to say that the recession or contraction, or whatever one likes to call it, seemed to be more intense north of the Border than south of the Border. It does not merely seem to be more intense: it is more intense. I sympathise with the hon. Baronet in not wanting to embarrass the Government, but facts are facts.
  When I fought the Kelvingrove by-election, last March, all sorts of fancy adjectives were being applied to the rising unemployment figure. We were told that it was transitional, that it was seasonal and that it was this, that and the other. It was, in fact, called by anything but its proper name—straightforward unemployment, or the beginnings of it.
  Now we are hearing again about contractions, recessions, or whatever the Government like to call them. The man who gets his "book" does not much mind what it is called. He calls it the "sack". He is a simple soul and is neither a politician nor an economist. He does not know what else to call it. He can scarcely be blamed if he sees the writing on the wall, even if he is still in work, and feels that he will shortly
  650
  see a return of the story which we knew before the war, when skilled British craftsmen stood not for weeks, or for a short season, but for years in hopeless queues. He can hardly be blamed if he now sees the writing on the wall, even if he is still in work.
  The unemployment figures are rising. Despite assurances which we have been given, they are rising in trades which normally should be working at this time of year. I got figures yesterday about the unemployment of painters. I admit that, arithmetically, the figure is not a formidable one, but when I tell hon. Members that the unemployment of painters in Glasgow today is approximately 300 per cent. more than it was a year ago, we cannot look at this matter with complacency.
  One of the reasons for the Government's refusal to help the shale oil industry—I do not want to repeat it all, because this was thoroughly thrashed out last week; I mention it only because it is typical—was that it was costing £5 per man per week to keep these people in employment. I have not had time to work out the figures, because I am a fairly busy woman, but I wonder what it costs to keep a man in prison or a boy in Borstal. Surely this figure must be put against the possible cost that must be met when these men are thrown on the scrapheap.
  I was glad to read the Church of Scotland Report, pointing out that the Government have a moral as well as an economic responsibility. I do not want to labour the case any further, because many remedies have been suggested. It is time that the Government got on their toes and did something about the industrial situation in Scotland.
  6.43 p.m.
  Sir James Duncan: The hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister) accused the Government of complacency. I do not believe her complaint to be justified, particularly concerning my part of the country, near Dundee. I hope that the hon. Lady will not consider me complacent, either, if I try to bring some sort of balance into the debate.
  The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), as, I suppose, was his duty, speaking for his party from the Front Bench today for the first time, on which I congratulate him,

  651
  tended to exaggerate the pessimistic side. That is his duty, as it is the duty of the Opposition. To get the picture into perspective, however, it is only fair to say that business is not as bad as all that in Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: It is for 77,000 people.
  Sir J. Duncan: We will come to that later.
  If we compare the unemployment figures of Scotland with those of any other free country—
  Mr. Willis: That does not help the 77,000 unemployed.
  Sir J. Duncan: Will the hon. Member wait a moment? It will add up eventually to something constructive.
  We have stood up to this recession in Britain, including Scotland, better than any other nation. Reading the survey of economic conditions in Scotland in 1957 published by the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank, one sees all the way through that business on the whole has not been too bad. In the iron and steel industry the output of pig iron and ferroalloys rose substantially and proportionately by more than for the United Kingdom as a whole, while the output of crude steel rose by 4 per cent. to a new record level.
  Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman—
  Sir J. Duncan: I really have not started and I am not giving way yet.
  The engineering industry generally was fully employed. Satisfactory trading conditions persisted in most sections of the chemical industry and its overseas business tended to rise. These are merely illustrations of what I mean when I say that, on the whole, business in Scotland and the unemployment percentage were better than in most countries, in spite of a recession in world trade.
  I want, however, to devote myself to one of the black spots. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I am quite prepared to admit that there are black spots. The industry of which I wish to speak is the one of which I spoke last year, the jute industry. When it reported in 1947, the working party said that
  652
  "A wide range of industries is dependent on jute production either as a packaging material or as a component in the manufacture of other articles, and it would be unwise in the national interest to allow these industries to become more and more dependent upon a single source of supply."
  The working party, therefore, recommended that protection to the industry should be continued conditional upon its becoming efficient.
  How efficient has the jute industry become? With roughly the same labour force, output has increased by 45 per cent. On reorganisation and modernisation of its factories, the industry has spent £12 million. I believe that it can generally be said now to be an efficient, modern industry. It has, therefore, fulfilled the conditions proposed by the working party. For this reason, it is entitled to continued protection and consideration from the Government.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) quoted one of the pledges given by Ministers in the past. In a debate in another place, a few days ago, Lord Woolton's pledge of 1954 was quoted. I have here a record of six pledges made by Ministers in the past. There is one made by the present Chancellor, when he was at the Board of Trade, four by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), when he was President of the Board of Trade, and one by Lord Woolton. They all boil down to stating that until the Government can find an alternative measure to secure the prosperity, efficiency, output and employment of the industry, protection should be continued.
  I want to remind and hold the Government to these pledges. I will give them the dates in writing later, to save time now, but I remind them that these pledges still stand and that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, without breaking up the whole industry and dishonouring the past pledges of his own colleagues, cannot run away from those pledges today or in the future until he can give equivalent protective guarantees to the industry. That being so, I was a little disappointed last year when the mark-up was reduced, but I was quite prepared to accept that there were good reasons for doing so. I recognised at the time, and prophesied at the time, that it was bound to have

  653
  an impact on the employment situation in Dundee and district.
  I represent the district Up to now, factories using jute outside Dundee have been more fortunate in retaining their businesses than have those in Dundee itself. But one cannot speak for one's own constituency only in connection with an industry of this kind. One has to speak for the whole industry, because if Dundee gets into a mess the country districts outside will get into a mess, too.
  When I spoke last year there were 983 reported by the Ministry of Labour Gazette as unemployed in the jute industry on 18th July last. The latest figure for 12th May for the jute industry is 2,173. When I spoke at this time last year, 19,500 were employed in the industry. The Ministry of Labour Gazette now says that there are only 16,200 employed in the industry. If these figures are compared, it will be seen that 527 people have disappeared from among them. They are not recorded as either employed or unemployed. They have gone away.
  Where have they gone? I know that sonic are married women who are no longer registering for employment. Some have left for other trades. Some have migrated to England or other parts of Scotland or overseas. If we are to watch this contraction of the jute trade, we must be clear about the figures. We talk of 15 per cent. unemployed based on an employment figure of 16,000 hut, as I work it out, the unemployment rate is only 10 per cent. and not 15 per cent. We should be careful what we are talking about when we are discussing these figures.
  The disturbing point about the latest figure is that whereas last year jute unemployment represented only a quarter of the unemployed in the Dundee district, today it represents two-fifths. Therefore, the step which the President of the Board of Trade took last year has not only reduced the number of employed people by 3,000, increased the number of unemployed and driven some people out of the trade altogether, but it has caused a great deal of uncertainty in the industry for the future.
  To be fair to my right hon. Friend, the Clydesdale Bank does not list that uncertainty as the first of the reasons for
  654
  the increased disturbance of the trade. It says, in its review:
  "The principal reason for consumers restricting demand to their immediate needs and, therefore, for a reduction in production was the maintenance of high prices for raw jute."
  I mentioned this last year and nothing seems to have happened since. One of the greatest difficulties that the employers have is in buying the various qualities of raw jute which they require at reasonably stable prices. In the last month or two for instance, the price of mill firsts has varied from £123 a ton to about £94. That large range of prices makes it impossible to quote prices for the delivery of goods.
  During the last immediate period buyers have been holding off buying raw jute because they have expected a fall, and that, in turn, has affected employment. It is only now that the drop in prices has gone as far as they think it will reach that we can hope that buying will pick up again and employment will temporarily increase. The world recession, of course, is another reason for the disturbance in the trade, but there is no doubt that the uncertainty caused by my right hon. Friend's decision last year was also a factor.
  I want, therefore, to press most strongly, as the hon. Member for Dundee. East did, for an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that the present method of protection and percentage mark-up will not be further reduced until at least new employment has been brought to Dundee and set in motion. It is no good talking about setting up factories which in two or three years' time will employ 2,000 people. I congratulate the Government on the success of their efforts, in face of world recession, in getting six factories and two extensions into the area, but they are not working yet.
  It was last July that the blow fell. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) spoke of purposeful planning, but it depends on the plans. If we are to have Government planning, as we are in this industry, let it be good planning. It seems to me that in this planning the factory should be working before the mark-up is reduced. Personally, I prefer private planning to Government planning, but there has been a great

  655
  deal of Government planning, with industrial sites and with Government assistance, financial and otherwise. But it started at the wrong end, and I would like my right hon. Friend to give a flat assurance to the industry that until new employment is available there will be no further tinkering with the industry.
  My last point is about the Montreal Conference. I think that it will be the view of the jute industry that it does not want jute to be officially on the agenda of the Montreal Conference. None the less, the problem of Asian competition will, I hope, be discussed in the broadest terms by the Commonwealth Ministers when they get there. In any case, I do not want any decisions to be taken at that conference which would bind Her Majesty's present Government, or any future Government, in such a way that they could not continue to protect the industry in the future.
  At present, the future is largely unknown. The Common Market is not yet in action. The Free Trade Area is not yet set up. We know that, in general, it will be of great benefit to British industry. We know, also, that it will be difficult for the textile trader, faced with Asian competition and Indian trade agreements, to compete with either Indian or continental competition.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this matter should be discussed, but that he should retain his freedom of action, after Montreal, to deal with the question of Asian competition—whether it be in cotton, whether it be in jute—on its own merits, and not tie himself or any future Government in such a way that the industry could no longer be protected.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: As I listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) speaking of the position of the jute industry and the measures that ought to be taken, I thought that on this subject he should be speaking from these benches. It is significant, when hon. Gentlemen opposite are vitally concerned with a question affecting their own industry, and when they appreciate the realities of the situation, how near the solutions they propose come to those
  656
  proposed by hon. Members on this side of the House.
  I want to put this thought to all hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have been talking today about Government action in Scotland, and we shall continue to speak about this because we think there will be not much future for Scotland unless there is Government action on the position of industry. But hon. Gentlemen opposite might make an approach to Scottish businessmen, and instead of talking so much about business coming into Scotland might suggest that the Scottish businessmen themselves should do something about the position in Scotland.
  For example, I wonder how many hundreds of millions of pounds there are in Scottish insurance companies and in Scottish investment trusts whose control is situated mainly in Edinburgh? I wonder how much of the money so controlled is invested in Scotland? That is a question at which hon. Gentlemen opposite might well look. A great deal could be done for the future of Scotland with those hundreds of millions of pounds emanating from Scotland and controlled by people mainly in Edinburgh.
  I regret that the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) has gone out of the Chamber, because I shall refer particularly to a point he made, and with which I felt a great deal of sympathy. I am not referring to the position of shale oil, which has been dealt with. The hon. Baronet spoke of the activities of the Board of Trade in Scotland and awarded a great deal of praise to that Department. I endorse that praise. However, he had some feelings about weaknesses or deficiencies in the organisation of the Board of Trade in Scotland and it is on that I shall speak briefly.
  For some years after the war, the Board of Trade in Scotland had the co-operation of the personnel of the Ministry of Supply. Those with whom I am concerned were engineers, and their business was to know the industrial set-up of Scotland. I am speaking particularly to the President of the Board of Trade, so I hope he will pay attention to this. Those engineers advised the Board of Trade. There existed a complete list of the firms and what they did. The firms could be given expert advice by those engineers.

  657
  We know that this part of the Ministry of Supply was wound up and that the engineers became attached to the Board of Trade. For a period they worked with the Board of Trade, giving advice to industry in Scotland. For example, they would give advice to one firm in Scotland that another firm there could make the components which the first firm wanted. In this way much work that would otherwise have gone out of the country was retained within it.
  As I understand the present position, there are no engineers attached to the Board of Trade in Scotland, for the Department is administrative and has no personnel to give that essential advice. So in rendering what would seem to me to be almost the major service for which the Board of Trade in Scotland exists, namely, of enabling the best use to be made of existing industry in Scotland, there is no medium by means of which advice on one firm can be given to another firm.
  The new industries which have been set up in so many cases have, through lack of knowledge of what could be done in Scotland, sent orders out of Scotland for the various components they require; not all, but this has been happening and seems to be happening increasingly. Therefore, I make a plea that there be returned to the Scottish Board of Trade some engineering personnel to enable the Board of Trade in Scotland to overcome that deficiency.
  I turn to matters which more particularly concern me. One must speak briefly because so many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I shall speak of the position which has grown up rapidly in my constituency, namely, part of North Lanarkshire, the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw. It might be taken as the centre of the steel industry. I know that other hon. Members have large parts of the industry in their adjacent constituencies, but North Lanarkshire is a large part of the heart of the industry of Scotland.
  The position has worsened rapidly. The very rapidity with Which the growth of unemployment has shown itself is alarming and significant, and note should be taken of it. I noted that the President of the Board of Trade was inclined to pass over the position in Lanarkshire as being not so disturbing as that in Dundee.
  658
  Greenock and other parts, on the ground that the difficulties which had arisen were a product of the general depression and that, with the steps being taken to lift the general depression, there would be immediately an alleviation of the situation existing in the area of the steel industry in Scotland.
  I am not so sure of that. Between June, 1957, and June, 1958, unemployment in my constituency increased by 120 per cent.—more than double. We are not now talking of rural areas. I appreciate the importance of employment in those areas, but we are talking about the heavy industry area of central Scotland.
  Mrs. Mann: As I am not likely to have a chance to take part in the debate, may I point out that unemployment in Coatbridge and Airdrie has risen by 350 per cent.?
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend will no doubt be able to speak for herself. Her reference is to part of the general area and part of the same problem.
  I estimate that we may have about 7 per cent. unemployment in the Mother-well-Wishaw area. That estimate may be questioned. I know that unemployment figures are calculated in a different manner from the way in which the insured population in an area is calculated. There are substantially more people working in Motherwell and Wishaw then the total of insured population living in that area. It is an area which draws to itself a substantial number of workers.
  I am talking at the moment in terms of unemployed resident within the area, and it is on the basis of a calculation of the proportion of people of Motherwell and Wishaw who are likely to be among the insured population that I reach my figure. Even if my figure errs it cannot be far out because we know that the unemployment figure for the whole of North Lanarkshire is 6·9 per cent. The importance of the problem can thus he appreciated.
  The rapidity with which the situation has arisen indicates how precariously balanced the Scottish economy is. This has happened with a comparatively mild depression. The national unemployment figure is 2 per cent. Yet my area has been so rapidly affected by a seemingly very mild depression. What would it be like in the

  659
  area if there were a serious depression in the country? What would be the position in North Lanarkshire if the shipbuilding industry hit hard times? We can appreciate what is threatened. At present the shipbuilding industry is very busy and the heavy sections of the steel making industry are very busy meeting its demands. Howevere, the shipbuilding industry is very precariously placed, and if the falling off of orders continued what might be the position?
  Out of the falling off in the demand for steel arises another puzzling question. In its magazine Colvilles, which is, in effect, Scottish steel, admits that there is a depression and attributes it largely to what it calls a de-stocking crisis. I find this de-stocking crisis a little puzzling. Over the years there has been a very great scarcity of steel, more so in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. How is it that firms have been able to build up such vast stocks of steel that they can live on them? I cannot understand it.
  Mr. Maclay: I think it fair to say that it is a phenomenon of periods of shortage that firms build up stocks. That has always happened. It is inevitable.
  Mr. Lawson: Have the firms been getting stocks of steel from abroad? A spokesman of the Motherwell Bridge Company said that it had had to go to East Europe to get stocks of steel. Have firms been entering into long-term contracts with German or American makers of steel?
  Mr. Maclay: It is a world-wide problem. It is our export orders as much as anything which are causing trouble at the moment. The problem applies not only to this country but to steel users all over the world.
  Mr. Lawson: I agree that it is a worldwide problem, but these engineering and shipbuilding firms are still working busily and using as much steel as they ever were, and yet apparently they are having no difficulties about supplies of steel. Are they getting supplies from abroad? Have many of the firms entered into long-term contracts to obtain supplies abroad because the Scottish steel making industry was unable to meet their needs? That is the sort of statement which has emanated from at least one very prominent firm
  660
  which I could name. I wonder whether we shall be given an answer to the question. Can we be given an explanation of a statistical nature to show hon. Members how far behind Scotland has been in meeting her steel needs?
  The Scottish steel making industry increased the production of crude steel between 1948 and 1957 by a little under 18 per cent., but in that period the Scottish general manufacturing industry stepped up production by 33 per cent. Scottish steel has thus been lagging very far behind the rate of development of general manufacturing. If we take the steel using industries such as engineering, shipbuilding and electrical goods, their production over that period has increased by 51 per cent. How has Scottish steel been meeting the needs of Scottish engineering, shipbuilding and other industries when Scottish steel production has expanded by only 18 per cent. and the other industries have increased production by 51 per cent.? It just has not been done and is not being done.
  The Government have a responsibility for the steel industry through the Iron and Steel Board. There is a responsibility for development of the steel industry. There is a responsibility for investment in the industry. I know that there has been a great deal of investment in the Scottish steel industry, but there has been much more investment in the industry South of the Border and in Wales. The industry South of the Border has been developed to a far greater extent in proportion to the industry North of the Border.
  Between 1948 and 1957 the United Kingdom industry has increased production by 46 per cent. while during the same period the Scottish industry increased its production by barely 18 per cent. I know that a great deal of work has been done. There are now excellent plans in Scotland, and there are many devoted and skilled people who are giving this matter their attention. Nevertheless, we ought to have an explanation why Scottish development has been proportionately so far behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom. The President of the Board of Trade looks at me as though he has an answer. If he has, I should like to know it. Has it been, for example, that the Scottish steel industry has been denied coking coal at any time? If so,

  661
  it would be a good thing for us to know about it.
  Here, then, we have a point of major importance to Scotland. The economy of Scotland is still based upon heavy industry. While much has been and will be said about new industry—and I endorse what has been said about that—we must see to it that existing industry is developed in every possible way.
  I want to refer finally to the recruitment of new workers. There has been much talk about the need for technicians and scientists of the higher degrees of skill, and we can all agree that they are necessary for the economic future of the United Kingdom. However, it is also essential to have a growing number of craftsmen, a growing number of the skills which may be classed as being of the lower levels although whether that is the case is questionable.
  The position in Scotland is alarming, and I will give an illustration which brings out the position clearly. The general manager of Metropolitan-Vickers in Motherwell described to me his firm's apprenticeship scheme. I understand that this is one of the finest schemes in the United Kingdom. It is also run by Metropolitan-Vickers in Manchester and elsewhere. The general manager of the Motherwell firm told me that he had had applications from boys who had already served a pre-apprenticeship course and who had thus proved themselves to be worthy. He said that the number of applications was three times greater than the number his firm could take.
  He asked me what happened to the boys who were unsuccessful in their applications. They were excellent boys, but his firm could take only one in ten. I made inquiries of the youth employment officer, an excellent and devoted worker. However, he could not give me very much information on this subject, although I do not blame him for that. The fact remains that jobs as potentially skilled engineers were not available for those boys, with the result that they must have been going into all sorts of unskilled work.
  There is no point in talking about the need to produce skilled workers at the higher levels if we cannot produce sufficiency at the so-called lower levels. We shall need at least seven to eight times
  662
  the number at the lower as at the top levels, but we are not getting those numbers. There is a great demand for facilities for skilled work in this industrial area of Scotland and there are reasonably good education facilities, technical schools and so on, although we want more.
  However, engineering firms in the area are not providing the jobs for these boys. This is not a case of the trade unions holding back. In fact, only last week I heard the A.E.U. organiser deploring this very fact and talking of the co-operation which the union had given in this matter. The snag does not come from the trade unions, but it is clear that many employers are not co-operating in providing jobs for boys who want to become skilled. That is a very serious matter for the future, and the Secretary of State must give special attention to it.
  Those are my two main points. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate how precarious the Scottish position is, as has been shown so clearly when we have had what has been called a very mild depression with already 7 or 8 per cent. unemployed in this industrial area of Lanarkshire. Let the right hon. Gentleman come forward with appropriate measures to deal with the problems which are facing us. Let him also consider this problem of the youngsters, the engineers of tomorrow, whose numbers will greatly increase over the next few years, and let him tell us what he proposes should be done about it.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. J. C. George: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). During my speech I will deal with some of the points he raised, for the worries which he described have exercised my mind for some time.
  The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) railed against the credit squeeze and described how this country had suffered from it. I wonder what the country would have been like today if we had not had the credit squeeze. In September, very courageous action was taken after ten years of false prosperity. We decided to have a stable £, if that

  663
  could be achieved, and we have gone well on the way to getting it. We decided to have steady prices, and we are well the way to achieving them.
  If the hon. Member and the hon. Lady do not like that, I tell them that the country likes it. The News Chronicle Gallup poll yesterday—and that newspaper is not notoriously Unionist—forecast that the Conservatives would be returned to power if there were a General Election tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] That is the result of the credit squeeze. The country realised that something had to be done and that action had been too long delayed. Action was taken, it is meeting with success, and the country likes it.
  It is wrong at any time to exaggerate and it is wrong to give the impression that Scotland is in the position described by the hon. Member for Leith. He used many phrases to describe the position and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) mentioned a few of them—"black spot", "general debility", "desperate plight" and "appalling position".
  It is wrong to exaggerate and it is wrong to minimise. I shall not minimise, but I think that the position has been exaggerated. As Scotsmen, we must see the position of Scotland in its proper light. Scotland is not suffering from general debility. Hon. Members have only to look at the schemes which the President of the Board of Trade mentioned. Capital development schemes are running on a huge scale. The coal industry is being renewed at a cost of £185 million. The steel industry is being rebuilt at a cost of £60 million. Incidentally, I hope that the coal industry is a success, since it is in a bad state at the moment.
  Miss Herbison: It is better than when we took it over.
  Mr. George: No, it is infinitely worse. I am being forced to deal with the industry and I meant only to deal with its capital development. It is losing £1 million a month, and it did not lose that by any manner of means before nationalisation.
  However, I want to stick to the figures of capital investment and to show the Scottish people what is happening. The
  664
  coal industry is still being developed. The shipbuilding industry is spending millions of pounds on reorganisation. The railways are being reorganised and new roads are being built. The electricity industry has plans for developments all over Scotland, both nuclear and hydroelectric, and we have seen great housing schemes, schools and hospitals built all over Scotland.
  That is the position today and it does no service to Scotland to denigrate what has been done and to paint a black picture. The unemployment figures do not justify the expressions which came from the hon. Member for Leith. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said, we have the lowest unemployment of any free country in the world. Scotland's position is not desperate.
  On 16th June, the number of unemployed was 76,000. Of those about 9,000 were temporarily unemployed, about 14,000 were married women and there were 14,000 vacancies. That position is not desperate. Inside that position we have the two black spots of Dundee and Greenock.
  Miss Herbison: Lanarkshire.
  Mr. George: I am coming to that; the hon. Lady always wants to make my speeches for me. The position in Dundee and Greenock has been given undue publicity. The position there demands attention, but the worst position is that in the Development Areas. The figures for Scotland would be infinitely better but for those of the Development Areas. Since February, 51,600 men and 4,600 women have been added to the unemployed list. The unemployment position in Dundee and Greenock has been static over the last five months. Attention must be given to the position in Dundee and Greenock, but the serious increase in unemployment to which I draw attention is among boys and girls. There are unemployed 2,300 boys and 1,700 girls. That brings us to the big problem which is coming to Scotland in the near future. I will come back to that matter, and deal with it on the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Motherwell.
  In Scotland we are apt to talk in a fashion which gives the impression that Scottish affairs can be insulated from national and international affairs, but we

  665
  cannot contract out in industry. We are suffering, as the President of the Board of Trade said, from world conditions, and one of those conditions might very well become worse. The U.S.A. and Canada have been in recession; who are we to say that it has completely passed and will not float across here? We suffer from import restrictions in many parts of the world. Demands are coming to industries for extended credit which in many cases cannot be met. These are problems outside the control of the Government and of Scotland but they affect the Scottish position. We need not try to deflect them; they will force themselves upon us.
  Every week we hear tales of people who are losing business because they cannot give two, three or five years' credit. Her Majesty's Government have to study these things. Other Governments are helping their industries to get business back by assisting them with credit. We are losing orders every day. Scotland, therefore, cannot contract out of world conditions, because they affect employment in Scotland. The real cure is a rising trend of world activity. We may patch things up here and there, but rising world activity is the cure, which needs more than ourselves to bring it about.
  Look at the position just ahead of us. I read this evening what the chairman of the National Coal Board said about home demand. It presents a sombre picture. In home demand coal faces an estimated fall which may be as much as 7 million tons. Total exports are already 2 million tons down this year. The coal industry would appear to be right amid the difficulties at the moment, and it probably will have idle time in the summer months. The result for the Scottish employment picture is that we can no longer look to coal to absorb extra people from Scotland.
  In steel, the hon. Member for Motherwell has painted a picture of exports already 13 per cent. down. I saw a report in an evening newspaper that production is down by 10 per cent. already this year. People are doing their utmost to get stocks so as to save themselves expense. When steel prices fall, they stock up so as to take advantage of a rise. These stockings present a serious problem. There is a £4 million stock in the country
  666
  today, when even a drop by 1 per cent. in production would mean a drop of 1 million tons.
  I was looking at the iron and steel position, from the point of view of taking more people. This industry has increased its output with fewer men. I am told that the new expansion will mean no appreciable difference to employment. Shipbuilding is in the same position, full of alarm at the credit position. I have a letter here. I am not able to give the name of the shipbuilder who wrote it, but it says:
  "With regard to future prospects, these have deteriorated. The number of inquiries for new ships has diminished, cancellations have taken place and discussions concerning possible further cancellations or postponements of orders are known to be taking place. World competition has greatly increased and in some cases with completely new yards embodying all the most modern practices."
  We therefore cannot look to shipbuilding to help us with our employment problem.
  It adds up to this, that in the immediate future the basic industries will have serious short-term trouble. The outlook in the long future is obviously bright, because we shall not remain for ever in depression when we have re-equipped ourselves to deal with the new position when the time comes. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to do more than he has done, although he has taken the first step towards steering the economy for a forward move again. It is time to do some other bold thing in order to help the internal position in this country, in relation to the world position.
  Let us look at the idea of bringing in new industries, about which so much has been said. We can congratulate ourselves about what we have done, and we are doing as well as we can. The chairman of the Scottish Council has several times made statements on this subject. I should like to see them contradicted, because many visitors to this country have so much trouble when they come here that they get fed up and go away again. It takes much too long to get a job done. Holland is getting far more industries to go there than we can get to come here. In the last seven years Holland has had 250 new industries. I am told that they are getting applications from British firms.
  Mr. Lawson: Are any Scottish firms, or Scottish money, going to Holland?
  Mr. George: I do not think Scottish firms are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East asked for more co-ordination; that is what is happening in Holland. When a foreign firm goes to Holland it is dealt with by only one Department. Everything is done through that Department. I have an instance here to show that one major American firm went to Holland. Its representative was seen, and two months afterwards its first appliances were set up in that country. It is a major factory in the country today. There is only one Department dealing with everything, one institution, mainly concerned with Government finance, with the sole duty of bringing new industries into the country. Cannot we do the same thing here and so make a positive contribution? I will leave this subject, because time is short.
  The days when the fishing industry was taking in new people are passed. We are all driving now for new scientific industries, which means new scientists, technologists and technicians. We have made arrangements for that to be done, and we hope that in the future we shall show an increasing output, but Scotland ought to have skilled people for the new age which we are entering. I refer to apprentices. I am informed that the reason we are not training apprentices is connected with trade union restrictions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I may be wrong but undoubtedly in Scotland today it is easier to become a scientist than to become a skilled workman.
  Mr. Bence: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. George: No, because I have to catch a plane. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was saying that it is easier to become a scientist, when it is a hundred to one chance of getting through, than it is to become a skilled workman, because there are great restrictions upon the number of apprentices that can be employed in particular trades. That position should be studied. I am informed that even if industries were training the number of apprentices they need for themselves, we should still be without enough skilled people. I hope the Government will study a scheme whereby a grant can be made to train apprentices.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman was saying that he could not give way because he has to catch a plane? Are we to understand that he has come here to make a speech, and then dash off after making it, without listening to anything which anyone else has to say?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member who had the Floor of the House did not give way. Although several hon. Members tried to interrupt, it is out of order to try to do so if the hon. Member does not give way. What he says can be answered by way of debate, if there is an answer to it. It is not necessary to intervene on every occasion.
  Mr. George: I was appealing to the President of the Board of Trade to study the question of apprenticeship training in Scotland, and if possible to devise a scheme for grants which would induce many firms to try more apprentices than they need themselves nowadays and therefore fill the gap which the hon. Member for Motherwell mentioned.
  Mr. Bence: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He made an accusation that the trade union movement was refusing to admit apprentices on the floor of factories. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that, if any industry is prepared to take student apprentices, no trade union will interfere with it having as many as it can get. On the floor of the factory, however, it is impossible to put more than a certain number of craft apprentices in a craft department.
  Mr. George: I have made my point, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will pay some attention to it.
  Quite apart from training more apprentices and more scientists, Scotland needs a new major industry in future, and it has been suggested that there should be a strip mill. I hope there will be a pronouncement soon as to whether there is to be a strip mill, and when and where it will be built. There is a lot of tension building up between Wales and Scotland, which is not good, and I hope that a Government announcement will be made soon. I hope that when it is made, the grounds for the decision can also be given so as to ease everybody's mind. I believe that a strip mill or something like it might indeed form a new base for the future.

  669
  It is obvious, however, that a decision must be based on sound economic reasons, containing perhaps only a portion of the social considerations; I think there should be only a marginal social content in the decision. For my own peace of mind and that of Scotland, I should like to see that case explained to us after the decision has been taken. I should like to ask the Secretary of State one further question. Has the Scottish case been put forward by unbiased steel experts? I have seen the Scottish Council case, but the people who put up that case are not experts. I believe that the case presented by them will be treated at top level more or less as an amateur case, whereas it is a matter for experts and skilled people to get the final decision taken.
  We have seen various measures taken recently, and I believe that there will be more and that something will be done in the way of reduced taxation and other measures to excite the economy and to help to counteract the world depression. I believe that the only real cure is a world trade revival, and that is not a matter for this country alone. Our people here, both men and management, should be striving for lower costs, higher efficiency, and above all in Scotland, for better labour relations in future.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I will try to be brief, if only to make a change from my usual habit, but I really would have to apologise to my constituents if I did not lake part, in present circumstances, in a debate in this House on employment.
  When people talk about figures of unemployment of 3 to 4 per cent. for Scotland, or even of 7 or 8 per cent. for some areas in Scotland, I must say that that sort of figure means almost nothing to my constituents. Today, we are up in the region of 30 to 40 per cent. unemployment in the Western Isles; but percentage rates do not always convey the situation in human terms, or even in economic terms either. The 33 to 37 per cent. which we have had in these last few months in Lewis does not indicate the whole of the unemployment, and though about 2,300 people may now be officially classed as unemployed, one has to add several hundreds more, not classified as employed persons. That could in a bad
  670
  period bring the figure nearly to the prewar 3,000 level.
  The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr George) has made several extraordinary comments, some of which he rather contradicted in detail as he went on. He welcomed, on the basis of the Liberal Party newspaper and the Gallup Poll, the indications that the Tories will win the next Election. We are quite willing to follow him to a General Election; but that is the one thing that we cannot gel him to agree to. If the hon. Gentleman is really thinking that way, we are all for it. Let us have an Election; it will be an excellent thing.
  Going on with his several extraordinary comments, the hon. Gentleman said that people in industry like the economic squeeze and the credit squeeze. It is a curious thing to like. It reminds me of the quite untrue story of the English girl in the W.A.A.F. who said that she had been treated a bit roughly by an amorous Hebridean sailor. When she was asked why she did not ask him to stop, she said that she could not, because she knew no Gaelic. Possibly, that is the difficulty in which our industrialists are when facing the Government's credit squeeze. They cannot make themselves sufficiently clear and articulate in putting the case to the Government to get rid of it. However, if the hon. Gentleman likes to be squeezed, let him have it. I am sure that most persons in Scotland who want to expand their businesses and wish to obtain finance would not agree with him very enthusiastically on that point.
  Having generally been optimistic about the Scottish industrial situation, the hon. Gentleman went on to condemn it, point by point. He painted a rather bleak picture about shipbuilding, one of the major industries in Scotland on which we have been only too dependent in the past, and in which there has been the heaviest unemployment from time to time in Scotland's history. He went on to talk of the lack of development of Scottish light industries, to criticise the facilities for helping new industries from elsewhere, and complained, finally, of the lack of opportunities for apprentices, and of the consequent shortage of skilled men. If this is his Election address, the sooner we can go to the country and accept the Gallup Poll the better for the Labour Party. The hon. Gentleman did

  671
  not leave very much to praise in his consideration of Tory Government policy over the past few years.
  I want to turn now to an aspect of the subject that was introduced by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart). I am sorry that he is not here at the moment, because he introduced some very important points, and I am sure that hon. Members for industrial areas will sympathise with what he said. I do not think that we should take a narrow view about the non-industrial areas' problems, because there is a human problem wherever men are unemployed, where industries are sinking into decay, and wherever human beings have to leave their homes and go abroad to find employment.
  During past years many hon. Gentlemen have always taken a very strong interest in the position and difficulties of areas like the Western Isles and the Highland area. We well know the difficulty which was mentioned by the hon. Baronet of getting adequate publicity for rural problems, and, particularly, of getting things done by Government action, which is bound to be more difficult in the outlying areas.
  When we have heavy unemployment in places like Greenock, we can get a national Press campaign for it and a considerable amount of support from powerful local authorities and others. We can get the Council for Industry interested in it; but when it is a place like the hon. Gentleman's constituency of East Fife or like the Western Isles it is not such an easy thing to get the Board of Trade to send somebody to investigate or to get the Secretary of State to rush up to interview people personally about what can be done. It is not easy to get Ministers to the point of practical action, still less to get the Treasury interested sufficiently to enable them to take action.
  There are possibilities for the Government themselves to take direct action on some of these problems. They can at least help to promote a short-term programme of work and development by providing many basic services which are taken for granted in the industrially developed areas in the South—basic services such as water supplies, roads, bridges and so on, which are essential for communications in the Highlands, and are one of our greatest needs in making the Islands
  672
  more attractive to industry to go there and for existing industries there to expand.
  I shall not take up time going into the various parts of the Highland problem which have been so often aired, and rightly aired in House and Committee; but, as we have emphasised time after time, the depopulation of the Highlands is going on. In the last five or six years it has been accelerated to a pace probably not previously known in this quarter century. What has happened in a short period of five or six years is that we lost over 8,000 people between 1951 and last year. That is all part of the result of Tory prosperity, on which hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Pollok are to base their Election addresses. There is not a very good reflection of so-called prosperity under the Tories in that part of the country.
  I quoted a figure elsewhere recently of the decline in the manpower of the very important industries in this area, the local crofter fishing industry in which the number of crating fishermen has gone down from over 4,000 to 1,400 in twenty years. A repetition of that kind of thing in this occupation in the Hebrides and all around the coasts of Scotland would mean that soon there would be no crofter fishermen in those districts. While there is a certain growth in some of the towns, we have the dying away of small West Highland communities, of small peninsula villages, in the smaller islands and areas around the Northern coasts. In the meantime, in the one urban area in the Western Islands where there is industrialisation, in textile manufacturing in Lewis, there is the heaviest unemployment of any part of Britain.
  I sympathise with hon. Members from the industrial areas, who may feel impatient about outlying areas being drawn into a debate on general unemployment, because in the past massive unemployment figures have been mainly confined to places like Port Glasgow or Clydebank, and the cities, where we had the pride of Scottish craftsmanship standing idle for years in pre-war days; but it is just as bitterly humiliating a thing, just as demoralising and disenchanting for men losing their jobs one by one, in the little villages of the Highlands and Islands as to become unemployed and unable to earn and maintain a decent standard of living elsewhere in the land. Recently in the

  673
  Islands of Lewis and Harris unemployment has amounted to as much as 37 per cent. and that accounts for only about two-thirds of the men and women unable to make a living there. It is a very serious human problem, reflecting a serious history of economic and social neglect for which successive Governments have a considerable responsibility—and there is a responsibility now upon the Government to take some urgent, adequate action.
  In this House we have talked for years ad nauseam about Highland depopulation and the drift from the land. On all sides of the House we have talked about it, and hon. Members from Highland constituencies are notoriously at one on many of these questions because the same endless problem affects them similarly when they see intimately in small places and communities what is happening in these little villages—perhaps even more than it affects other Members in city centres and urban areas who often can see only bigger groups of people. The time for action is long past. We find that the only means of sustaining our Highland population is by keeping older people alive longer, while the youner people are still drifting away. The ultimate result of this drift away of youth is the fundamental destruction of the way of life of the whole crofting Highland community.
  Reference has been made to apprenticeships. That is a problem which, although it may, at first sight, seem strange, affects us in the Hebrides, when it occurs on the Clyde. Several years ago, we set up a very fine technical college on the Island of Lewis. It partly trains and turns out young boys and girls for further training in various trades and occupations. Some go down to Glasgow, and others elsewhere, to try to get apprenticeships; but they are being turned down frequently and they have been getting very little encouragement. This is not the fault of the local trade unions. They have been most encouraging, but the fact is that there are no openings for these young people in competition, we are told, with too many local applicants. The hon. Member for Pollok, who is now leaving the Chamber in order to catch his 'plane, suggested that refusal of apprentices was the fault of the trade unions, but in the Islands they are co-operating with the technical college and local employers and others in trying to get these boys into apprenticeships and advanced courses.
  674
  Unfortunately the many refusals are resulting in a sense of frustration. Having set up this technical college and encouraged young people into it, we find that when they leave they can go no further in the trade in which they have begun to be trained. That is a serious thing in an area where there is so little local chance to learn a trade, and where even education itself creams away the best of our workers to areas of better opportunity and leaves behind youngsters who have not the equipment or opportunities for an academic career. It is a most frustrating and unhappy situation, to have still so many dead-end and blind-alley jobs.
  At times I wish I could see the Secretary of State looking a little more unhappy about this question. I have done my best with him recently and I do not know whether there is a possibility of doing any more to waken him up. I have tried in the last few weeks to interest his organisation at the Scottish Office a lot more in our Island plight. His Department and Ministerial team is as numerous as any Minister's. The right hon. Gentleman has no fewer than five or six assistants in this House and in another place. The Department has been called a giant with feet of clay. I would call it a five-headed dwarf with feet of Maclay. It is the most feeble of all Departments on the economic side of our Scottish problems.
  Since we have him with us, I want the President of the Board of Trade to consider this problem as a high personal responsibility in which he should take some direct action in the early future. Can we have an assurance that he is going to interest himself intimately for the next few weeks and months in the problems of those Island areas, which have the highest unemployment of all? I know how difficult it is to draw industries to places like the Western Isles; but he can at least start to encourage industries which exist there already.
  Instead of that, he made what we felt was a most unfortunate faux pus recently. I do not think it was premeditated—it may have been made in lighthearted ignorance—when he said that Harris tweed which is recognised even by the American Government as a distinctive cloth is something which could be manufactured anywhere at all, "like a bath bun." That showed a depth of irresponsibility or ignorance which not even his

  675
  predecessors at the Board of Trade or at the Scottish Office have shown hitherto. If he did that sort of thing to enough industries, which can base a claim to public appeal upon the distinctive characteristics of their product, he would destroy enough industries to put himself out of office—with possibly a hope of more success at the Ministry of Transport.
  Another thing which perhaps the President of the Board of Trade might encourage the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to look at is the question of the insurance position in the existing industries in the area. Our main employing industry, apart from agriculture and fishing, is Harris tweed weaving, but when there is a slump, as there has recently been, the men engaged in that work are not even able to claim insurance benefits, because they are not working under a factory roof or under a contract of service to one employer, although they work under the same conditions as men weaving cloth elsewhere. Because they are slightly off the normal industrial beat from the usual relationship between employer and worker, at the moment they most need help they are cut off from unemployment insurance and even from National Assistance.
  The President of the Board of Trade could address himself, with his colleagues, to some of these problems. He has done a great deal in the last few months to try to promote the expansion of trade between the Western nations. I ask him also to have a look at the same time at the importance of trying to ease a little East-West trade as it affects people in the Hebrides.
  It was because of the lack of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in the later nineteen-twenties that the cured herring industry fell on evil days, from which it has never recovered. It has never recovered the Russian market as it existed in the old days. For the same reason, because of the lack of recognition—de facto recognition or even mere official trading recognition—of East Germany, where they want our Scottish herring, we are suffering the loss of a valuable market which might well be ours. I know this on the direct personal assurance of their own President of the Chamber of Trade. These are things
  676
  which the President of the Board of Trade ought to look into, and I hope that he will do so.
  May I now thank the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for having successfully approached, and very persistently pressed, the American Government about the Harris tweed industry for a relaxation of the quota limits which had been placed on imports of Harris tweed? That was extremely helpful, and I should be less than gracious if I did not thank him for the action which he took on this issue.
  Those are among the many important items affecting employment and industry in the Western Isles. The final comment I wish to make is on something which I believe every Highland Member has always campaigned, the question of exorbitant freight charges. We subsidise the MacBrayne Company alone to the tune of over £1 million every three years. That is a fair sum of money; and it means that over every ten years of a full contract we are handing out over a big part of £3 million. Since it is quite a lot of money, we ought to expect full value for it and, with value, we ought to expect justice.
  Yet railway and MacBrayne freight charges are a fearful burden upon every living person in the Islands having to use a MacBrayne steamer. And while a live passenger travelling from Glasgow to Stornoway can be carried for £2 10s. or so going via Inverness, if he has the misfortune and the humiliation to die in Glasgow and his body is taken to Stornoway, it costs twenty-six times as much when he is dead as it would have cost for him to carried alive, £53 10s. I do not exempt British Railways from this, because I have approached them and they have turned my request for reductions down. MacBrayne's and British Railways exploit the dead as well as the living and they exploit the bereaved as well as the healthy.
  It is high time that the whole relationship between the Government and the company was investigated once again, because these charges upon everything from food to furniture and upon all persons from the living to the dead are exorbitant and are a further burden on an area of small communities in which the cost of living, even normally and

  677
  apart from freight charges, is well over 10 per cent. higher than in such places as Inverness and Glasgow.
  8.3 p.m.
  Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I suppose that, geographically, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and I could not be further apart, and sometimes that also applies to our political thinking, but there are things which unite us, and that which unites us most is a common interest in the wool trade of Scotland, although his interest is in Harris tweed and mine is more in the high-grade quality tweed as made in the three Border counties which I have the honour to represent.
  I also believe that we are apart in relation to unemployment. I have before me a document produced by the Scottish Council and published in this month's magazine "Scotland", in which it says that the average unemployment for Scotland in April, 1958, was 3·6 per cent. but that it varied greatly from place to place, the extremes being Hawick, which is in my constituency and is my largest burgh, with 1·3 per cent. unemployment, and Stornoway, with 34·2 per cent. unemployment.
  I am not standing here to make those comparisons particularly, but to make some comments about the wool trade in Scotland as it affects my constituency. I am glad that the Board of Trade have obtained some relief by the reduction of the tariff on the tweed as made with the orb trade mark, made in the Western Isles. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade has made as firm and hard representations in relation to piece cloth made in the Border and other parts of Britain as he made in relation to Harris tweed designated as Harris tweed marked with the orb trade mark.
  The hon. Member for the Western Isles and I differ as to definition and as to the construction of the definition but, be that as it may, no one in Scotland wishes ill will to anyone else when it comes to trade and the employment of people, whether in the Western Isles or in the south-east of Scotland.
  May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the Canadian Tariffs Board has recommended that higher duties should be imposed on wool cloth imported from Britain and that the
  678
  Canadian wool industry has called on the Canadian Government to promote action to implement the recommendations. These decisions have an effect on the wool trade of Britain and of my constituency in particular.
  A statement was made by the National Association of Scottish Woollen Manufacturers, the chairman of which this year is one of my constituents. This statement levelled heavy criticism against the recommendations because exports of Scottish woollen cloth to Canada during the first four months of this year were about half what they were in the same period in 1957.
  I have in my hand Cmnd. 127 of the Scottish Home Department, Industry and Employment in Scotland and Scottish Roads Report. 1956. This is a document which we debated in Committee earlier this week, and I therefore assume that it is the latest document of its kind available to us. In any case, it is the document which I found when I asked for a copy.
  According to this Report, the exports of cloth from my constituency in the Borders in the year 1955 amounted to £12·5 million, and these were shipped chiefly to the dollar market. In the Borders, we have had the impact of the American woollen tariff and we have also the fear and the potential effect of the Canadian tariff as about to be imposed, which will further adversely affect our trade.
  Other hon. Members have suggested this afternoon subjects which the President of the Board of Trade might think it well to introduce at the meeting in Montreal later this year. I do not wish to exact a promise from him, but I wish to put it in his mind that Mr. Diefenbaker, in speaking to a joint meeting of all parties of both this House and another place, expressed his desire and the desire of the Canadian Government to increase the trade between Canada and Britain by 15 per cent.; and that it comes peculiarly odd, his having said that, to find that the pressure of his own manufacturers at home immediately brings about a situation in which a higher tariff is imposed against the products which we make.
  I hope that that is one of the subjects which might be considered, speaking broadly and in the context of the Empire and the Commonwealth, because the Canadian and the American tariffs affect

  679
  not only this country and the Commonwealth but other countries throughout the world, and a broad discussion might lead to a consideration of the subject.
  I turn, next, to employment in the wool trade. By and large, we have been reasonably fortunate in the Borders, although there has been short-time working in the past year or so and there still exists a modicum of employment. By that I mean that when we ask for statistics from (the employment exchanges we are given a figure—and it is a small figure of 170 unemployed for the three counties—which does not indicate those who are not fully employed. There are mills, particularly in the tweed section and spinning section of the industry, which have a considerable amount of under-full employment. The Report to which I have referred states that in Hawick, the biggest burgh in my area, which has 1·3 per cent. unemployment, the figure is well below what is considered to be full employment.
  I wish to repeat what I said in a similar debate some years ago in the House. That position may be satisfactory from a national point of view, it may be satisfactory statistically, but the mill worker, or his wife, or his son or daughter who is not at work, is not 1·3 per cent. unemployed but 100 per cent. unemployed. We in this House all seek for real, full employment for all the people in Scotland, whether they be in the Borders, the Highlands, the West or the North-East.
  I would be ungracious if I did not prefer to the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). We know him best as a Chairman of Standing Committees, and we respect his ability in the Chair. This afternoon, we heard him make a first-class speech—from the Opposition point of view, of course—attacking the Government. It was a good speech, and he has done himself and his constituency some honour in so well acquitting himself.
  I should like to refer to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he spoke of people leaving Scotland. It is nearly always said that the only reason for people leaving Scotland is that they cannot find employment there, and go elsewhere in search of it. I assure the House that that is not always so. My right hon. Friend the President of the
  680
  Board of Trade referred to people whom he had met in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. I happen to know them.
  I went there at the age of six, with my father. I lived there for about forty years before the war broke out. My father did not go there because he was unemployed, but because he looked for new fields to work in, new seas to sail in, and new mountains to admire. That is why I was happy to be brought up there, but more happy to return to Scotland, with a Canadian accent, a good Scots name and good Scots blood, to have the honour to represent the Border Counties in this House.
  That experience makes me think that Scotsmen go to the far countries of the world not only to find employment, but with some sense of mission. My right hon. Friend said that the good government of British Columbia, and the good government of Canada implied by it, has resulted from the emigration of Scots folk who, wherever they have gone, have maintained the dignity of their country and the honour of their race. It is not necessarily a reflection on Scotland that people go from it even in times of full employment. A few years ago, we had more than full employment in my constituency. We had more than 1,100 jobs vacant and no one to fill them. Even then, people with adventurous hearts went across the seas to see some other parts of the world. It is traditional and good.
  I hope that we shall not forget, that the President of the Board of Trade will not forget and that the Secretary of State will never fail to remember that we in the Border Counties are situated as Dundee has been situated recently. We are closely associated with the wool trade and the wool industry. We have had sad experiences here and there. We have had sad experience in my royal and ancient burgh of Jedburgh, where there has been a serious pocket of unemployment. Happily, we believe that that is now being overcome.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart)—who, unfortunately, is not present—referred to what he thought was a complete lack of co-ordination between Government Departments when pockets of unemployment develop in what are otherwise large rural areas, such as his and mine. When

  681
  Jedburgh was in its extreme difficulty there were meetings between the provost and his council, the Members of Parliament concerned, representatives of the the Board of Trade, of the Scottish Council (Industry and Development), of the Scottish Home Department, and of the Scottish trade unions, all meeting under the ægis of the provost.
  To those who have similar difficulties I commend that sort of co-operation. If they seek it, I feel quite sure that they will receive it.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I am sure that everyone agrees with the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) that it is a good thing for British people to leave this country and take their ideas into other parts of the world. I have never heard anyone really criticise emigration from the Highlands, but rather the background and the motive that leads the people to leave.
  Many people have emigrated in the past, and many continue to emigrate, in an adventuresome spirit, but what is worrying many people in Great Britain, and particularly in Scotland—and especially those of us in the craftsmanship and technical side of the engineering industry—is that people are emigrating, not merely because they have an adventurous spirit and want to start a new life, to open up new territories and to find adventure in all the wonderful ways of which we read in the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but merely to employ their skills and techniques in much the same way as they would employ them in their home country.
  They go because they cannot find scope in this country for those techniques. Very often, it is not the unemployed man who is emigrating but the highly-skilled technical man who, by his emigration, is creating a situation at home whereby we get increased employment of unskilled labour because of a lack of the necessary skilled men.
  As most Members know, I was a student apprentice, toolmaker and production engineer. Not far from where I live there is a factory which could employ far more men if it had a couple of toolmakers and a production engineer. The firm cannot get them. Why? I think I have the answer. I left my job in the
  682
  motor industry in the Midlands to go to Scotland. I had never before been to Scotland but I thought that I had better go there in good time, because if I went just before a General Election I knew I would have rather a rough time of it. When I started at Blackburn's factory in Dumbarton, I was offered slightly less than half the wages I had been getting in the Midlands for the same job.
  As long as that persists, the skilled men will leave Scotland—and I do not blame them. Is there any hon. Member who would work in Glasgow for half the wages he could get in London or Birmingham, always supposing that accommodation were available? No one can be attracted to an area if the profits from his activities there are not as great as they would be in some other area. The average man goes to work for wages, not because he enjoys it. The average group of men forms itself into a company to make profits out of a job. It those men cannot make profits out of that job, they drop it and seek something else.
  This afternoon, and in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning, mention has been made of American companies. There seems to be an awful lot of satisfaction over the fact that each year so many American companies are coming into Scotland. I have no objection to that. Of course, I welcome them. Their organisational methods, their techniques and their attitude are very often far superior to those of some of our old-fashioned engineers and engineering organisers. I have worked under American engineers and production engineers and, believe me, when they talk of production, they know what they are talking about. They get on with the job.
  Yet, with all the latent talent we know there is in Scotland, between 1945 and 1955—which was a period of expansion—many people left that country, and we have that frightful position that there is no institution there that has sufficient faith to finance and organise the craftmanship and industrial enterprise of Scotland. We have to wait or go cap in hand to the Americans or to companies in the South and ask them to put up subsidiary factories, although these will be closed down at the first opportunity.
  I want now to turn to a subject which I recently saw being discussed between two hon. Members of the House, a

  683
  Labour Member and a Conservative Member, on television, the question of industrial development certificates and factory building. The President of the Board of Trade says that his Department does not issue certificates for factory buildings in the London and Midlands areas. I accept that, but I know of factories in the Midlands and in the London area—I could name some—which have been rebuilt, although they should have been condemned years ago, slum factories which any Government thinking of evening out the population a little would have certified as unfit for the employment of human beings. The Government ought not to have allowed any development of them at all but should have had factories built in the new towns or other areas to which industry could move. During the course of the last seven years, those factory premises have been rebuilt, a bit at a time, one wing rebuilt here, another wing rebuilt there, until, finally, instead of there being what was a factory of two storeys, there is, suddenly, a five-storey factory.
  I know of one company in particular which has done this. This company has trebled the output capacity of the factory in conglomerations of factory space, all on the same floor area, in what is in fact a new factory building. In many cases where this has been done, those concerned are sorry they did it. Others have done it all around them, and, although they have increased their output from the factory, traffic congestion has become so bad that they wish now that they had taken the advice of the Board of Trade and gone into the country to build a factory there, where their raw materials and finished products could readily have been delivered and taken away. One company I am thinking of is now considering building another factory on the Continent.
  There are many other aspects to the issue of industrial certificates and the building of factories which I could discuss, but I promise to be brief. I wish now to turn to the problem in the burgh of Kilsyth, which is in West Stirling, not actually in my constituency, but linked with the villages of Twechar, Croy and Waterside. Coal mining in the area is slowing down. The Gartshore pit is gradually reducing the number of its workers. In a short time, the
  684
  pit will be closed. As I understand it, only a few of the displaced miners and workers from the pits will find employment elsewhere in the area. There is another coal mine which, I understand, has only some four or five years' life ahead, and that life is entirely dependent upon the demand for coal remaining as it is, and making it worth while for the Coal Board to extract the coal which is, at the moment, high cost coal.
  The miners in this triangular area of East Dunbartonshire and West Stirling are likely to experience unemployment. We have a little of it already, and there is likely to be more. There is no alternative industry in the area. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary of State will not tell us that the new town of Cumbernauld will bring in new industry, because only one industry has gone there yet and that will employ the overspill from Glasgow. The new town is not the answer.
  New industry must be attracted into the area. How it is to be done, I do not know. I cannot see how it is practicable for Governments to attract people in that way unless they offer subsidies or assure them that conditions will be created wherein goods can be produced more cheaply than they can somewhere else. How else it can be done, I do not know. This idea of attracting industry has always been something of a mystery to me, unless the idea is to give the industrialists and organisers in industry some financial advantage for going.
  My information is that it has been planned to sink a new pit at Bearsden. I understand that the National Coal Board in Scotland has been ready for some time to go ahead with the sinking of this new pit. The work might have been started some time ago and some of the men now being displaced from Gartshore might have been employed in the work of sinking it had it not been for the Secretary of State for Scotland holding it up. I can hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible because I did not think he was strong enough to hold up the Coal Board, but the information may be true. I did not like to write a letter to the Secretary of State making this statement after the debate on Tuesday, but if the Joint Under-Secretary of State would give me an assurance

  685
  that he is prepared to receive a letter pointing out that this suggestion, which may be quite untrue, has been made, I will write to him.
  Mr. Willis: Would it be a proceeding in Parliament?
  Mr. Bence: If I have that assurance. I will send it.
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will carefully examine conditions in what I call this triangle around Kilsyth. It is amazing that we should go to a great deal of trouble to build a new town seven miles away from a place where, as a result of Government policy—I am not making a political point—we are leaving another town to decay. Here are two towns, one being allowed to decay and the other, a new one, now being built. It seems frightful. I hope that the Secretary of State will use what influence and power he has to have a decision about the Bearsden pit arrived at quickly and do what he can to attract new industry to this triangle in order to save its little villages which, at the moment, are quite prosperous places but which are in danger of becoming no more than a backwater.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I will do my best to finish by twenty-five minutes to nine; but I want to say a word now about the shipping industry. I am much in favour of attracting new industry to Scotland, and I very much want a strip mill in Scotland. As a production engineer, I know very well that, in this modern age, there is a vast range of products made out of strip steel. Without strip steel, there is no hope of progress in light engineering. Strip steel has taken the place of cast iron and even of aluminium die-castings in many branches of engineering. Therefore, I ask the Government to make a quick decision to lay down a strip mill in Scotland. At the same time, however, we must not forget the great basic industries, of which shipbuilding is one.
  The shipbuilding industry is of great importance to my constituency and to the Clyde basin in general. It is of importance also, of course, to the Scottish steel industry. After all is said and done, if it were not for the shipping industry. Colville's shares might be worth 2½d. apiece. Although some of that company's steel goes into general engineering, the bulk of it goes to shipbuilding.
  686
  The shipbuilding industry is very prosperous at the moment. But unfortunately factors are creeping in which may have a serious effect on the industry in the next five years. Although we are members of the United Nations and members of the association of the free nations of the world who believe in playing the game, what the American Government are doing in their internal shipbuilding and commercial policy, whether they realise it or not, is contributing towards completely smashing the British Mercantile Marine and the British shipbuilding industry Will not anyone realise what is happening in the United States? Four passenger liners, two for the North Atlantic and two for the Pacific, costing £27¾ million apiece, are being laid down and financed by the American Government. These liners are being, transferred to American companies, at a cost of £16½ million spread over a period of their life, which then put them under flags of convenience. How can the British Mercantile Marine stand up to that?
  Again, the American Government are to finance the rebuilding of every American merchantman which is over 15 years old. These ships will carry a subsidy of 30 per cent. America is the land of free enterprise. We have a Government here which steadfastly refuses to face the position and either do a similar thing for the British shipbuilding industry or at least get the Americans to recognise the unfair challenge to the British Mercantile Marine. As a trading nation, we cannot afford to see the British Mercantile Marine deteriorate. It is one of our big earners of foreign exchange. The shipbuilding industry is absolutely vital to Scotland. If it goes down the repercussions will be terrific. The whole of the steel industry, which is concerned with the making of instruments for ships, and the furnishing trades will be affected.
  This is a serious matter, and I should have thought that the British Government, in view of our great traditions of the sea—and remembering that British mercantile supremacy from the 17th century has been built up with ships built in yards belonging to the Government—would have done something about it. The British Mercantile Marine was built up by Governments before the 19th century, and the ships were hired out to

  687
  Hawkins and other men who went round the world plundering the Spanish and Portuguese.
  Commander Donaldson: And no flags of convenience.
  Mr. Bence: Yes. In those days the flag of convenience was either the Union Jack or the skull and crossbones. The skull and crossbones was the best one. With that flag, ships got into all sorts of places. Viscount Tredegar, who was formerly Henry Morgan, sailed the Spanish Main with a skull and crossbones and came back and got a peerage for doing such grand pirating work against the Spaniards. He became Viscount Tredegar. He was knighted the first Sir Henry Morgan.
  Mr. Ross: Was he a Member of the Scottish Grand Committee?
  Mr. Bence: He would have been had he been here. We are now being a little facetious. A sense of humour is all right, but this is a serious matter for the British shipbuilding industry. It appears that by international agreement we shall not get the Americans to drop their sponsoring of ships under flags of convenience. It is not merely a matter of being negative. The Americans are actually sponsoring ships under flags of convenience. They are subsidising American shipbuilding so that American merchant marine lines can sail their ships across the seas in competition with British ships.
  Coupled with the American navigation act, whereby cargoes have to be carried in American ships, we are indeed faced in Scotland, in particular, as a great shipbuilding country, with tragically unfair competition from the United States of America. I feel almost certain that the Russians would not go so far in the subsidising and patronage of a particular industry as the Americans have done in order to try, as I believe, to weaken sterling on the international market.
  It is now two minutes to 8.35, and I promised to sit down at 8.35. I should like to make one final plea to the Secretary of State. We seem to have citizens on a first-class standard of living south of Gloucester, a second-class standard between Gloucester and Carlisle, a third-class standard between Carlisle and Fort
  688
  William, and a fourth-class standard between Fort William and Stornoway. That seems to be how our nation is divided up. It is simply not good enough.
  The drift towards the South is taking place all the time. It is no good railing or complaining about it. Obviously, any man with any initiative will go towards where the best conditions can be found. Hence this continual flow down here. I do not care what Government are in power. If they are concerned with the good government of all the people, wherever they may be, they must take positive action. There must be executive action to direct and to move industry and productive processes into those areas not only where people are, but where it is desirable that people should be. We want to move the population and spread it out a bit. It will never be done by going cap in hand to the Bronx or to boards of directors. A Government Department must be set up or established and Governments must take positive, direct action in establishing industries in the further parts of our country and relieve the pressure on this southern area down here.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) will forgive me if I do not follow him in talking about the shipping industry, because I want to raise two rather different points.
  The first concerns the wage structure in industry. Before I came to this House, I was connected with the engineering industry in Glasgow for a short while and I had a good look at the system of wages and the structure generally. What amazed me was that when any new men came into a company, their first question was, "How much Sunday work and how much overtime is there?" It may be that these men were interested in raising their standards or perhaps they had no outside interests, or it may be that the basic wages were not high enough—I do not know. I suspect that it was a mixture of all three. It seems to me, merely as a layman, that there is something faulty with our wage system. It also seems to me that as a great Christian nation, many of our factory laws and arrangements are not quite in accordance with the principles of our religion.

  689
  I should like to know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether there is any body in Scotland composed of employers and the Government, and, perhaps, representatives of the unions, which is examining our wage system, not only for today, but for twenty-five years ahead, because a very efficient system in which everybody was contented would obviously make for efficiency in industry.
  My second point concerns the rights and duties of employers and of unions. It is my view that the trade unions have an honourable history. There is no shadow of doubt that they have done a great deal to raise the standard of the working people in Scotland and have brought happiness to many homes. Recently, however, there have been some rather disturbing elements which I do not like and which I do not believe the public likes.
  We remember the leader of the bummarees, in Smithfield, who rather put himself above the law. Then there was the case of the polisher in the Rolls-Royce factory at East Kilbride, and there was the even worse case of the members of the Electrical Trades Union who appeared masked on television. That, to me, was quite appalling.
  Most of these are cases from outside Scotland. In my view, labour relations in Scotland and the trade union organisation are superior to those in England. Nevertheless, there are certain attitudes taken up which are really as dead as the dodo. It seems to me that in industry we have a division of a horizontal character, with employers and labour pulling against each other. That must weaken the efficiency of industry generally.
  I should be very glad to hear what hon. Members opposite have to say on the subject, because I am a seeker after knowledge here. I wonder whether the solution would not be to get back to the guild system, or some sort of extension of it, so that everybody in industry, from the general manager to the newest apprentice, would pull together and belong to a single industry. Thus, if there were to be divisions they would be vertical or perpendicular divisions.
  This may not be the solution to the problem, but I am concerned that our labour relations should be the best possible. We in Scotland are a small nation. We are closely knit and I believe that we
  690
  have skill and intelligence. Surely there is scope here for experiment. I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite what they think of this idea. I should like to know whether there is any body which is studying these matters with a view to introducing a new philosophy and long-term development. I am thinking not of 1958, but of fifty years ahead. I should be glad to know what my right hon. Friend has to say on these matters.
  8.43 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison) has asked a very formidable question of his right hon. Friend and hon. Members on this side and I do not propose to follow his invitation to go into the matter fully. When the profit motive takes second place to the activities within a factory, everybody will pull together much better than has been the case over the past many years.
  The best lecture that I ever heard on this matter was delivered at the Co-operative Co-partnership Federation by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). I recommend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South to read that lecture if he wants to know more about the attitude of many Labour and Co-operative Members to co-partnership and, I presume, to co-ownership in industry. I apologise for not dealing with the subject, but I am restricted by time, and the President of the Board of Trade was good enough to make an important announcement this afternoon affecting my constituency.
  Three events in the debate affected me considerably. The first was the political somersault performed by the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), which I welcome. He has changed in one year from being against the demand for a steel mill to being in favour of it. This change of mind has at last given us the unanimity which the Welsh have managed to maintain for years. Having the hon. Member back in the fold delights me very much, and I hope that all Scottish Members will concentrate their efforts on bombarding the Government with the demand that we have the fourth strip-steel mill in Scotland.
  The Liberal Unionists were also having a field day today. I was delighted to hear the statement by the hon. Baronet the

  691
  Member for Fife, Fast (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), who came out in favour of an economic general staff and thereby proposed a motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State. Thirdly, I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) argue in favour of planning. The only thing about it was that the hon. Gentleman emphasised in precisely the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) the demands of Dundee and the jute industry: that the Government must not tamper with the position of jute in Dundee until new jobs have been created to absorb the unemployment already created. In other words, there has to be a large programme to deal with unemployment.
  The hon. Gentleman can hardly deny to any other part of the country, Greenock or anywhere else, what he asks for Dundee. I make no apologies for talking about my own constituency. I have attracted a certain amount of dubious envy. I would prefer to be like the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) and boast of the lowest unemployment figures, even with the under-employment, than to state what has been the case for over a year in my constituency, that it has had the highest incidence of unemployment in the Scottish industrial areas. Remember that for twelve months we have had 8 per cent. of our insured population unemployed. I do not deny that Motherwell, Coatbridge and Dundee are catching up to the same level as Greenock, but it does not affect the fact that we have had this problem for a year, and in that year precious little has been done.
  Hon. Members may argue, as the Secretary of State is right in arguing, that a lot is to be done. The Secretary of State has managed to get an extension to I.B.M., but we have been told tonight of the cut, which will mean a reduction of from 500 to 300 jobs. By October, 1959, we shall lose the torpedo factory, and this means that 500 people will be rendered unemployed, even if the expectation of transfer to England materialises, and even that is in doubt at present. In other words, it is like filling a bath with the plug out and making an additional hole in the bath at the same time. It is an impossible situation and the Government must
  692
  do a great deal more than they are presently doing to attract industry to Greenock and other similar places.
  The Secretary of State knows that in October, 1959, he will have a huge advance factory lying vacant when the torpedo factory goes south. Have we to wail until then to get industry into Greenock? Are we to be satisfied with the extension that will be constructed in 1960? Even if the graving dock materialises, which is another part-solution, it will not actively affect the situation until 1963.
  I suggest to the Secretary of State that in view of the announcement of this cut it might be an idea if, converted by his Liberal Union colleagues, he would phase the problem of unemployment and make representations to the Admiralty to delay the transfer of the T.E.E. for three, six or twelve months. That is not unreasonable. After all, the Admiralty will not completely crack up, the fleet will not suddenly become unserviced if the transfer of the torpedo factory is postponed for such a time, but it would make an appreciable difference in terms of unemployment in the area.
  I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to face the argument of advance factories. I have been on quite a number of deputations and the right hon. Gentleman has been as courteous and as sympathetic as he can. We have heard the argument often. The argument of the Government is, "Well, the onrush of demand by private industry for factories is not the same as between 1945 and 1951. It is all changed now. There are very few customers for these standard factories, and it is far better to wait until someone comes along definitely to take over the tailor made factory."
  I do not deny that that argument has a great deal of force. It is an argument to which one should adhere if one wants to save money and not speculate riskily. However, I put it to the Secretary of State, as an example, that Greenock has already had an inquiry from a firm which would snap up a factory tomorrow if one were there. We know of similar offers made in other parts of Scotland by firms, but because the factories have not been available we have been unable to secure them for Scotland.
  When does an extension become a new factory? We heard the President of the

  693
  Board of Trade say that when a unit clearly functions on its own it is a new factory and will be refused a development certificate in the London area, but if it connected with a major process in the industry it is only an extension. I question whether the exercise of discrimination is being carried out as fully and as frankly as we are led to believe. I cannot understand why more of the development taking place in London could not take place in Scotland or elsewhere.
  The hon. Member for Pollok is connected with a very good firm in my constituency. It is a progressive firm and has a good labour record. It would never have come to Greenock if it had not been compelled to do so by the Labour Government, by the negative restriction of the refusal of a certificate, and also by building controls. It would have preferred to stay in Shrewsbury and extend there. Now it has no economic argument against being in Greenock.
  I would emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that only when we put pressure on firms shall we entice them to come to Scotland. No firm which has ever come to Scotland, no matter what the compulsion or with what reluctance it did so, has ever been sorry once it has settled down. All such firms are satisfied with the performance of the men and the prospects of their industries.
  The Government are being more than doctrinaire in their attitude towards advance factories. Lord Polwarth, who was praised this afternoon, heads the Scottish Council, which is on record as supporting advance factories in present circumstances. When the Government abandoned the plan some years ago, the Council ran a private scheme to finance factories. The scheme did not succeed, but those concerned were so convinced of the principle of advance factories that they were prepared to launch such a plan. The Government ought to think again.
  If we in Greenock had three or four small, advance factories which were capable of accommodating firms employing 100 men, we could quickly attract industrialists; then once they were there we might be able to offer them far bigger factories when they had begun to develop and seen the potentialities of the district. We cannot rely on sentiment and the social consciousness of private enterprise to bring industry to Scotland. We require
  694
  Government persuasion and, indeed, awkwardness with private industry to entice it there. Once the firms go there, I am sure that they will be very glad that they were so enticed.
  Although the right hon. Gentleman has much to which to reply, I urge him to say something about Greenock tonight. I particularly ask him to deal with the transfer of the torpedo factory and to postpone it for a short time to give us a breathing space so that our unemployment rate will not rise from 8 per cent. to 10, or even 12 per cent., a figure which is an unreasonable development in the light of the present situation. Indeed, that could materialise before 1960 unless the Government suitably plan their programme.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Maitland: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), and I shall be as brief as possible because we have only a few minutes left. However, the hon. Member referred to a black spot and I want once again to draw attention to a grey spot in Scotland's unemployment story.
  In the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire, the unemployment rate is only between 2 and 3 or 3·5 per cent. as against the 8 per cent. which the hon. Member mentioned and the 10 per cent. further North; and because of that the Board of Trade tends to think that our position is good and it points to the Colville development at Ravenscraig and the vast new Caterpillar production factory. This tends to obscure the fact that every year about 200 voters leave the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire, meaning that every five years about 1,000 families remove from that area. This process has continued not for five but for about ten years.
  There is some under-employment in the Douglas mining area, and there are widespread rumours and uncertainty about the future of the Kingshill colliery near Forth. There are uncertainties about the textile factory at Turfholm, Lesmahagow, and men have been laid off at Leadhills, due largely to the depression of base metal prices, by Lowland Lead Mines. Finally, there has been a case in Lanarkshire reminiscent of the Torpedo Establishment at Greenock, even if it is not so grave, in the running

  695
  down of the R.E.M.E. works, which will involve the displacement of between 150 and 200 men.
  This is a familiar story in the Upper Ward, for we have had factories closing down not for only in the past five but in the past ten years—the Cleghorn textile mill, the difficulties with the Kirkfieldbank chenille factory, the Castlehill and Wilsontown collieries, the jam factory at Carluke. Against that, only a couple of factories have come into the area. There is a new shirt factory at Lanark, and a keen and enterprising young man has taken over a large country house called Auchlochan House near Lesmahagow and turned it into a textile factory making excellent sweaters.
  The point I want quickly to make in the ear of the Secretary of State is that I believe it is only by the Tory Government's town development programme that we can provide the context for tackling this drift. I believe it sincerely and I believe that the town development provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act will prove in years to come to have been of enormous value for countering this trend.
  I therefore beg hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, still more, the local authorities in Lanarkshire, to pay due attention to paragraph 40 of the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland which we are debating tonight. In order to get it on the record, I want to read this extract:
  "Where the receiving authority intend to provide special social facilities in conjunction with overspill houses, they may, under the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, make a town development scheme for the provision of industrial, commercial or other accommodation. Approval of a scheme makes Exchequer grants available towards acquiring and preparing land, and towards water supply and sewerage services and the provision of serviced sites for industry. In addition, receiving authorities are empowered to erect factory buildings for disposal either by lease or on mortgage terms; and the Board of Trade will arrange in suitable cases for the specialised knowledge and experience of Scottish Industrial Estates Ltd. to be made available. The Secretary of State is prepared to authorise Glasgow Corporation to spend up to £250,000 a year on purchasing in advance industrial premises which will be affected by approved schemes of redevelopment provided the firms concerned wish to sell their premises and are willing to resettle in the receiving area."
  696
  I hope that local authorities in Scotland, particularly Lanarkshire, will note that paragraph, because the town development programme is, in local Scottish terms, the key.
  We have had before us tonight, implicitly if not explicitly, an interesting Report from the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry. Among other things, that has given two bouquets to the Government and they are worth mentioning. In paragraph 4 in page 5 of that Report, we are reminded that from 1951 to 1956 the number of employed persons in Scotland increased by about 60,000.
  Secondly, in paragraph 6 in page 5 the Report says:
  "The situation has been helped by the reduction in the Bank rate and by the selective easing of Bank credit restrictions. It will also be eased by the Bill now before Parliament to extend the Distribution of Industry Act of 1945 to cover financial assistance to sound new developments of all kinds …"
  Those are the words of the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry.
  However, I believe that the Council is mistaken on one point, and that is in saying that our future industrial progress in Scotland depends upon oversea markets, which is true, through European markets as the more important, and full of opportunity. The gross national product in these islands is about £17,000 million. Our gross overseas trade is worth about £10,000 million. Our gross overseas trade with the Commonwealth is worth about £7,500 million. In other words, for practical purposes, virtually every other job in these Islands depends upon Commonwealth trade. Here, the Scottish Council was a little bit mistaken in pointing simply to the export market that Scotland should seek in Europe. I prefer the line of its magazine, "Scotland",!which has drawn attention over and over again to the markets which are available to Scotland in the Commonwealth.
  The Commonwealth is dotted with men from Scotland, who are advocates of Scottish goods all the time. I should like to see one or other of the great Scottish newspapers the Glasgow Herald or the Scotsman, producing every week an airmail Scottish newspaper which should go to the 10 million, 15 million or 20 million Scotsmen who live elsewhere in the English-speaking world, in the

  697
  Commonwealth and the United States. It would bring the news of Scotland, and would carry with it advertisements of the Scottish industrial production and Scottish goods.
  If Scotland took advantage of the unofficial, unpaid ambassadors she has all over the Commonwealth, and particularly in Canada, and also the United States, she could develop markets far more prosperous and useful than any we can see in Europe. The population of Europe is scarcely rising at all, nor is the standard of living rising very fast, and nothing like, percentagewise, our own in the Commonwealth. Here is the great opportunity. The Scottish Council was wrong in pointing to Europe rather than to the Commonwealth, because in the Commonwealth we have our chance.
  There are Scotsmen all over the Commonwealth. We have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson), in a round Canadian accent, a speech advocating Scottish interests. I believe that our interests are involved with those of the Commonwealth. Every other job in these Islands depends upon Commonwealth trade, and so, above all, does Scotland.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I intended to say much about the fishing industry, but now our old enemy, time, prevents me from using more than two minutes. I shall, therefore, confine my speech to two aspects of the subject.
  One aspect is the way in which the Government have chopped and changed their policy for the fishing industry, thus embarrassing that industry very much. I shall refer briefly to grants and subsidies. The Government have now introduced two Orders which have not become law, but which will embarrass the fishing industry. I have received a telegram about those Orders from Aberdeen, in the following terms:
  "Would ask your strong support that subsidy to fishing vessels be at least retained at current level. This association fears that any reduction in these rates coupled with known increases in expenses and diminution in supplies may lead to vessels being laid up with consequent risk of unemployment to all sections of the fishing industry.—Owners, Aberdeen."
  That telegram speaks for itself.
  698
  The second aspect to which I refer is the territorial limits and the manner in which the Government are dealing or failing to deal with that matter, which offers a grave threat to the fishing industry. I cannot elaborate upon this, or the other point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) for giving me this little bit of his time. I thank him, and I hope that the Minister will take into account the points that I have put so very briefly.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I am pleased that I told my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) that I would be willing to let him have two or three minutes of the time allotted to me.
  I listened with great interest to the speech which the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) has just made. I believe that he spoke with great sincerity, but he was talking nonsense. To say that the problem of employment for Scotland would be solved by the vigorous application of overspill agreements made with the City of Glasgow is just nonsense. It is very difficult to believe that anyone could really put that forward seriously, but I gathered from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech that he was very serious in putting forward that proposition.
  I know that the Town Council of Campbeltown, with 12 per cent. unemployed, was willing to have an overspill agreement with Glasgow, because it could see no other prospect of getting any other industry brought to Campbeltown at all. The council has no confidence whatever in the President of the Board of Trade or in the Secretary of State for Scotland. The council thinks that if it should undertake to take 2,000 or 3,000 people from Glasgow, then Glasgow would be able to send with them some industry which would give employment to more people than actually came from Glasgow.
  But Glasgow cannot do that, either with Campbeltown or any other town at such a distance from Glasgow. Glasgow will find it difficult enough to do with places like Kilmarnock or with Hamilton, which I myself have the honour to represent. Glasgow will find it difficult enough to get industrialists to go out there.

  699
  The only way to get Glasgow's overspill population rehoused in expanding communities at a considerable distance from Glasgow is for the Government to put up the industrial buildings in those communities and get the industrialists to go there, whether they are Glasgow industrialists or not. If they build houses at the same time, they will attract the people from Glasgow to live in those communities.
  As is usual in these debates, my hon. Friends are always blamed for having painted too bleak a picture of the Scotland of today and the prospects for tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) made an excellent speech in introducing the subject of this debate, but the President of the Board of Trade thought that my hon. Friend had painted too bleak a picture. Then, the right hon. Gentleman painted the picture as he saw it, but not, I suggest, as it is. He had in mind a few industrial developments that have taken place in Scotland in recent years, and he named them. Having named them, he said that that did not look like a very bleak picture; but that was not the picture of Scotland. That was a picture of only a few industries.
  Hon. Friends of the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the debate, have also complained about the Opposition painting too bleak a picture of the Scotland which we are all seeking to serve, and have said that Scotland is really a prosperous country. This has been said several times by Tory Members who have spoken in the debate. Having said that, and having told us that things were not as bad as we said they were, they went on to tell us that about the difficulties of their constituencies, so that the picture that emerged of a prosperous Scotland was more bleak than the picture painted by my hon. Friends, who were looking at Scotland as a whole.
  Of course, many people are in employment in Scotland. We have 2 million in employment, but the fact that we stress that we have 75,000 who cannot possibly find a job must not be taken to mean that we are unaware of the 2 million other people in jobs. The President of the Board of Trade could have said to us, "You have 2 million people in work in Scotland; that is not a bad picture", and then sat
  700
  down. We should have been as well informed about Government policy then as we were after listening to the speech that he made to us today.
  The right hon. Gentleman and others have told us that we ought to consider ourselves lucky, because there was a recession in America and unemployment there and in Canada, France and some countries of Europe ranged from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. while Britain's figure was about 2 per cent. How right the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) was when he said that it was not much use saying to an unemployed man in his constituency that we have 1·3 per cent. or 2 per cent. unemployed, for that man was 100 per cent. unemployed.
  It is not much use saying to a man who is unemployed, or who is fearing unemployment, that Canada, America, Germany, or Italy have a higher rate of unemployment than we have. Those countries are free enterprise, capitalist countries which do not believe in a planned economy or the exercising of controls, although they are increasingly exercising controls, particularly in the United States of America.
  When I was in the United States, just over twelve months ago, some Americans tried to convince me that America was more Socialist than the United Kingdom. They certainly exercise a lot of controls to keep their people in employment. They know full well that unemployment could be worse if they did not have controls. We in Britain are better off in this respect than many of those free enterprise countries. Why is that? The President of the Board of Trade seemed to think that it was due to the Government, but is it? For twenty years now, thanks to Labour pressure, a measure of responsibility for economic well-being is accepted by government. Even the President of the Board of Trade will accept some responsibility now for the economic well-being of the country, but that was not so twenty-odd years ago, when I was unemployed for a very long time.
  I thought, when the President of the Board of Trade was speaking, that he did not know and was not very much interested in what he was talking about. One of my great difficulties in this matter, and one of the reasons why I often get

  701
  into trouble in this House, is that I know only too well what I am talking about when talk about people being out of a job. The Government have increasingly accepted responsibility for the economic well-being of the country. That has been particularly so since the war and since we had a period of Labour Government, when some additional controls were introduced.
  The President of the Board of Trade tried to tell us that he still accepted the policy of the Distribution of Industry Act, but in a large part of his speech he was arguing against any control at all. He suggested that it was quite wrong to try to get an industrialist to go where he did not want to go. If he does that, he might as well repeal that Act altogether. The right hon. Gentleman was boasting about the Bill now going through Parliament. Is not the purpose of the Bill which is now before another place to provide inducements to industrialists to go to a part of the country where there is a high and persistent level of unemployment, to carry out activities there instead of in some other part of the country?
  Is that not the purpose of the Bill, to induce the capitalist investor to go to a part of the country where there is high and persistent unemployment, whereas, without that Measure, he might invest his capital elsewhere? I thought that the President of the Board of Trade was telling us this afternoon that it was a very bad thing to try to induce industrialists to go to a part of the country to which they did not want to go.
  Sir D. Eccles: No. I am trying to do it.
  Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is trying to do it. I do not entirely accept that. Nor do I entirely accept what he said about industrial development certificates. I questioned him about new factories and extensions and I wanted him to expand a little on what is an extension.
  I was never President of the Board of Trade, but I was a junior Minister at the Scottish Office for some time, when we were carrying through a distribution of industry policy, and I know of many very successful industrial developments which took place in Scotland after the
  702
  war which were extensions of industries in the South. How does the President of the Board of Trade think that we got Metro-Vickers at Motherwell? Was this a new thing or was it an extension? They wanted an extension at Old Trafford and we said, "No".
  There is an assumption in some parts of the country and among some hon. Members that an extension is an extension of an existing factory. If that were the test applied by the President of the Board of Trade, there would not be as many new factories going up in London and the South, because many of these new factories are extensions of existing industries. What kind of new industrial development is not an extension of an existing industrial development? There may be odd cases which are completely and totally new and he may be able to refuse in those cases, but if he accepts and passes all the applications which are extensions, then it is not surprising that we see all this development in the South.
  The figures for factory building have been produced over and over again. We have been told that in Scotland we have done well since the end of the war in factory building and that London, with 20 per cent. of the country's population, has only 10 per cent. of the industrial building. London has twice the population of Scotland, but at present there is three times the amount of factory building going on in London than in the whole of Scotland and we have now more people unemployed in Scotland than in the whole of the London area. In absolute terms, we have more people unemployed. Moreover, one would think that the Minister would appreciate better than I that a considerable proportion of London's employed population is not employed in manufacturing industries. There is the huge employment in shops and offices.
  Mr. Bence: And beauty parlours.
  Mr. Fraser: We have all those working in shops and office accommodation in London, all of which provides a considerable amount of employment which is not taken into account at all in considering the amount of industrial building, which is industrial building for manufacturing industry.
  Anyone who looks at the figures of industrial building and who feels pleased about what is going on in Scotland must

  703
  be very easily pleased, because we have the highest number of people unemployed in Scotland in absolute terms and we have the highest number of people on short-time working. The position is worsening all the time.
  Then, when we turn to the amount of factory building going on, we find that we have almost the smallest amount of any. In Scotland, there is 5 million square feet under construction at present, in the Midlands nearly 11 million square feet, in London nearly 15 million square feet, and in the Eastern Division almost 12 million square feet.
  This makes the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland at New Mains the other week complete nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman says that he was talking about Government-financed factories and about what the Government were doing, but he should also have explained the problem which the Government were tackling. He did not do that. He did not show, nor did the Prime Minister in his speeches and the letter which he wrote to Argyll, how much factory building was going up in the whole country.
  Recently, I did a broadcast with the hon. Member for Lanark. The hon. Member has now left the Chamber. I am sorry that he has done so, because he had only just arrived when he rose to make his speech. I had not intended to complain about his not having heard the debate, but I think that it is a little rough that he should make his speech and then walk out.
  I did a television broadcast with the hon. Member the other week. He was absolutely shocked to know that at present there is between 98 million and 100 million square feet of factory space under construction. He did not believe it. He had been a victim of Tory propaganda. He spoke of half a million square feet of factory space, but he had not got it into perspective at all. That is the trouble with the Tory supporters. It is also the trouble with the Tory Ministers. They believe their own leaflets—their own propaganda.
  The President of the Board of Trade says that it would be wrong to stop Scotsmen leaving Scotland. Goodness gracious, no one has asked him for that. What we have been asking the Government
  704
  to do is to take account of the terrific exodus of Scots from Scotland, this net loss of population each year. We have never denied that people who are doing well in business or in the professions will, from time to time, pack up and go away, and it is a good thing for the British Commonwealth and for other parts of the world that they have done so.
  We are not trying to stop that at all, but we do take into account that, with the great industrial activity in the South, there is a lot of unemployment in Scotland. We take into account that we have a net loss of population by migration—a lot come into the country each year, but more go out—amounting to 24,000 or 25,000 a year. We think that that is serious. Last year, the loss was 32,500. We think that that is serious. Incidentally, it is the biggest loss since 1929.
  It is, of course, more than matched by the increase in population in London. That is understandable. The Ministry of Labour Gazette warns us that the Ministry's assessment of migration of workers is subject to a wide margin of error, but, according to the figures in the Gazette, about 8,000 insured workers left Scotland last year, while the total population loss was 32,500. But the net gain to London and the South was 33,000 insured workers. To us, that does not seem to be a good thing.
  I thought that we passed the New Towns Act very largely to deal with this great accumulation of population in the London area. We undertook to spend a lot of the taxpayers' money, and a lot of the taxpayers' money has been spent in trying to get people out of this area, but, apparently, the President of the Board of Trade, by his grant of industrial development certificates for what he calls extensions, is seeking the reverse, and as we try to get people out of the area, he tries to get them in. The result is that there is a net gain in the population of the most overcrowded part of the Kingdom each year.
  We are clearly moving in the wrong direction. During the war, when there was a Coalition Government and we were all good friends, we had many debates about the overcrowded population in the South. It was said that it was desirable strategically, socially—even economically—that we should use the country better;

  705
  that we should spread the population instead of having one-fifth of it concentrated in the London area. But the President of the Board of Trade is out for more records. He wants a record high population in the London area and, of course, he is getting it each year.
  The right hon. Gentleman took credit for every new job provided in Scotland in recent years and for every little factory which had gone up. He wiped his hands completely of responsibility for the 22,500 Scottish people who lost their jobs last year. The right hon. Gentleman has no responsibility for that whatever. All we have is a lot of boasting about some little factories providing employment for about 150 people apiece—"All my own work"—all the gains a credit to the Government, but none of the losses a debit to be set against them. Somebody else must be blamed for that.
  The President of the Board of Trade tells us that we must not be too sorry for ourselves in Scotland, that we must not cry "Woe" all the time lest we frighten the industrialists away. But surely we should be allowed to recognise distress among our own people when we see it; and we are not so blind as not to recognise the Government's failure to tackle the problems of our country. We have a responsibility to bring these things forward.
  We have never said anything which, I should imagine, would discourage industrialists from coming to Scotland. We believe that our craftsmen are as good as can be found anywhere in the world. We have good reason to believe that our unskilled and semi-skilled workers, those who have manned the new factories which have come in recent years and will man those which will come in the future, are as adaptable as the workers to be found anywhere in Britain. We are proud of our workmen and their workmanship, and we believe that we have a great deal of skill among our technicians and managerial people.
  We believe that we can make a bigger and bigger contribution to the economic life of the country as a whole, but we know how capital is organised nowadays. Great finance companies are created which will invest their money where it pays them best, where they will obtain the best return on their capital. We know that, left to the influence of natural
  706
  forces, the great finance companies will always take their money into the London area and the Midlands, into manufacturing industries, and will completely neglect the rest. That is exactly what happens, because, of course, it pays best to invest one's money in manufacturing industries in the Midlands or London. If money is to be invested in this country, it is invested in London or in the Midlands. This has been so ever since the First World War, and it has been seen clearly to be so.
  Knowing that that is so, and believing that it will be a disaster if the rest of our land were to shed its population while the Midlands and London continued to grow all the time, and believing that it would be a bad thing—
  Mr. Bence: A tragedy.
  Mr. Fraser: Yes, a tragedy—what ought we to do? We should try to introduce inducements to spread industry out a little. We should try to make it just as attractive for the capitalist to go to Dundee or to Greenock as it is for him to go to Birmingham or London. That is what we must do.
  I know that the Secretary of State finds it very difficult to introduce the controls which will make it possible for him either to provide the inducements to go to Dundee and Greenock or elsewhere or to exercise the other controls which would make it possible for the Government to put a limit to the amount of industrial development in London, in the Midlands and other such places. They must do one of the two. They must either make it equally attractive to go to the places which are today our particular concern, or they must put a bar against additional industrial development in the other parts. Otherwise, they may as well resign themselves to the prospect of the whole of our manufacturing activity being built around the two areas which I have mentioned.
  I have probably spent too long in replying to one or two points made by the President of the Board of Trade. However, we are very worried about, and have a duty to concern ourselves with, the situation in Scotland. The figures published by the Minister of Labour only yesterday show that unemployment was down last month compared with the month before by 1,570. But the important thing is that there was a considerable reduction in unemployment in

  707
  Aberdeen, the North East, and in the Highlands and Islands, due entirely to the seasonal increase in employment in the fishing industry, plus a small increase in seasonal employment in catering establishments in the North. Altogether, there was a reduction of 2,100 unemployed in those areas. But in the industrial parts of Scotland, in places like Greenock, Dundee and North Lanarkshire, even last month there was a further increase in unemployment. In the four weeks ended mid-May there was an increase in unemployment in the whole of Great Britain of 4,000. The increase in Lanarkshire alone was 1,225. So that we had almost one-third of the increase in unemployment for Britain as a whole.
  We cannot be content to leave things as they are. We know very well that if there is to be a general damping down of the economy the time will come when there will be no point in building advance factories. But if there is to be a releasing of the screw in the near future, if the squeeze is to be eased, and the Government believe that we can look forward soon to an era of expansion, will they, in those circumstances, regulate the industrial expansion to provide that the industrial development certificate procedure will be very much tightened up? The procedure is not observed. If it were observed there would not be any question of granting extensions unless the President of the Board of Trade were satisfied that labour was available to take the jobs that became vacant. But he knows that labour is not available at present.
  When there is an expansion in our economy so that there is more industrial activity in the country as a whole, will the Government put the brakes on in London and the Midlands and consider the areas where there is a lot of unemployment and encourage industrial expansion there? When that happens, by all means allow Scottish Industrial Estates to build their advance factories. In that event, there is no doubt that the advice given to the President of the Board of Trade by the Scottish Council, by his own regional office in Glasgow and by Scottish Industrial Estates will be seen to be well founded, because, of course, tenants will be obtained for the advance factories which are built.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) made what was to me an interesting speech. The one part which I regretted was when he cast quite unjustified doubts upon the integrity and sincerity of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade both said and has been doing since he held that office, as his predecessors have done. Inevitably, my contacts with the Board of Trade and with the right hon. Gentleman have been very close indeed in all this period. While I know that my right hon. Friend has a difficult balancing job to perform in thinking of the industrial needs of the whole of the country, I can say with conviction that he has paid the closest possible attention to Scotland's needs throughout all the time I have had anything to do with the matter. I express my gratitude to him for the very balanced and real way in which he has approached our Scottish problems.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton almost tempted me to get into a metaphysical argument about controls. The hon. Member knows that I have said in public—I said it, I think, even this morning—that I do not believe in the tightly-controlled planned State. There are certain controls which everyone today accepts as being necessary in the highly complex world in which we live. It may be a matter for considerable argument and discussion in the years to come to what extent the party opposite believes in a system of controls that is much tighter than those which we recognise are necessary—financial controls as against physical controls. [Interruption.] The financial control is a much more flexible one. That is the whole point.
  As I said in another speech, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred in such an interesting way, I still believe that the party opposite is committed in its mind to a form of rigid physical control which cannot be good for the country.
  In quoting the figures of comparative unemployment percentages in different countries, we on this side are entitled to take some credit, as far as Governments can take credit for these things. In the years since 1951, we have deliberately set out to make our economy more and more

  709
  flexible. We have had to retain certain types of financial control, but we have gone for flexibility, leaving it to individuals to make their own decisions wherever humanly possible. There is good evidence that the fact that we have managed to hold our unemployment figures at the level at which they are much lower than those of a great many other countries is, to a considerable extent, due to the flexibility that we have managed to get into the economy in these years.
  In the rest of my speech, I shall attempt what is probably the impossible by trying to deal with a great many of the points which have been raised during the debate. That is the purpose of a debate of this kind, but, obviously, I will not manage to cover all the ground, although I will do my best.
  The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) made an extremely useful, constructive, opening speech. I did not agree with everything in it, but it was a useful opening to a debate of this kind and we are all grateful to him. The hon. Member mentioned employment and unemployment figures, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton in his winding-up speech. While nobody could be more concerned than my right hon. Friend and myself about the rise in the figures in recent months, both in Scotland and, throughout the country, it is worth pointing out that, even if it is for seasonal reasons—I am glad that the seasonal reasons have produced an improved figure—the figures for Scotland in June, the latest available, were 3,129 less than in February, whereas—I do not want to take any pleasure in this, but it is a fact—in England and Wales they were 7,800 worse. The figure in Scotland, therefore, has been improving. There may be seasonal reasons, but the fact is that we have been moving against the trend of the South. It is well to remember that a year or two ago, when there was a small recession on the other side of the Atlantic which hit this country, Scotland was nothing like as hard hit as England and Wales in that period, both in trade and in unemployment figures.
  The hon. Member for Leith said a certain amount about the closures which have taken place as a result of Service cuts. He said that no action had been taken to provide alternative employment. I cannot accept that. Certain actions have been taken. Some have
  710
  produced results so far, and we hope for results from others.
  It is important not to exaggerate the effect of Service closures on the Scottish economy. We do not like them but it is wise to keep the thing in balance. The most recent figure available for the number of people in Scotland who are engaged on defence work was just over 39,000, which is less than 2 per cent. of insured workers in Scotland. In the eighteen months from May, 1956, total defence employment in Scotland fell by just over 8,000, thus affecting under two-fifths of 1 per cent. of the Scottish insured population. This is a slightly smaller proportion than the percentage affected in Great Britain as a whole in the same period.
  The biggest industry concerned with defence in Scotland is the aircraft industry. Its growth since the Korean war kept pace proportionately with the growth of the industry elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but it has not so far suffered to the same extent from the recent decline in military aircraft work. Rolls-Royce, which represents the major part of the Scottish aircraft industry, has a substantial volume of work on hand. Scottish Aviation is supplying the civil market and has orders on hand for the Royal Air Force. The future for both these firms, like the rest of the aircraft industry, must lie in their further success in the civil markets.
  I should like to give figures relating to what has been happening in one of the places which have been closed down. At Donibristle, despite a considerable run-down of the establishment, not a single worker has been discharged so far as redundant. Up to 26th June, 280 Donibristle workers had gone to new jobs, including 118 transferred to other naval establishments. So far, the whole operation has gone so smoothly that the speed of the run-down has been a slight embarrassment to the yard, where work has still to be completed on schedule. Where these closures occur they cause great concern, but so far there has been no serious effect on employment in that part of Scotland. One can only hope that the same will apply to other establishments which are run down. I realise that redundancies have affected Greenock and my own constituency and that this has something to do with the swelling of the unemployment figures in Greenock.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The President of the Board of Trade this afternoon made some reference to the position of the Royal Ordnance factories in Scotland. I did not quite catch what he said. Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Bishopton will not suffer more redundancy in the present financial year?
  Mr. Maclay: My information is that it is a static figure at the moment. It has gone up slightly recently, but I have no reason to believe that the figure will be altered in the near future.
  Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain that this situation has been achieved partly by the closing down of a factory at Kilmarnock? The work has been transferred to Bishopton.
  Mr. Maclay: One does not want to be sure that because factories close down, because of defence reasons or otherwise, this necessarily means disaster to an area. I should like to thank the Minister of Labour for the extremely efficient way in which his Department moves in and tries to help where large redundancies may become possible.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned shale oil. There is a good deal of misconception about the economic position of the shale oil industry and about the decision of Scottish Oils to close down part of its production this year. In 1957 the preference which the shale industry had was worth £750,000 to the operating company, and the total benefit over the years has amounted to £20 million. The basic difficulty is that the mining and processing of shale is an inherently expensive way of producing oil.
  Mr. Willis: We know about all this.
  Mr. Maclay: I mention it because I do not think that everybody has heard this before, like the hon. Member. The industry, therefore, cannot compete on anything like level terms with production by the normal method of drilling. The argument that the Government are making a profit out of the industry in spite of the difficult economic position needs to be disposed of. I am concerned about the shale industry, but it is right to get things into perspective. If the industry were to go out of production completely, the Government would increase their revenue by collecting Customs Duty at the higher rate on the imported oil—
  Mr. Willis: This is a tortuous argument.
  Mr. Maclay: No, it is not, because people have said, and it has been said in the Press, that the Government will lose that revenue. I am dealing with things that have been said and which ought to be corrected. I have said that I am concerned about the position in the shale industry, but it is wise to get the facts right because they have not been understood.
  We, of course, are conscious that there is a real social problem in the shale area, and as the then Financial Secretary indicated last year, we have made careful investigations to see what could be done. We have found it extremely difficult to do anything positive for the industry. Those responsible for Scottish Oils said last April that, while they would have to discontinue operating the least economical of the shale oil seams in one part of the undertaking—that is the part which has accounted for almost the whole of the industry's loss—they hoped that after the proposed contraction was completed the remainder of the industry would continue in operation for a considerable time.
  Nothing has happened in the meantime to suggest that this is an unreasonable prospect. At the time of the announcement the industry was employing about 2,800 men and it was expected that 300 would have to be stood off by October, 1958. So far 97 have been discharged, and of these 25 appear to be unemployed at present. What it is essential to get clear is that the total reserves of shale in this area, if they could all be used at once, would amount to less than two months' consumption of oil in the United Kingdom. Surely it must be right—
  Mr. Willis rose—
  Mr. Maclay: What I am trying to get clear is that people have been talking today, and in the recent debate, as if the Government had done something which was killing the shale industry. It is not true. I have given the figures of expected redundancy. One cannot guarantee the future, but I have quoted what the company has said. The most uneconomic part of the operation is being closed. I sincerely hope we shall find that the present figures will be maintained for a

  713
  long time to come, but we must face the fact that these reserves are not inexhaustible. In fact, the seams will run out at the present rate of use in about twenty-five years, and it would be wrong to do anything other than what we are trying to do now. As the Chancellor of the Exhequer said, we are doing our utmost to get more industry into the area but, as hon. Members know, it is not there yet.
  Mr. Woodburn: Apart altogether from what the Government do, the National Coal Board maintains certain uneconomic pits on which it loses money. It could advance the same argument. This industry is a mere flea-bite, yet it is important to our industry and has been valuable in war-time. Surely we could keep it running, since the cost is nothing compared with the enormous cost of maintaining those pits?
  Mr. Maclay: That is why I am repeating the things I have said before. I have been telling the House what has happened in this last year, namely, that the uneconomic part is being closed. This will produce a redundancy of about 300, of which so far only 25 appear to be unemployed as far as can be seen from the records. We have no reason to think that the firm's own estimate will be wrong, namely, that it will be able to operate for a considerable time, though the figures will be watched after the 300 redundancy.
  That is not the destruction of an industry, but it would be folly on the part of the Government to ignore the fact that twenty-five years from now there will probably be no reserves, and the policy must be to try to do the very thing that has been discussed earlier—that is the phased move-over—and to try to get industry in at the same time. I hope it is clear from what I have said that this is not the death of the shale industry, which was talked of earlier today and in previous debates.
  I think at this stage I might say a word about Greenock. It is perhaps jumping the gun, but I do not see why I should not say something about it. I have noted what the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said about the torpedo experimental factory. That is not a matter on which I could give any view tonight, but the point has been carefully noted.
  714
  The hon. Member also referred to advance factories. Much has been said by other hon. Members about this matter. The application to which the hon. Gentleman referred was addressed to the local authority, which was asked to put the company in touch with the Board of Trade controller in Scotland who would be able to discover whether space could be found for the company in existing premises in Greenock or Port Glasgow.
  We could argue all night on the advance factory issue. I am not certain that that is the right direction in which to go. I have discussed this matter with most hon. Members opposite. I confess that at one time I was a strong believer in it. I have, however, discussed the matter very closely with the President of the Board of Trade, and there is a great deal of evidence that the advance factory is not the catch that it used to be. There is another element to be remembered. If one has a firm which wants a tailor-made factory, it is more likely to be a permanent institution than a firm which goes into an advance factory in a hurry. The time taken to build tailor-made factories has contracted a great deal, and in many cases the time taken to build a factory now will be about the time required by the firm to get the machinery that it needs and go into production.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that there are many instances in Scotland of firms which have gone into small advance factories and then expanded into their own tailor-made factories?
  Mr. Maclay: That has happened in a great many cases. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not object if I say that his mind is not completely closed on this matter. He has shown that he is willing to look at it, but I think the arguments have to be carefully weighed before one does something which may not catch the firms that we need.
  I turn now to the argument that I have been having with the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North. Hon. Members opposite complain in various ways that Scotland has lost her just proportion of new factory building in recent years. Let us see what has happened. I do not think hon. Members opposite realise that the extensive replacement of war-damaged factories in the South was

  715
  not included in the statistics before July, 1948. Therefore, the comparisons which hon. Members opposite try to make between what happened in those years and in recent years do not work out, because they omit three years of critical building. Do not let us try to compare unlike with unlike.
  Miss Herbison: If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to support his argument in that way, he ought to put before us the square footage of factory building that was not included.
  Mr. Maclay: That is impossible, because the figures were not available. At all events, I have not been able to find any way of obtaining the figures because they were kept on a different basis. I will give the hon. Lady a point in a moment. In some ways I rather regret that we in Scotland inevitably get into this argument about how we do in relation to other people. I agree that that is very important, but there is an important point to Scotland and that is the rate of growth of industry.
  Broadly speaking, between 1952 and 1957 there was a steadily increasing number of proposals for new building. Scotland suffered a smaller reduction than did the rest of Great Britain in 1956, which was a bad year. Moreover, from 1952 to mid-1957 the industrial buildings started in Scotland represented an employment potential of more than 37,000, or nearly 10 per cent. of the total for Great Britain. That is slightly higher than the figure of 9 per cent., which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North quoted, but I believe that she was using footage figures rather than employment potential, and the drop of 12½ per cent. which she quoted was relatively small when that is taken into account. In 1957, the 4·8 million square feet of factory building completed was the greatest amount completed in Scotland in any post-war year.
  Mr. Hoy: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be honest about this, he must be aware that it is made clear in the Report that that was the result of one very large factory, the largest ever built, having been completed in that year after having been built over a long time.
  Mr. Maclay: Are we sorry that that factory has been completed? I hope not.
  716
  I accept that figures can show a great many things, according to which side one is on, but we have been dealing with figures and I think that we should continue to deal with figures. To complete the hon. Lady's fury with me—she is expressing it in a very charming way—I will give some more figures. It is well worth appreciating that since 1952 17 new American projects in Scotland have been approved. Even more striking is the fact that a total of 150 firms not previously established in Scotland have opened new factories there. That is very important.
  To return to the figures which the hon. Lady does not like, if there is an existing area of population and industry, it is clear that the Government can move only slowly to alter the structure of that area. It cannot be done overnight and the most effective thing the Government can do is, to use direct influence, grants and loans and other devices, where they have the power. Although the hon. Lady does not like the figure, I repeat that since 1952 Scotland has had more than 38 per cent. of the Government-financed building in Development Areas. Some hon. Members do not like these figures, but they mean a great deal. More recently, the Scottish proportion has been even higher and in 1957–58, and so far in 1958–59, about three-quarters of Government-financed factory building approved has gone to Scotland.
  I do not want to overstress the relative figures, and I do not believe that they are necessarily the answer to anything. However, one is constantly hearing speeches throughout Scotland implying that our record since we came to power has been immeasurably worse than that of the Labour Party. One is bound to correct that impression, and the figures I have given make the position absolutely clear.
  It is inevitable that we should argue in a political way over these things, but let us be absolutely united on one thing, that we all want to talk about Scotland and behave in our arguments about Scotland in a way which will encourage people to come and develop industry in Scotland. There is some danger in our political bickering over these things, since it can exaggerate what is bad and wrong in Scotland. If we have to attack each other politically, I hope that in public

  717
  and abroad we will talk as one about what Scotland is, can and will be.
  I have not answered a great many questions since I did not want to be led astray into an argumentative speech, but I can assure hon. Members that have noted all their points.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Committee Tomorrow.

  TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir GORDON TOUCH in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the constitution of a Council on Tribunals and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of payments to members of any tribunal specified in the said Act.—[Mr. Simon.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received forthwith.
  Resolution reported accordingly, and agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    INCOME TAX (FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO SETTLEMENTS)
    Resolved,
    That any Act of the present Session relating to Finance may amend the provisions of Chapter II of Part XVIII of the Income Tax Act 1952, as to the circumstances in which income paid to or for the benefit of a child of a settlor is to be treated as income of the settlor and a settlement is to be treated as revocable and may add provisions to Chapter III of that Part for treating income arising under certain settlements as income of the settlor; and any such amendment or addition may have effect for surtax purposes for the year 1957–58 as well as subsequent years of assessment.—[Mr. Simon.]

    DIVIDENDS PAID OUT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS (SUBVENTION PAYMENTS AND ANNUAL PAYMENTS)
    Resolved,
    That provision shall be made for disregarding dividends paid out of accumulated profits in determining whether any payment is to be treated under section twenty of the Finance Act, 1953, as a subvention payment or whether any annual payment is payable out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax.—[Mr. Simon.]
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  CLEAN AIR
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 878), dated 22nd May, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be annulled.
  I should make clear that the intention of moving this Prayer is not to destroy the purpose of these Regulations, but to seek further information and to give publicity to a fairly important matter. Those hon. Members who are sitting in their seats with anxiety can quietly go back to their beds with every assurance, if they do not take special interest in the matter.
  The Regulations arise out of the Clean Air Act, 1956, Section 20 of which relates to vessels emitting dark smoke. This is one of the last of a series of Regulations to be brought forward under that Act. I welcome the fact that the Ministry has brought them forward. I have been rather anxious, because I found in many quarters that local authorities seemed to be utterly unaware of the fact that the Regulations had been introduced. As they raise quite important matters, I thought that it might be as well if we could clarify one or two points which. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, are not necessarily very clear on the face of the Regulations.
  As I understand, the position under the Regulations is that a vessel may not emit black smoke for longer than three minutes continuously in a period of half an hour, which is a very considerable period, nor

  719
  can dark smoke be emitted from oil-fired vessels for longer than a continuous emission of four minutes in half an hour. In some cases, longer periods are provided for.
  One question that arises is that there appears to me to be no provision here, although it may have escaped my notice, with reference to the continuous emission in the third category in the Schedule. There is provision for the maximum emission in the aggregate for a period of an hour for coal-fired boiler furnaces in vessels, but, as far as I can see from the Regulations, there is no provision relating to continuous emissions in these categories, unlike the other categories specified in the Schedule to the Regulations. If I am mistaken about that, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can put me right.
  Some problems arise under the Regulations. Some local authorities have been asking precisely who it is who will take action under the Regulations, and, of course, provisions are laid down in Section 20 of the Clean Air Act regarding the definition of which local authority should take action—the authority, apparently, which is nearer to the vessel committing the nuisance. There is also the question whether an authority like a port health authority will be able to take action. Indeed, that may be a much more suitable body to do so.
  Then there is the further question as to what action is to be taken to let foreign shipping know that these Regulations are now in force, and what action may be taken by a local authority, by a port health authority or by any other competent body, either to bring prosecutions or to warn vessels of this situation?
  The cases where this is most likely to arise will occur in connection with some of our busier rivers and highly industrialised areas, and where there are a lot of tugs and possibly ferries in operation. That may be so in rivers like the Tyne and others. Many of these vessels are fairly large and mostly coal-fired. Under the provisions of the Regulations, it seems to be possible for such a vessel to do almost what it likes, because the limitation is a very slight one.
  I appreciate the difficulties. Various bodies, including the National Union of
  720
  Seamen, have issued some circulars putting forward their views and expressing their anxiety lest there should be any change made in the Regulations. I realise that there have been discussions with health inspectors, among others, about the actual wording of the Regulations, but I hope that the Ministry will watch their operation, and, if it proves necessary later, when more experience has been gained, will bring forward amending proposals.
  I hope that they will encourage local authorities to take note of what occurs in those areas—I am not suggesting that this is necessarily widespread—where there may be a very real nuisance. I remember that not very long ago we had complaints from hon. Members about offensive emissions of dark smoke from tugs and other vessels coming down the Thames. I hope that hon. Members will be reasonably careful in their checking of what happens after the passing of the Regulations.
  One point almost of amusement is in the actual wording of the Regulations, which says:
  "For the purposes of the said schedule a vessel is not under way when it is at anchor or made fast to the shore or bottom, and a vessel which is aground may be deemed to be under way".
  No doubt that is all necessary, but it is an example of what our legal draftsmen find necessary to say in Regulations of this kind.
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to give some explanation, if he can, of the one or two detailed points that I have raised and to give an assurance that the matter will be kept under review. I ask him specifically about the position of local authorities and port health authorities in enforcing the Regulations, whether he will be sure to take advice from competent bodies in the coming months and, if it is possible to strengthen these provisions, to take the earliest opportunity of so doing.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I beg to second the Motion.
  I do not want to go over the ground which has been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). I thank him for his analysis of the situation and support him in the questions he put to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not

  721
  propose to paraphrase what he has said, but I should like to touch on the point about publicity being given to these Regulations. I know that many port authorities and many local authorities controlling areas where these vessels are anchored, and indeed many shipping concerns, are rather curious to know how the Regulations will be applied. It is necessary that there should be as full an explanation as possible so that they will know how to conduct themselves in future in order to keep within the Regulations.
  Another question which arises, and which was touched upon by my hon. Friend, is whether these Regulations are like
  "the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not"
  which exist for all time. One has to remember that the Clean Air Act came into being not merely to set certain standards and to provide punishments for those who offend by excessive emissions of dark smoke. It was also intended that the Act should encourage those installing furnaces on land and in vessels which go to sea and do not so offend. The Act envisages a period of seven years in which owners of vessels can do all possible to install the kind of furnace which will minimise smoke emissions. Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to amend the Regulations to bring them more in line with Regulations covering furnaces on land? I think it is very important that we should know the Government's intention about that.
  The next question I wish to ask is affected by the Regulations, although it is not mentioned in them. The Regulations under Section 20 apply to smoke emission; fumes and dirt are not covered by the Regulations, which deal only with furnaces, smoke and dark smoke. In Section 3 (3) we read:
  "A furnace to which subsection (1) of this section applies shall not be installed in a building or in any such boiler or plant as is mentioned in the said subsection (1) unless notice of the proposal to install it"—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. The Regulations deal only with vessels, not with buildings.
  Mr. Winterbottom: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Section 20 says,
  "Sections one and two of this Act shall apply in relation to vessels in waters to which this section applies as they apply in relation to buildings …"
  722
  Those are the circumstances which we are now discussing. Notice has to be given to the local authority as to the type of furnace installed, and unless this notice is given there is a contravention of the subsection. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary where has the notice to be given of any change in the furnace of one of these ships? Must it be given to the port authority, to the local authority nearest to the place where the new boiler is being installed or to the port of registration?
  If the subsection deals with vessels at sea, as I think it does, everybody should know which is the authority to which the ship's captain or the ship's master has to report any change in the furnace. The position is much more complicated when we remember that British ships, built in Britain, with finance provided by Britain and conducting all their operations through British ports, may nevertheless have a port of registration abroad. If the provisions in respect of the installation of new furnaces are to be applied to vessels within territorial waters, there may be some complication.
  I know that I have not given the Parliamentary Secretary much notice, and I shall be the first to excuse him if he has not a ready answer to my question. However, I should like him to look at the problem, and, if he cannot answer now, perhaps he will let me know as early as possible the results of his inquiries.
  I do not object to these Regulations at all. I assume that there have been consultations between the health inspectors of the various districts affected, the specialist smoke abatement officers, the port authorities and the local authorities in the affected areas. It does not need any great stretch of imagination to believe that the shipping authorities have also been consulted about these maximum permitted periods of smoke emission.
  I do not object to these Regulations, but the Government should give every encouragement to those responsible for the ships, tugs and small coastal vessels which enter our harbours and rivers to improve the installation of these boilers and furnaces that result in the constant emission, not only of dark smoke and of black smoke but, what is much worse—and not covered by the Act—grit and dust which fall upon our population. We

  723
  know that the Government intend to pursue this Act to its logical conclusion, and the assurances for which we have asked will help to convince us of their purpose.
  10.22 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: I must confess that when I first read it, I was a little apprehensive of this Motion. I did not then know, as the House knows now, that it had been tabled almost wholly for the purpose of obtaining information rather than as a proposal which would merit acceptance by this House.
  I want to speak only briefly, but I hope that during the course of my remarks I shall justify the special Regulations that have been introduced to deal with shipping.
  I want to make it clear at once that all sections of the shipping industry support, in general, the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Of course they do. I do not think, however, that any right hon. or hon. Member would dissent from the view that the Act was inspired certainly by the advisability and, as some may think, the necessity of dealing with chimneys ashore. It was only incidentally, although correctly and unavoidably, that Regulations were introduced to deal with ships in our rivers, ports and harbours, which are often in the very heart of our great cities.
  Nevertheless, it is worth while noting that, in its main Report, the Beaver Committee made no specific reference at all to smoke from ships, and I suppose that we can conclude from that that smoke from ships is not a major source of pollution of the air—
  Mr. John Tilney: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that, important though shipping is to the activities of Garston, Liverpool and the Merseyside in general, the smoke emitted by it can be a major source of annoyance to the people there.
  Colonel Sir L. Ropner: I was quoting from the Beaver Report and saying that, in general, shipping is not a major factor in the pollution of the air. I thought that I did qualify my remarks by saying that many of our ports and harbours, for instance, in Liverpool, London, Glasgow,
  724
  on the Tyne and elsewhere, are in the very heart of our big cities. In any case, the fact that shipping is relatively such a small factor in air pollution is not the reason for separate Regulations for ships. The reason is that the characteristics of a ship, regarding it as a floating, mobile furnace, are utterly different from those of land-based, industrial furnaces. I think that that must be self-evident.
  A great ship, or even a small ship, manœuvring in port may have a sudden demand for power, of varying or sustained intensity, which leads inevitably, for a short time at any rate, to the emission of dark smoke, sometimes smoke so dark that it may well be considered black.
  I should like to read an extract from the Government pamphlet called "Clean Air Act, 1956; Memorandum on Industrial Provisions." It reads:
  "Even where the boiler or engine equipment of a vessel is normally capable of complying with Section 1 of the Act, exceptional circumstances may of course anise in which dark or even black smoke for prolonged periods may be unavoidable, e.g., when ships are proceeding against unfavourable winds or tides, or in emergency when maximum power is required to avoid collision, grounding or risk to life."
  The concluding sentence is:
  "The Regulations do not cover all such contingencies but due allowance should be made for them."
  These factors, together with many other considerations, necessitate special Regulations for ships.
  I know that these Regulations were not drafted in haste. I think that, to some extent, this answers the question put by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). Very considerable thought and discussion were devoted to them.
  The House should know that the Seamen's Union and the officers' union and shipowners' organisations are unanimous in the view that the exemptions granted by these Regulations are the minimum possible if the Clean Air Act is to provide a sensible and workable code for shipping. I say again that I am glad that the Prayer was moved only for the purpose of obtaining information.
  10.29 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

  725
  Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), I was very glad to have the assurance of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that this discussion had been initiated for exploratory purposes and that he had no intention of dividing the House. If I may say so, I think that that is a very good thing because, if there were a Division and, by any chance, this Prayer were to succeed, the shipping industry would be in a very sad plight indeed.
  I would like, first, to give the House some background to the Regulations and then to deal with some of the rather detailed questions which have been put by hon. Members. The House will know that Section 1 of the Clean Air Act, 1956, prohibits the emission of dark smoke from chimneys and that Section 20 of the Act applies this prohibition to vessels. Under the Act, my right hon. Friend has power to make regulations exempting certain periods of dark smoke emission from the general ban. In March this year, as hon. Members will recall, he exercised this power in the case of shore installations. For vessels, which have entirely different problems, and, generally speaking, more complicated problems, than land installations, my right hon. Friend has now made the Regulations which are tonight before the House. They permit vessels to emit dark smoke for certain periods without offending under Section 1 of the Act.
  The Regulations, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, specify the permitted periods, which differ according to the class of boiler or the engine in the ship All these periods are subject to the overriding proviso that black smoke—that is, as dark as, or darker than, shade 4 on the Ringelmann chart—should not be emitted for longer than three minutes in the aggregate in any period of half an hour.
  That at once raises the question why the Minister has made these Regulations less stringent for ships than the earlier Regulations which applied to installations on land. We should much have preferred, had it been practicable, to introduce stronger Regulations than we have done. Indeed, for the sake of clean air, which we all want, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr Tilney) that we should like to see smoke from ships stopped altogether, but that is easier said than done.
  726
  The making of the Regulations presented a good deal of difficulty, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barks-ton Ash well knows. We have had to cover a wide range of vessels from the aristocratic liners to the more plebian trawlers, tugs and all the other small craft that inhabit our rivers. We have had to take into account the different types of boiler plant in use and the extent to which alterations or re-equipment to improve performance is feasible.
  There are all sorts of other factors: for example, the state of the shipping industry itself, what we can reasonably expect of tired crews, and particularly tired stokers, coming into harbour perhaps at the end of a very tiring journey and the fact that we have to provide for ships lying alongside and for ships which are under way in all sorts of weather, wind and tides. In saying this, I am in no sense apologising for the Regulations, but I want to give the House some idea of the complexities surrounding the subject.
  We have, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash said, hammered out these standards after discussions with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the shipping industry, the seamen's unions and with the dock and harbour authorities, and certain of the port health inspectors. I do not want, at this hour, to plunge into a sea of technical details, as one easily could on a subject of this sort, but I must say that the majority of ships now in commission have oil-fired boiler furnaces. For these, the Regulations lay down a general limit of 10 minutes of dark smoke in two hours or in one hour where there are natural draught boilers. There is also a limit of four minutes for continuous bursts of dark smoke. Longer periods are allowed for coal-fired ships when under way, but there is an over-riding limit of three minutes to black smoke in any period of 30 minutes
  These are clear and, I think, effective limits, and, taken as a whole, the Regulations certainly represent a much stricter control over smoke from ships than has been possible hitherto under the Public Health Acts. Until now it has been necessary to prove nuisance in the case of smoke from harbour craft, and nuisance by black smoke in the case of sea-going ships. Very rarely in practice did the black smoke byelaw cover

  727
  shipping. In any case, sea-going ships were exempt from its application.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East very rightly asked an important question about enforcement. Who, in the first place, will enforce these slightly complicated Regulations? The enforcement authorities are the usual local authorities, other than county councils, except in those areas where there is a port health authority. In those areas, such as the Thames, Merseyside, and Tyneside, the port health authority will be the responsible body.
  We have brought these Regulations to the notice of all these authorities in an explanatory memorandum which was issued by my right hon. Friend by circular of 29th May. Naturally, I have read it and it certainly expresses quite simply the import of the Regulations. I will see that hon. Members who have evinced an interest in the subject tonight receive a copy of it.
  How will these authorities discharge their obligations for enforcement? It would be quite idle for me to pretend that this will be an easy or simple task. After all, the factory which belches smoke is on the ground and is immobile. A vessel is usually mobile and is on water. I know that that is a statement of the obvious, but we ought to bear that in mind when we consider these Regulations. Ships under way are like moving targets.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Some of these ships might be aground.
  Mr. Bevins: I am coming to the hon. Member's subtleties in a moment.
  As I have just said, ships under way are like moving targets and it might not be easy, in certain circumstances, to keep a ship under proper observation. When there is no public health authority, the question is: which authority will be responsible for enforcement?
  Section 20 of the Clean Air Act says:
  "… a vessel in any waters … which are not within the district of any local authority shall be deemed to be within the district of the local authority whose district includes that point on land which is nearest to the spot where the vessel is."
  Complaints have been made about the draftsmen, but these words are a tribute to them. They are a far better definition
  728
  of what we had in mind than any words that my right hon. Friend and I could devise.
  If a ship is leaving port, the authority will have to observe the offence and transmit notice of the offence through the ship's agent. In the case of foreign-owned ships we have told the local authorities and port and harbour authorities to explain the position on first contravention and, if the authority later decides to take proceedings, we have asked it to notify the consular office of the country to which the vessel belongs. I think that perhaps for the moment that is as far as we can go, but my right hon. Friend is certainly open to any suggestions of an administrative kind which we could implement to make that a little more effective than it is.
  Mr. Winterbottom: Those of us who have tried in our minds to apply the problem of clean air to ships also realise some of the difficulties, particularly with foreign ships, and we appreciate the difficulties which the Minister will have in consultation with the Customs officials. I think that it will be a long process of education.
  Mr. Bevins: I agree with the hon. Member and appreciate what he says. Naturally, it will take time for the owners and masters of vessels, especially foreigners, to become aware of the requirements. I think I am right in saying that the first responsibility of the enforcing authorities will be to explain the requirements to those concerned and try to get their co-operation.
  The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) asked whether the Regulations in their present form were permanent. They are only a first step; they are certainly not the last word. I give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that we shall keep the Regulations under review, and as progress is made in the development of devices for doing away with smoke or reducing smoke from ships' boilers and it becomes practicable to enforce higher standards, we shall certainly take the earliest opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: In considering the matter in the future, will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the provisions of Section 2 of the Clean Air Act which give for factories on land, and presumably

  729
  installations at sea, the seven-year special—I will rot say "exemption"—treatment in connection with existing old types of furnaces and boilers? Presumably that applies also to ships. It is to be presumed that that is of very considerable assistance, and we ought to think in terms of encouraging the provision of new methods of firing where there is considerable nuisance.
  Mr. Bevins: I agree that we ought to do all we can to encourage the installation of modern types of firing. There is the practical difficulty with many of the smaller craft especially that it is not possible to convert them from one system to another simply because of space limitations within the vessels themselves, but we shall certainly bear that consideration in mind.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about continuous emissions. He rightly said that paragraph 3 (a) of the Regulations provided for limitations on continuous emissions in the case of classes 1 and 2 set out in the Schedule but not for class 3. It would have been possible to have some limitations on continuous emissions from some coal-fired ships. It would have been a longer period than five minutes; it might have been ten or fifteen minutes. We felt that so many exceptions would have been required to such a rule that for the sake of simplicity, and for the time being, it would be as well not to impose any limit at all on that type of craft.
  The hon. Member had a little bit of fun about article 3 (2), which says:
  "For the purposes of the said schedule a vessel is not under way when it is at anchor or made fast to the shore or bottom, and a vessel which is aground shall be deemed to be under way."
  For coal-fired ships there is a longer period for ships under way. This longer period is necessary for a ship which is aground for it may be working its engines and boilers at maximum capacity to get off the bottom. So the drafting, though paradoxical, provides a simple and effective way of achieving this purpose. It is a little complicated and I hope that the hon. Member understands it. I confess that I do not.
  730
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash, with his great knowledge of shipping, said that the Beaver Committee had been rather reticent in its observations on the control of smoke emitted from ships. That is true, but I am not sure that he was right to go as far as to suggest that the Committee said little about this problem because it was not a great nuisance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree that in many ports it may be a major nuisance, and I believe that the Beaver Committee did not have much to say on the problem not only because it thought that it was a smaller problem than of industrial smoke, but, more important, because it realised the practical difficulties associated with the problem were greater than in the case of land installations.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside asked whether the provisions of Section 3 of the 1956 Act applied in the case of vessels. On reconsideration, he will see that Section 20 of the Act, which is the relevant Section applicable to ships, refers back only to Sections 1 and 2 and not to Section 3. I am advised that, for reasons which I do not want to mention now, but which I should be very glad to discuss with him later, the provisions of Section 3 do not apply to vessels.
  I have touched upon most of the detailed questions which have been asked. If I have omitted any, I shall certainly get in touch with the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. In conclusion, I reiterate that these Regulations are simply the start. We are bound to have difficulties, but it is our intention to keep them under review and to make such adjustments as circumstances may indicate from time to time.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLEAN AIR

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
    Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock

COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Immigration to the United Kingdom
  Immigration to the United Kingdom
HONG KONG
  Cotton Industry (Sir Frank Lee's Visit)
  Cotton Industry (Sir Frank Lee's Visit)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Victims of Crimes of Violence (Compensation)
  Victims of Crimes of Violence (Compensation)
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Department of Criminal Science, Cambridge (Grant)
  Department of Criminal Science, Cambridge (Grant)
  Mrs. D. Frederich (Permit)
  Mrs. D. Frederich (Permit)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Migration from United Kingdom
  Migration from United Kingdom
  Economic Conference
  Economic Conference
EDUCATION
  Grammar School Places
  Grammar School Places
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Universities (Admission)
  Universities (Admission)
  New Secondary Modern School, Thetford
  New Secondary Modern School, Thetford
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Wales (Development Commission Grants and Loans)
  Wales (Development Commission Grants and Loans)
  Income Tax (Schedule A)
  Income Tax (Schedule A)
  Local Authority Loans
  Local Authority Loans
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
SCOTLAND
  St. Andrew's University (Westburn Lane Site)
  St. Andrew's University (Westburn Lane Site)
HOSPITALS
  Hospital Farms, Wales (Sale)
  Hospital Farms, Wales (Sale)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Johne's Disease (Diagnosis)
  Johne's Disease (Diagnosis)
  LEBANON (UNITED NATIONS OBSERVATION GROUP)
  LEBANON (UNITED NATIONS OBSERVATION GROUP)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Land, Wales
  Land, Wales
EMPLOYMENT
  Apprenticeship and Training
  Apprenticeship and Training
HOUSING
  Programme
  Programme

Preamble
The House met at half past eleven of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

LOCAL TELEPHONE CALLS
11.35 a.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Harrowby, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when freedom from timing local telephone calls started; whether the two-thirds short-time user is true of rural areas; and whether, having in mind the steep rises in the charge for the very local calls in recent years and in view of the enormous aggregate figure represented by the one-third of the (to a considerable extent business) longer calls, and the very small compensatory gain of 1d. in three minutes for the short-call user and the fact that the extension of non-timing was one of the chief recommendations of the November, 1957. White Paper, the retrograde ending of this age-old advantage, which should be considered as a parallel form of progress to cheaper calls, will be reconsidered.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not share the view of the noble Earl that the proposal to time local calls is a retrograde step or that the reduction of 1d. in the present 3d. charge is only a very small compensatory gain. Statistics are not available of the average duration of local calls in rural and other areas separately, or of business and social calls separately. Many might, however, question the assumptions on which the noble Earl's points appear to be based. Of all local calls, 64 per cent. are of less than three minutes duration and it will surely be of solid benefit if the charge for these calls is reduced from 3d. to 2d.
Although the range of the 3d. call was substantially increased following the
872
White Paper of November last, the noble Earl is not correct in suggesting that this was primarily designed to extend the area within which calls were not timed. The great majority of calls previously charged at 6d., 9d. or 1s., and reduced on 1st January last to 3d., were not previously timed. The practice of exempting local calls from timing goes back a long way, and it was extended in 1936 to include calls up to fifteen miles chargeable distance. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government are convinced that a change in this practice is right in principle, as being in the interest of telephone users generally, and that the change will be a notable encouragement to the use of the telephone system.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his full Answer. May I ask, as a supplementary question, whether it would not be possible to keep the time-free call in the area which until the beginning of this year was covered by a 3d. telephone call? Possibly it would not be feasible to extend it to the wider area, but would it not be possible to keep it in at least the limited area where it was in force until the beginning of 1958?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, principally for technical reasons it would not be possible. As your Lordships know, the whole of the new system is designed to integrate in due course with full automation, and to make small differences in certain areas would, I think, be quite impossible.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would my noble friend give the maximum of publicity to the fact that local calls are now being timed, because women folk are apt to spend rather a long time on the telephone and they perhaps will not do so if they realise that they are paying for the time?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should not like there to be any misapprehension that local calls are now being timed. The introduction of timing of local calls is something for the future. While I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, I think he must fight his own battles.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what about the exact practice for distinguishing between social and business calls? Can we have some information as to exactly how that is done? Who decides it? If a business man is telephoning about making a luncheon appointment, is that a social call? Who on earth is to judge in these matters?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the only information that is available—and I fully agree that that cannot be entirely full—is judged from those lines which are on a business tariff and those on a domestic tariff. I suppose it is possible that an occasional social call is made on a business line, and no doubt occasional business calls are made on a domestic line.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it then to be a continuing practice that officials listen in regularly to see whether we are talking about business or social matters? Is that usual? Are we to be subjected to a continuous "tapping"?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not know about "continuing"—I did not know it happened now.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, in any event, did not the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, put a gross libel on the fair sex?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount will not expect me to answer that question.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
11.42 a.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places her Prerogative and interest, so far as concerns the matters dealt with in the Local Government Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a highly important Bill and perhaps I might be forgiven for saying one or two words. I ventured to remark upon the Second Reading that it would be difficult to foresee what the actual effect of it would be—
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? There are two Amendments on the Marshalled List, and I wonder whether it would not be more convenient to the House if we followed the normal practice of getting those two little Amendments out of the way and then, on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, we can make such general observations upon the Bill as we think fit. I hope that my noble friend Lord Gage will forgive me if I suggest that that might possibly be a more convenient course.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 54 [Extension of power of trustee to lend to local authority]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this and the following Amendment are linked and are put down only to rectify an omission. The effect is to extend trustee status to the securities of the Council of the Isles of Scilly, in the same way that the clause extends trustee status to other similar securities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 39, leave out ("and").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 40, at end insert ("and the council of the Isles of Scilly;").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. When my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor commended this Bill to your Lordships on Second Reading, he described it as a step forward in the direction of vigorous and efficient local government. That object has been universally approved, though there have been differences of opinion over our methods. Her Majesty's Government have explained why they find it necessary to reform the Exchequer grants system in order to achieve this object. Noble

875
Lords opposite have put their opposition to the proposal for a general grant, if I may say so, in a reasonable and objective way. Having examined with care the arguments put before your Lordships, Her Majesty's Government still remain convinced that the system proposed in this Bill is well designed to increase the independence of local authorities in the matter of their finances, and to foster thoughtful local financial administration. The debates on the merits of the general grant as against the percentage system have, of course, centred on the education service. The education service is admittedly far and away the largest service, in terms of expenditure, to be brought within the general grant system. But your Lordships will perhaps bear with me if I remind you that there are other services of great importance—including the health, fire and child care services—which are also being brought within this system, and there is no question of education having been singled out for special treatment. I think our debates have served to bring out the importance which Her Majesty's Government have attached, and will continue to attach, to education, and their resolve to use the new grant system as a means of carrying forward the development of the education and other services concerned.
The Government look forward to a new era of co-operation between central and local government in the administration of these services. Our debates will have helped to pinpoint some of the matters which will repay study in the months ahead when the local authorities, through their associations, will be joining with Her Majesty's Government in laying the foundations of the new financial relationship to be created under this Bill. Then there are the proposals to re-rate, to some extent, industrial property. Her Majesty's Government remain convinced that the Bill strikes a reasonable balance between the need for strengthening the rate resources of the local authorities and the need to safeguard the economy.
So far as Part II of the Bill is concerned, your Lordships have given it the most encouraging of welcomes, in that while some noble Lords have been a little anxious lest the process of reviewing local government areas and status might go too far, others among your Lordships have, in effect, chided the Government for not
876
going far enough. That is not a bad position for any Bill to be in. In this connection, however, I would remind your Lordships that responsibility will not rest solely on the Local Government Commissions, the county councils or the Minister. In the end, it will be the attitude taken to each order in Parliament, when it is submitted for rejection or approval to your Lordships' House and to another place, that will influence the kind of local government pattern that eventually emerges. Her Majesty's Government for their part (and I should hope, and expect, that future Governments will take the same view) are determined to honour their commitments to put in train a reorganisation that will, while keeping what is best in our present system, give it a chance to do better still.
In our endeavour, in Part III of this Bill, to secure some devolution of responsibility in the important local health and welfare services, we have met with anxiety on the part of several of my noble friends, and of some noble Lords opposite. They have been naturally concerned that the services for the blind and the mentally handicapped, in particular, should not suffer by undue fragmentation. I am happy to feel that some, at any rate, of their anxieties have been allayed by the explanations which have been given of the Government's position and intentions in this matter, and I hope that your Lordships in general will feel able to look forward with confident interest to the working out of this Part of the Bill.
The Bill as a whole covers a wide field. It is a sizeable piece of legislation, by any standard. I want to express the thanks of Her Majesty's Government for the helpfulness shown during the debates by noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House. As a result of those debates, the Bill has become a better one. Moreover, the Government have been given the opportunity, through the diligent and informed probing which has been carried out, not least by my noble friends behind me, of clarifying and placing in perspective a number of difficult and important provisions, and the policies that underlie those provisions. The Bill will thereby come into operation all the more usefully. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mancroft.)
11.49 a.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that this Bill has not been a brilliant success in this House. The noble Lord who has just spoken thanked noble Lords in all parts of the House for the contribution they had made to make this a better Bill. Speaking for myself and for my friends, I disclaim any thanks at all. We have not helped to make this a better Bill. It arrived here a bad Bill and it goes out as a bad Bill; and it is as bad today as it was when it first arrived. Although I should not presume to speak for noble Lords opposite, I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is ready to speak, and I am sure that he will say, speaking for his noble friends, that the Bill has not been influenced in the slightest degree by what has been said from their side of the House. Indeed, with most of the objections made from the opposite side we ourselves absolutely agree, but because we thought that noble Lords opposite would perhaps take more notice of their own friends than of us we kept out of the battle. However, it made no difference at all; the Government have adopted the principle of infallibility. What they have said they have said, and no amount of argument from either side of the House has made the slightest difference in the form of the Bill as it has eventually emerged.
The noble Lord said that it was an important Bill. I suppose it is. But it is a very bad Bill. It leaves completely unreconciled all those who object to it on the ground that it alters the grant system for education. No attempt has been made to meet the wishes, the apprehensions and the fears of those who are concerned with education. Amendments have, been put down which might to some extent have met those fears, but nothing has been done at all. I would only say that the noble Lord must not be surprised to find that the block grant system is not inviolable, and when opportunity arises the matter will have to be reviewed again. We fear that education is going to suffer, and suffer greatly, as a result of this new system. We do not believe that it will give greater freedom to local authorities in the expenditure of their money; we do not believe that at all, and we do not believe that that was the intention. We believe that the intention was purely and solely to save Treasury money and to
878
put the burden of education to a greater extent on the shoulders of the local authorities.
We feel also that the re-rating of industrial properties has been carried out in a particularly mean manner. The Government have re-rated industrial hereditaments to the extent of 50 per cent., but they have appropriated to themselves the greater part of the benefit. Although, after all, it is the local authorities which render the services and are entitled to the increase in the rates, the Government have accepted for themselves a large part of the advantage flowing from increasing the rates on industrial hereditaments, and I regard that as a particularly mean provision.
On the question of the review of areas and functions of local authorities, here again I thought that in this House we were particularly rigid in our approach. I thought that noble Lords opposite made a first-class case for some kind of amendment of the actual devolution of functions. The delegation procedure, I thought, was the weakest side of the reorganisation of local government, and I felt that a case was made out for some amendment. But nothing of the kind! My own view of that Part of the Bill is that it will have very little effect on local government. It does not really touch the difficulties of local government, the need for a complete reorganisation, a complete review of the whole system of local government. The question as to whether the present structure, which was set up under totally different conditions, is appropriate at the present time has not been dealt with at all in this Bill. All that is proposed is that it will be possible to change boundaries and to switch around very small areas from one authority to another, but there is nothing fundamental proposed in the Bill. And so we part with this Bill with the greatest feeling of disappointment and apprehension; and we on this side of the House do not think that we have heard the last of the reorganisation of local government.
11.55 a.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I cannot associate myself with many of the things that have been said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in regard to this Bill. My criticism, such as it has been, is much more, as I stated on Second Reading, that it is extraordinarily difficult to foresee

879
how it will work out in practice, particularly with regard to Part I. The Minister appears to have the very widest powers, both in the matter of fixing the general grant and in that of the rate-deficiency grant policy. It is true that there is a rather complicated wording which purports to show how the Minister's discretion will be exercised, but I am afraid that the significance of that is not very obvious. I would instance the debate we had on the significance of the phrase "special circumstances". I was certainly under the impression that "special circumstances" are circumstances that the Minister deemed to be special, and it did not mean very much more.
There is nothing new in having very wide powers conferred in modern legislation on Ministers, and it may be inevitable that that should be so in the complicated political and financial circumstances under which we live. None the less, it makes the task of Parliamentary examination a very difficult one. When the County Councils Association gave their general support to the principles of this Bill, which they did by a majority, I think that they had certain reservations, and hoped for some clarification on certain points—indeed, they hoped that certain changes would be made in the Bill's passage through Parliament to secure that clarification. In fact, as has been stated, the Government have not been able to accept any of the suggested Amendments, apart from one very minor one. I make no real complaint about that; perhaps they should not always concede. It is also true that we have had certain assurances, for which we are very grateful. But we still remain largely in the dark on a number of points, and we do not really know how much money we are likely to get or what real liberty we are going to be allowed. In these circumstances, though I have no cause for the pessimism that seems to have permeated the Benches opposite, I feel that we must be allowed to suspend judgment on this Bill until we see how things work out in practice.
11.57 a.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I think it is necessary to have it on record that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will achieve what the Conservative Government of 1925 sought to achieve, and what, but for the well-known inability
880
of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Winston Churchill, might have been achieved then. But the attack made on education in 1925, by bringing it within the scope of the block grant, was beaten back; and probably the best administrator knowing local government, the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when he put the block grant through in the Local Government Act of 1928, specifically and definitely excluded education from the scope of the block grant in that Act, because he recognised, as an administrator, knowing what his beloved city of Birmingham was doing for education, what the effect of the block grant would be. Thirty-three years have elapsed since the effort in 1925, and at long last the Conservative Government have set out to achieve, and have achieved, what they hoped to achieve then. I agree with all the apprehensions which have been expressed from this side by my noble friend Lord Silkin as to the effect of this Bill on education.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

OPENCAST COAL BILL
11.59 a.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Authorisation of opencast working of coal
1.—(1) The National Coal Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board") shall not work any coal by opencast operations, or cause or permit any coal to be worked by such operations, except in pursuance of an authorisation granted in that behalf by the Minister of Power (in this Act referred to as "the Minister"):
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert:
"who shall be satisfied that the National shortage of coal is such as to warrant his consideration of an application by the Board for an authorisation under this section:"
The noble Viscount said: This is quite a simple Amendment. This Bill introduces a new system of working coal

881
under a new law. It has always been understood that opencast coal mining is an emergency measure which is taken only when the national interest requires it. All the agricultural interests oppose it but have been led to accept it as a disagreeable necessity, so long as the country really needs the coal, either for reasons of shortage of coal or for reasons of foreign currency. What this Amendment does, quite simply, is to make the Bill say the reasons for its existence, and it makes sure that at any time during the next ten years the power conferred by the Bill shall be used, properly speaking, only in the national interest. I do not think the Amendment is very restrictive on the Minister, because the phrase used is that the Minister "shall be satisfied", and I have no doubt that no Minister would make an authorisation unless he was satisfied. I think it right, however, that as a matter of policy the Bill should seek to justify itself at the outset. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said words. —
(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD LAWSON: The noble Viscount has made a gallant attempt to modify the effect of the change that is taking place. I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot agree with him, because I am against this new proposal lock, stock, and barrel. I think it is time that this opencast mining in the coal fields was ended, and I want to warn your Lordships—and the Minister particularly—about it. There are communities in the coal fields suffering in many ways from this opencast working, and I am not so sure that they will bear it quietly for ever. I am against this Amendment because I am against giving the power to the Minister to continue this opencast working. The noble Viscount rendered a very great service, I think, by giving a vivid description, from first-hand experience, of what this opencast working means. He said last week [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 210, col. 328]:
"I have been living for the last two years or so with working"—
that means opencast working—
"200 yards away from me. It is tolerable, but it is by no means pleasant."
And I may say that I think he is very generous when he says that it is "tolerable." He went on:
"It is noisy, it is dirty, there are violent explosions and there are lights on all night; but one just has to put up with it …"
882
Then the noble Viscount goes on to say that there is a space between his house and the opencast working, but he very generously gives us this description of what it is like, and adds that they are working right up to the doorway of certain men in his immediate area.
I venture to say that there is not in your Lordships' House—nor, indeed, in the other House—a single person who, if he had to live in an area where opencast mining was in operation, would live there five minutes: he would be out of it. It is a well-known fact in my particular county that people have had to suffer in a multitude of ways because opencast working has been virtually at their doors. If one had to get up for work at, say, three or four o'clock in the morning—or even if one were in what is known as the "back shift". which begins at nine o'clock in the morning—how would one like to live in an area where opencast working was going on, with blasting such as the noble Viscount has described from his own experience, with great are lights on all night, and with the rumbling of the carriage of coal away from the workings? How would anybody like to go to work in the morning in those circumstances?
It was quite natural that we should have given way to this proposal during the war, although it was a very unusual proposal for us in this country. Ours is a small country, and the coalfields are small and comparatively concentrated. This is an American method, and in America they have wide spaces. They have great machines, and they have deep seams quite near the surface. I have seen some of them. They have the same system in Australia, I believe. But we have to keep to a comparatively small area, in which people are living and working. Many of the men do very heavy work in the mine in the mornings, and it is quite impossible for them to live in an area like this where they carry on blasting and have these great lights on all night.
There is another thing about this opencast working that people object to and that I object to particularly. I told your Lordships' House a few months ago of the surprise I had when, in my own county, I came from the deep seams in which I had worked on the East side

883
of the county and went to the West side. It was like going to another country. There are smaller collieries there because the coal is nearer the surface. Some of the spoil has been used by landowners who, very wisely, see to it that their land is not spoiled, and there are plantations in my immediate area practically built upon some of this spoil. The thing that surprised me was to see these great plantations, which were like new life to look at. I had come from an area where, for nearly all my life, I had seen great pyramids. I remember when I went to Egypt and saw the Pyramids for the first time. I was puzzled at first because I was not greatly impressed by them. Then it occurred to me that it was because I had been looking at homemade mountains all my life. We did not have them of the same height, but we had the best of them in quantity. From my front door I can see quite reputable Pyramids round about me some miles away. We do not have to go to Switzerland for mountains—we have got them.
LORD MILLS: I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me for interrupting? I hardly find that he is speaking to the Amendment. I know his views; they are shared by many of us; but I would suggest that he is making a Second Reading speech rather than dealing with the Amendment.
LORD LAWSON: I went over this matter carefully, and some of my colleagues have done so too, and so far as I can see this clause gives the Minister power to take over and continue opencast working. The noble Lord suggests that this should be modified in a certain way. In speaking against this, and against any modification of it, I think that I am within bounds in what I am saying. Is it a fact that the use of even bigger machines for digging coal is contemplated? There is a good deal of talk about that in the mining areas, because it is feared that it may lead to unemployment. I would also ask the noble Lord what he is going to do about the plantations. I believe that the National Coal Board are dealing with this matter and as the noble Lord said, consideration is being given to the proposal that the Forestry Commissioners should restore the plantations. If bigger machines are
884
to be used, so far as I can see it means the wholesale destruction of these plantations.
Speaking from first-hand experience, I have noticed that as a rule landowners deal reasonably with those they employ. Is it only in industry where human feelings have to be overridden, where beautiful things have to be torn up and where people have to be asked to live under veritable demoniac conditions? I say that the Government have no right to take advantage of the good will of the miners and of the mining communities, not only to admit but also to encourage opencast working. They have no right to take advantage of the present situation and continue it in area after area where there is misery beyond words. I do not agree with the Amendment.
LORD MILLS: Before I reply to the noble Viscount on his Amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the large number of Government Amendments appearing on the Marshalled List. It will also be necessary, I am afraid, to introduce more at the Report stage of the Bill. As your Lordships will appreciate, this is a complicated measure and it has been necessary to make a number of changes to meet the representations that were made in another place during the later stages of the consideration of the Bill, as well as to meet points made by outside interests. Most of the Government Amendments are of a technical or drafting character and I hope that your Lordships will bear with my noble friend, Lord Chesham, and myself in our introduction of them.
Coming to the proposed Amendment, I am afraid I must say that it is one which we could not accept. I think it is based on a misconception of the way the Bill is going to work and that it would prove very difficult to operate it in practice. As I understand it, the Amendment requires the Minister not to consider an application from the Board for an authorisation to work a site unless he is satisfied that there is a national shortage of coal which warrants this course. It seems to me that such a provision would work only if there were such a big improvement in our coal situation that we could do without opencast output altogether—as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, would like us to do. However, as I explained in the Second Reading

885
debate, we shall probably need some opencast output for the next few years. That will mean that we shall have to bring new sites into production, though I hope that we shall be able to be more and more selective in our choice of sites. But in order to make that selection and choose the sites the working of which will provide the greatest benefit to the national economy with the least damage to agriculture and amenity, the Government will have to examine under the authorisation procedure all potential sites, and will have to decide, in the light of the objections and arguments, which of them should be selected for working and which for exemption. In taking these decisions, the Government will pay full regard to the general coal situation and to the quantity and quality of the coal which could be obtained from the site under consideration; but it is not possible in advance of this examination for the Minister to say that he does not think the national shortage of coal warrants his examination of a particular proposal, and even after he has completed his examination, the national coal situation can be only one of the factors—although a very important one—in his decision.
The second objection to the Amendment is that the Minister's authorisation, which is essentially a planning permission, is required whether or not there are objections to the working of a particular site. There are some deposits of coal which can best be obtained by opencast methods and which it might be desirable to work even if there were no great shortage of coal. There might be cases where the Board had obtained the right to work this coal by agreement with the owners and occupiers of the land and when the local authorities and others interested had no objections to the working. This Amendment would prevent the Minister from granting an authorisation in such a case unless there was a national shortage of coal. I do not think it would be sensible for us to impose such a sweeping prohibition on the Minister's discretion.
Dealing now with the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I am sure we all share his view and his anxiety, and we do not wish to carry on opencast coal production any longer than is necessary in the national interest. The noble Lord raised the question of the use of bigger machines. My authorisation and consent covers the use of land,
886
and not the method, but I shall be happy to discuss this problem with the National Coal Board and to give the noble Lord a glimpse of what the future is likely to be in that respect. So far as the question of plantations is concerned, we deal with that fairly fully in subsequent clauses, and I hope the noble Lord will be content to follow these points as they are then dealt with. In view of the difficulties I have explained, I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, will not press his Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: While appreciating what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said in regard to the Amendments, I could not help feeling that the purpose of this Bill has not been thoroughly thought out by Her Majesty's Government. I have in mind the vast number of Amendments moved in another place, the vast number of Amendments here on the Committee stage and the vast number of Amendments we are now told we shall have on the Report stage. I am sure that a well-thought-out Bill would not need all these Amendments at all these stages. It seems to me that there has been a lack of thought in the initial stages regarding this Bill. That is all I propose to say on that point.
As regards this particular Amendment, I appreciate what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has in mind. We on this side of the Committee would oppose opencast mining as a substitute for deep-mined coal, but we do not oppose it as a supplement to deep-mined coal. I agree with the Minister on this particular Amendment. I am rather surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has put the word "national" in his Amendment, because by so doing I do not think he strengthens it. I can well see, as I have seen many times, that in this country there may be a real local shortage. I imagine that in the future nuclear factories will be built in various places, and I can well imagine their being built where coal in the vicinity would be opencast coal to suit the purpose. Moreover, I am quite satisfied that any Minister of Power, and especially the present Minister, would have this in mind if we had great stocks of coal scattered all over the country, and maybe the deep mines going on short time because of the amount of coal. If ever there was a prospect of deep mines not being able

887
to work full time for production purposes, I cannot imagine any Minister continuing with opencast coal mining in this country. Therefore, I do not think the noble Viscount need worry unduly, because I feel that anything he has in mind will be dealt with by any Minister of Power.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I agree that this Amendment is not really of any force. I put it down as I thought there should be some declaration of policy that this is not the normal thing to do and will be done only when it has to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that it might be embarrassing in relation to an authorisation. I think that that is true, and, indeed, I first thought of putting it down in relation to a compulsory order; I think it would have been better placed there. I do not want to press the Amendment, because I do not think it is by any means vital. I should have hoped that there would be something in the Bill indicating that this was not the normal thing to do and that it would be done only in, as it were, some sort of emergency. One must, of course, accept the view that any Minister has to take everything into consideration before he gives an authorisation or makes an order. As I say, I do not think this Amendment would make much difference one way or the other, and in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Planning permission for authorised operations
(2) Any directions given by the Minister under this section shall include such conditions as the Minister may consider reasonable with respect to the restoration, by or at the cost of the Board, of land worked or damaged in the course of any authorised operations:
Provided that, in the case of land which, at the time when the directions are given, is agricultural land, the conditions so included (except where the Minister is satisfied that the land is not likely to be used as agricultural land when it ceases to be occupied for the authorised purposes) shall be such as in the opinion of the Minister will secure its restoration so as to be reasonably fit for use as agricultural land.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) The Minister shall not authorise working of land within 50 yards of any building
888
whereof the whole or any part thereof is occupied as a dwelling-house, or the working of land which is part of the land adjacent to such building, which is occupied with that building and forms part of a garden, yard, court or forecourt, belonging to that building, and which is not agricultural land."
The noble Vicount said: This is quite a different subject, but again there is a slight confusion about the position in the Bill at which this Amendment should be made. In Clause 9, which deals with limitations on land which may be subject to an order, there is a reference to the making of a compulsory order for workings within certain distances of houses, gardens and so on. There is an Amendment down later to that clause which says that no order may be made empowering working within fifty yards of any occupied dwelling house. It would seem to me, also, that, apart from an order, authorisation should not be possible, because it might well be that one individual would make a bargain with the Coal Board to work his land, which might border on to somebody else's land and involve working close up to that person's house without his being consulted or, indeed, being allowed any recompense whatever. He is a third party who has no standing in the matter.
Under this Part of the Bill, as I understand it, the Minister is acting as Minister of Planning—this is a planning provision—and I think one should consider him much in the same position as a planning committee or a Minister of Planning dealing with industrial development of one kind or another. The protection that a third party, such as I have described, would have against the building of a factory close up to the wall of his house, would be that the planning permission would not be given. The Minister would have to act in that way. It would seem to me that if he is willing to limit his powers in this respect as regards compulsory orders, so he should be willing to limit his powers as to authorisation in regard to a voluntary agreement between the Coal Board and others.
It cannot be said that the restriction to within fifty yards of an occupied house is going to make any appreciable difference to the amount of land which can be used and, therefore, the amount of coal which can be extracted. I do not believe that the area of which we are talking could ever in practice be as much as one-half of 1 per cent. of any

889
area which is likely to be taken, and I think I should be right in saying that in the future, with the more powerful machinery which now exists—and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, suggested that there might be even more powerful machinery—the sites would almost automatically have to be larger. Therefore the proportion of land affected by keeping fifty yards away from people's houses is not really an alarming one. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was good enough to quote what I said on Second Reading about this matter—that it is not right that the Government should allow working to go right up against the walls of anybody's house. May I correct the noble Lord, in that I said in the Second Reading speech that I had heard of working going up against somebody's house. I have not actually seen it. It has happened, and I do not believe it should. That is simply the case I put, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32 at end insert the new sub-section.— (Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENTYSGOR: I hope the Minister will approach this Amendment sympathetically, whether he agrees or not with the number of yards mentioned. I am certain that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is asking for something which is necessary. I have known places in the north-west where we were going within ten yards of buildings of this kind. That is far too near, and I do not think it is an unreasonable request that fifty yards should be kept clear of opencast mining. Even fifty yards is rather near for private purposes and for enjoyment, and I think the purpose of the Amendment is deserving of consideration by the Minister.
LORD MILLS: This is an Amendment which is closely associated with Amendment No. 15 on the Marshalled List, and is one with which I have every sympathy. I have seen only a few opencast coal sites, but that has been enough to make me realise the almost intolerable inconvenience which must be caused when working is close to houses. If I say that I cannot accept this Amendment, it is not because of any lack of sympathy with people who suffer this inconvenience, but because there are real objections to it. I have examined this position very carefully, and it is not a practical proposition.
890
Apart from the legal aspect, it is not possible to name a distance. There are all kinds of considerations, like access to the site, which complicate the issue. So far as the legal position is concerned, unless a householder owns or occupies the land around his house or has some special legal rights over it, he cannot stop the legal development of that land. He is constantly exposed to the risk of such development. There is, for example, nothing to stop another mineral worker from buying land very close to a house and obtaining permission to work the minerals by opencast methods. I feel that, apart from the practical difficulties which I think are even more important, to accept the Amendment would impose a general limitation on the National Coal Board's freedom which is not imposed on other mineral workers.
I should, however, like to give a firm assurance that. when considering applications for authorisation, I will take into account of the proximity of occupied houses, and I will allow a site to come within fifty yards, or perhaps even more, of a dwelling house only in quite exceptional circumstances. I am sorry I cannot go further, but I hope that this undertaking will be of some satisfaction to the noble Viscount, the noble Lord, and to your Lordships, and that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALL: I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord in this matter. If he should agree to an Amendment of this kind there are many opencast sites which would not be worked, and it would interfere greatly with production in the event of coal by opencast working being required. I should say that whilst I have every sympathy with him, I should wish, and I am sure all of us would wish, that opencast coal working should not be conducted except in time of an emergency, such as that of a war. Opencast working in this country cannot be carried on without great inconvenience, not only to the people who are living on the sites where it is carried on, but to people who are living in the district.
I hope that the Minister will not consider for a moment dealing with opencast mining in a similar way to that adopted in many of the countries which are benefiting considerably from opencast coal. I was taught that unless you can get a foot of coal for every yard of overburden,

891
then opencast coal is not an economic proposition. I am assuming, from what I have heard, that opencast coal is going down to a great depth—down, say, to two, three, four or five seams. How that could be a workable or an economic proposition I cannot say. I have seen opencast working in America, where there is an overburden of about 15 or 16 yards, and the seam of coal is about 30 feet thick. In Australia recently I saw opencast workings with an overburden of 10 feet and there was 98 feet of really good steam coal. The same thing applies in relation to brown coal in other parts of the country. One thing which I hope that the Minister and his successors will not contemplate for a moment is that we should attempt to emulate the nations who have wide open spaces, and where it is very profitable to work opencast coal.
I must say that I have some sympathy with the Minister in connection with an Amendment of this kind. He would like to agree to it; and, whilst he has given an assurance himself, unfortunately we are not always going to have him as the Minister, and I should infinitely prefer that something were put into the Bill that would give some safeguard, instead of leaving the matter quite open as it is at the present time
LORD MILLS: I thank the noble Viscount. I wish I could say that we could put something in the Bill. I find the practical difficulty too great. But this is an enabling Bill, and the National Coal Board, this Minister and future Ministers, I am sure, will be judged by the way they use their powers. I am very impressed with what noble Lords opposite have said.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I must say I am a little confused. The noble Lord has said that he finds objections to putting something of this sort in the Bill. One of them I think he named was that he found it difficult to specify a distance. I am confused by that because the Bill does name a distance in Clause 9. The legal position, I think he would agree, is not what is operative here. There is strong legal argument justifying exemption under Clause 9, but this is not a legal matter; this is simply a matter that nobody ought by Act of Parliament to be put in the position of having this kind of interference too near his home, where he
892
hopes to live in peace and quiet. It is simply that. I am sure it really could be done. I do not think it is fair to say that this is imposing a limitation on the National Coal Board to which other mineral workers are not subject, because the whole object of this Bill is to put the National Coal Board in a better position than others by authorising certain things and the making of compulsory orders.
I do not feel convinced by the Minister's arguments. The Minister is reasonable, but we do not know whether the next Minister is going to be reasonable. It is always said in a case like this, "If it is the intention of the Government to do such and such a thing, why not put it in the Bill?" I think that that is as far as I can get with this Amendment. I feel quite satisfied that the Minister and the Coal Board as minded at present will be reasonable, but I wish it had been possible to put something in the Bill. In the circumstances there is nothing I can do except ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() Any authorisation made by the Minister under this Act which comprises land on which trees are growing shall imply a licence to fell those trees for the purposes of the Forestry Act, 1951; and if it comprises land which is dedicated woodlands, it shall exempt that land from a dedication covenant made between the owner and the Forestry Commission."
The noble Viscount said: This deals with two points. They are both simple ones. On an authorisation the person who owns the trees should have the right to fell them straight away. They have got to come down, because the land is authorised to be worked upon. It is possible under the Bill for the authorisation and the compulsory order to be made at the same time. I do not know whether it is intended that that should be done, but it is possible. Once an order is made, there are fifty-six days before the Coal Board has the right of entry. That is the only time the owner has to fell his trees. If he does not fell them they become the property of the Board, and, as the Bill now is, they pay for them only at the end of their occupation, although there are Amendments which might affect that situation. It may take an appreciable proportion of the

893
fifty-six days for the owner to get a felling licence. The Bill simply says "when authorisation is made"; but that is recognition of the fact that the land is to be used and the trees have to go. That argument has been held. Therefore, automatically let the felling licence operate and let the owner of the trees have as much of the fifty-six days as he can to get his timber off the land. Fifty-six days is not long in any case.
The second part of the Amendment deals with dedicated woodlands. Dedicated woodlands affected by a compulsory rights order are dealt with under Clause 44. It refers to Crown land, and I think a dedication covenant would be covered by that. But that clause applies only to a compulsory order. It seems to me that something should be done to cover the case where a voluntary agreement is made between the Coal Board and the owner which involves dedicated woodlands. I am not sure what should be done, but I feel quite certain that the matter should not be entirely overlooked. For that reason I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection,—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD LAWSON: May I ask the noble Viscount whether he means that in the case of dedicated woodlands special arrangements have to be made to exempt them from the previous arrangement, so that trees can be felled on dedicated ground?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: As I understand it, if the land is authorised to be worked for coal, the trees have to go; and I suppose that the argument whether or not they should go takes place under the authorisation procedure. That being done, it would seem that the land is not going to be used for growing trees. But the owner has covenanted that he would do that. He has been persuaded to make a bargain with the National Coal Board that the land should be used for coal, and something must be said about his existing bargain with the Forestry Commission to use the land for forestry
LORD MILLS: I think I can reassure the noble Viscount on both the points covered in this Amendment, and at the same time answer the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. The noble Viscount's first point was that an authorisation of opencast coal
894
working should imply a licence to fell any trees on the land it covers. He was anxious that a landowner who wants to fell his trees before the Board enter his land should not be delayed by having to obtain a licence from the Forestry Commission. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Viscount that this point is already covered by paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of Clause 2 of the Forestry Act, 1951. That paragraph provides that no licence is required when the trees are felled in order to carry out a development for which planning permission has been granted or has been deemed to have been granted under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under Clause 2 of this Bill authorisations of opencast coal working will be accompanied by a deemed planning permission under the 1947 Act and that will automatically bring this provision of the Forestry Act into play.
On the second point a dedication covenant in effect gives the Forestry Commission a restrictive right over land which prevents its use otherwise than for forestry. Under the Bill as drafted the Minister's authorisation of opencast coal working is essentially a planning permission, and it does not override any interests in or restrictive rights over the land covered by it. It merely gives the Board permission to work coal if they can obtain the necessary rights in the land, either by voluntary agreement or by means of a compulsory rights order. Forestry dedication covenants, however, cannot be overridden by a compulsory rights order for they are a restrictive right held by the Crown, and subsection (5) of Clause 44 makes it clear that Crown rights cannot be overridden by an order. Thus, under the Bill as drafted opencast coal working can take place on land subject to a dedication covenant only if the Forestry Commission agree to release the owner from the terms of the covenant. This is an important safeguard for forestry land which was welcomed in another place and which I feel sure your Lordships will be equally anxious to preserve. The safeguard would be completely destroyed by this Amendment.
There are, however, two other important objections to the Amendment. First, there is an objection on grounds of constitutional principle. It is a general principle in our laws on compulsory acquisition of land that non-departmental bodies,

895
such as local authorities and nationalised industries, are not given powers, even though the use of those powers may be subject to ministerial control, which enable them to override rights and interests held by the Crown. The Amendment would infringe that principle. The second objection is that a landowner who has entered into a forestry dedication convenant, has done so of his own free will and in return for certain material advantages. If this Amendment were accepted, it would be possible for such a landowner, despite the commitment he has made to the Forestry Commission, to enter into a voluntary agreement with the National Coal Board for opencast coal working. If the Minister granted an authorisation for that working the dedication covenant would then be overridden, and the Forestry Commission would get no compensation either from the landowner or the Board for the loss which it suffered. No one would suggest that restrictive rights held by private individuals should be dealt with in this summary fashion, and it would be even more wrong to deal thus with restrictive rights held by the Crown. I hope that the noble Viscount will find these explanations satisfactory and that he will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. What he has just said is exactly what I wanted to know. I should have realised the point in regard to the Forestry Act. Now that his explanation has been given, the position of dedicated woodlands is clear. But at first sight it was not clear what would happen in the case of an authorisation without an order. The noble Lord has been good enough to tell us that. What has puzzled me slightly is that there are many people who on planning grounds would object to an authorisation for use of their land—perhaps because it is too good, or because it has a special characteristic, or the amenity value is high—but who would then, if the authorisation were given for this land to be worked, wish to avoid a compulsory order and to make a bargain. It is at that point that one began to wonder what would happen if, in a case of that kind, an individual does not make a voluntary agreement but knows that there is to be an order against him. There is no agreement, so he is forced
896
to bargain. It is rather bad luck on him if he is prevented from doing this by a forestry covenant in regard to a very small part of the land. The noble Lord's explanation makes the matter clearer, and I think that it probably will be all right. I am most grateful for the information that we have had, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD LAWSON: I take it that the Forestry Commission's rights over dedicated land stand unaltered. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, because it seemed to me that if the dedicated lands were to go without the consent of the Forestry Commission that would be going against the feelings voiced in the many debates we have had in this House. Your Lordships will remember that some years after the war your Lordships' House began to be alarmed at the slaying of trees in some of these woodland areas. There were many debates and discussions upon the matter, and it seemed to me to be rather ridiculous, having had all that commotion, having felt the necessity of saving these trees and woodlands, and having taken the necessary steps to do so, to take away that power again. So I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have in mind many cases of that kind. I hope that he does not trouble the Forestry Commission too much over them, because in some mining areas woodlands are few and far between.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The Sitting was suspended at four minutes before one o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past two.]
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (2), after the first "land" to insert "or woodland". The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple Amendment. In this clause the Minister is enjoined that he must make certain directions and conditions about the restoration of agricultural land if he is satisfied that in fact it is to be used for agriculture. It is proposed here that forestry land should be treated in the same way. I am not suggesting that such land should be restored to the extent that trees must necessarily be planted on it or that it must be used only for forestry. The kind of place that comes to my mind is the typical case where there are rather small areas of woodland in and among

897
agricultural land and where a somewhat large area has been taken which comprises both.
In replacing such land, the practical course would be to level, grade and restore the whole and afterwards to decide what areas should be planted and what areas should be used for agriculture. Those decisions would be taken on the basis of such considerations as: where shelter is needed, the actual structure of the land in various parts of the site, what drainage there will be, and so on. I am not saying that land which has been forest must always be forest, because in practice there is a good deal of interchange between agriculture and forestry in many parts of the country. Essentially, the same land is used from time to time for one purpose or the other.
There is a long history behind this matter. Since the start of the requisitioning of land for opencast coal mining, the conditions of restoration of agricultural land over the years have been gradually improved, due to negotiations between those interested in the land, on the one hand, and Government Departments and Ministers on the other. Through all that time there has never been an admission that forestry land was to be treated in that regard like agricultural land; and it is perfectly possible, therefore, that land which has had trees growing on it and from which the top soil or subsoil has been removed would be left a jumble of clay, shale and so on. Obviously, that is a mistake. As I have said, such areas must be levelled and graded and treated as a whole and afterwards planted with whatever crop may best be grown upon it. I submit that if, as in this clause, the Minister is willing to be bound to give directions for the restoration of agricultural land, he would only be being consistent if he were to be bound to make a direction for the restoration of forestry land in the same way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, after ("land") insert ("or woodland").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: I believe that Amendment. No. 5 can conveniently be considered with Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. I am afraid that there are real difficulties in the way of accepting these Amendments, but hope I shall be able to give
898
the noble Viscount assurances which he will find almost as satisfactory as acceptance. The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that woodland which is used for opencast coal working is restored in such a way that it is reasonably fit for use as woodland or, if that use is no longer possible and desirable, for use as agricultural land. That is an objective to which I subscribe wholeheartedly, and it is already the policy of Her Majesty's Government to restore in that way woodland which has been requisitioned under the present arrangements.
Clause 2 (2) requires the Minister—and I emphasise the word "requires"—to attach to a deemed planning permission for opencast coal working conditions for the restoration of the land. That obligation is imposed on the Minister in respect of all types of land—agricultural land, sports grounds, public open spaces, woodland and so on. The presence of this provision in the Bill ensures that all types of land, including woodland, will be restored to a high standard. In the proviso to subsection (2) we have made special mention of agricultural land because about 90 per cent. of the land used for opencast working is agricultural land. The restoration of woodland is, of course, very important, but so is the restoration of many other types of land, such as open spaces and playing fields.
I know that the local authority associations and some of the other authorities whom we have consulted about this Bill have been concerned lest the special mention of agricultural land in the proviso should cast doubt on whether subsection (2) requires the restoration of other types of land; but they eventually agreed that the special importance of agricultural land in connection with opencast coal operations made it reasonable to mention agricultural land. If, however, we were to add a special mention of woodland I believe we should either have to enumerate all categories of non-agricultural land or run the risk of casting doubt on the position regarding such land. I am sure we should all wish to avoid that. It is for this technical reason, and this reason alone, that I would ask the noble Viscount not to press these Amendments. I assure him, however, that subsection (2) already requires the Minister to secure the restoration of woodland, and that we will

899
in practice impose conditions which will secure a high standard of restoration.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am not altogether happy. While one appreciates that the general effect of that part of the clause is to ensure the restoration of all land, I would suggest that, if agricultural land is specifically mentioned, as indeed I think it should be, it is almost inevitable in practice that whatever is done to that land must also be done to woodlands which are included in it. I should not have thought that that would have brought in any competition from other forms of what the Bill calls "non-agricultural land". I am inclined to think that a way out might be consideration of a definition of "agricultural land" which would include woodlands associated with it. If that could be done I think it would meet the point. I do not know whether the noble Lord would consider such a proposal before the Report stage, in which case it might avoid any complication with other forms of land.
LORD MILLS: I will certainly give consideration to it before the Report stage. However, I am very anxious, as I am sure your Lordships are, too, that we do not add unnecessarily to this very complicated Bill; and as at present advised, I feel that it is quite unnecessary to include these words. But, as I have said, I will give further consideration to the matter before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I repeat that my reason for feeling about this is what has happened in the past. We want to be certain that it will not happen again in the future. I am sure the noble Lord will see to this, but one likes to think that it is in the Bill. However, with that assurance, I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after "restoration" to insert:
"(including rehabilitation, the replacement of fixed equipment and drainage, and operations associated therewith)".
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment on which I hope the noble Lord will be able to help us. I am not at all sure that my Amendment uses the
900
right words for what I want to achieve. I hope the noble Lord will tell us what in this Bill is meant by the word "restoration". This is really purely a practical point, but it has a considerable influence on the application of Clauses 22 and 23.
The operation, as one understands it now, is that restoration consists of replacement of the overburden from above where the coal was, replacement of subsoil above that, and topsoil on top of that, followed by the replacement of fences, water supplies, roads, gates and fixed equipment of all kinds. After all that has been done, the land is kept occupied by agricultural executive committees; it is cultivated, and probably drained, and various quantities of extra fertilisers are no doubt applied. Then, after something like five years of that treatment, the land is derequisitioned. I assume that the same procedure would happen here, except that where I have referred to the derequisitioning, the corresponding point would be the ending of the order. Following that, it is very important that there should be, as there is now, some arrangement for the subsequent reinstallation of the drains, which cannot be put in until after the land is settled. If the noble Lord can assure me that that is what he understands to be the meaning of "restoration", I shall be more than happy. I think it is important that something should be said about this matter, because the people who have to deal with these things will have to know from where they start.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, after ("restoration") insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: In this Bill, "restoration" is meant to cover the substance of this Amendment, and, as I told the House when moving the Second Reading, it is our intention in all cases of opencast coal working on agricultural land, except when the land is not going back to agricultural use, to impose conditions which will apply the Code of Restoration which was adopted in 1951 and which has recently been improved as a result of discussions with the agricultural organisations. This code includes provision for up to five years' agricultural treatment of the restored sites. I realise, however, that the term used in the Bill can give rise to confusion, and that

901
farmers and landowners whose land is taken might feel happier if some reference to "rehabilitation" were included in the Bill. I do not think the noble Viscount's Amendment quite does the trick, but if he will withdraw it, I will ask the draftsman to try to find a suitable form of words, and I will move a Government Amendment on Report stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful for that suggestion; it is exactly what I hoped would be put in the Bill. At this stage I should like to say one further thing. The noble Lord has referred to the Code of Restoration, which was agreed on, as he said, in 1951. I am a little distressed, because I believe that for more than a year now the agricultural interests in which I have been connected have been hoping for further meetings with Government representatives to settle on an improved and a later version of the code. Just when it was hoped to get on with the matter the Bill was published, and of course consideration of the revised code has been suspended. I hope very much that the code can be improved, and, although it is not mentioned in the Bill (and I appreciate that it cannot be mentioned in the Bill) I have no doubt that the intention is that it should apply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.31 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after subsection (4), to insert
"(5) Where the Minister has granted an authorisation under the preceding section, and any of the land comprised in the authorisation has trees growing upon it but is not affected by a tree preservation order, the Minister, in giving any directions under this section in connection with such an authorisation in relation to such land, shall consider what conditions (if any) should be imposed with respect to the planting of trees in place of any which may be felled in the course of operations, or for securing the preservation of particular trees."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 5 which was moved by the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat and withdrawn, but while he was concerned rather with the rehabilitation of commercial woodlands, the object here is to protect what one might call the amenity value of trees. If your Lordships will look at subsection (4) of Clause 2, you will see that specific mention of tree
902
preservation orders is made. In subsection (4) the Minister is given the power to override existing tree preservation orders, but in return for that he is put under the mandatory obligation, as I understand it, to consider the whole situation carefully and to impose, I think one may fairly say, if possible, some conditions which will at any rate go some way towards re-establishing the status quo.
But, of course, this applies only to cases where tree preservation orders have been made; and, as your Lordships are very well aware, in many parts of the country local planning authorities have been exceedingly parsimonious in the making of tree preservation orders. Very differing policies have been pursued by different planning authorities, and my information is that in quite a number of parts of the country these orders have very seldom been made. I am quite sure that in many of the areas which may be brought within the scope of this Bill there are large numbers of beautiful trees which have not been the subject of preservation orders, whereas, if they had been in other parts of the country, they would have had such orders. Quite apart from these exceptionally good trees, there are many trees of real amenity value dotted about on the land the loss of which, without some measure of replacement, would undoubtedly strike a serious blow at the loveliness of our English countryside.
It is for this reason that I felt that it would be useful to have in Clause 2 an additional subsection referring more particularly to this general type of tree and requiring that the Minister should not only lay down conditions in relation to trees where tree preservation orders have been made but should also consider the situation in regard to what one might call amenity trees generally, and in those cases also impose such conditions as may be appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.— (Lord Chorley).
LORD MILLS: I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment. One of the most distressing features of opencast coal working is that it often entails the destruction of trees which are a source of recreation and pleasure to many people in areas which have not a lot

903
of natural amenities. Under our present requisitioning arrangements we do what we can to avoid the destruction of trees, and when this is unavoidable we almost always insist on replanting. It is not, therefore, because I disagree in any way with the noble Lord's objective but solely for technical reasons that I am going to ask him not to press this Amendment.
Trees are one of the most important amenities of our countryside, but we also have many other amenities—lakes, hedges, old buildings and houses and their gardens, and so on. The Government's aim is to ensure that opencast coal working does the absolute minimum of damage to all these amenities, and Clause 2 gives the Minister all the power he needs to impose conditions to achieve that end, In addition, we have included in the Bill Clause 3, with its special provisions about the preservation and, if necessary, the restoration of amenity. That clause is certainly wide enough to cover the preservation or replanting of trees. My difficulty with the noble Lord's Amendment is that as with woodlands, it might be thought that Parliament, by singling out trees for special mention considered the preservation and restoration of other amenities to be of rather minor importance; and I am sure that no one in this House would wish to give that impression.
Noble Lords may well ask why, then, have we included special provisions about trees which are protected by a tree preservation order? The answer is that we had to include those provisions to make sure that a tree preservation order could be overridden if, after weighing all the arguments, the Minister reluctantly came to the conclusion that, in a particular case, the trees had to be sacrificed in order to allow the coal to be worked. It is for these technical reasons that I find the Amendment unacceptable, but I should like to assure the House that when considering any proposals for opencast coal working which entail the destruction of trees I shall give great weight to that factor in deciding whether to authorise the working; and if I do decide that it is in the national interest for the working to go ahead, I shall, wherever it is reasonable and practicable, impose conditions under Clause 2 to secure the preservation of particular trees and the replanting of those which have had to be destroyed. I
904
hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: On this particular Amendment I am intrigued by the manner in which the Minister gives yet another assurance as to the way in which this Bill will be put into effect when it becomes an Act of Parliament. When we are reading the Bill after it has become an Act, we shall need not only the Act but also a list of all the assurances that have been given to us to-day; otherwise, we shall never understand what the Act means. An assurance has been given on practically every Amendment moved to-day. I know that there will be more assurances between now and the end of the discussion, and we shall need the Bill and a list of assurances to be sure what was in the Minister's mind when he agreed to accept or rejected an Amendment. In regard to this particular Amendment, if your Lordships can visualise a mining village you will realise that, as a rule, there are not many trees in the area—not enough, at any rate—and if opencast mining is going to endanger the few that there are, one can understand the attitude of the local people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that Clause 2, administered by the right people in the right way, would give us what we want regarding trees, and it is for that reason that I hope my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD LAWSON: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether photographs are taken of the country before the beginning of opencast working and then of the country afterwards? My noble friend has said that there are few trees in the mining areas but the few are often a feature of the countryside. A small clump of trees set in the right place can give an appearance of dignity to an area.
LORD MILLS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, for his remarks. I know that I lay myself open to the charge of giving assurance after assurance, but the reason for giving these assurances is that I find that points raised by noble Lords are already covered in the Bill and that the Minister has powers. Therefore, I think it is all to the good that there should be in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of how the Minister of the day interpreted the use of his powers. If we could have a

905
Marshalled List of assurances given by the Minister, I should be only too happy to provide it. In regard to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I have studied many of these inquiries which were held before authorisation was given and in almost all cases photographs were shown of the districts before opencast working; and subsequently we have had photographs of the districts afterwards.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sensible of what the cogency of the technical argument which the noble Lord has put up means to the proposed Amendment. In the circumstances, I feel that I must withdraw it. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the assurances he has given. We in the amenities movement, particularly in the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, where this matter has received a great deal of close attention, are glad to have the present Minister, because we feel that he is really sensitive to the objectives we have in view. I am sure that so far as his own conduct of this business is concerned he will do his best for us. But, as we know. Ministers come and go and not all Ministers may have the same sensitivity of the beauties of England as the noble Lord, Lord Mills. Having said that and thanked him for his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Compulsory rights orders
4.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the working of coal by opencast operations, the Board may, by means of an order (in this Act referred to as a "compulsory rights order") made by the Board and confirmed by the Minister, compulsorily acquire temporary rights of occupation and use of land in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act:
Provided that no compulsory rights order shall be made after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the commencement of this Act.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "Minister" to insert:
"(who shall be satisfied that the Board have taken all reasonable steps to reach agreement with the persons directly concerned in the land)."
The noble Viscount said: This is a matter of policy under the Bill. It has been said by members of the Government that the intention is that after an authorisation
906
is made, the owners and occupiers of agricultural or other land should seek to make an agreement with the Coal Board whereby the land can be worked without the need of, a compulsory order. As it stands now, the Bill does not refer to that at any place. This matter was debated in another place, where it was said on behalf of the Government that it was not necessary to put anything about that in the Bill because the Coal Board already have powers to make such agreements. No doubt that is true, but I still think it necessary to put something in to show that it is not the intention of this Bill that a compulsory order should be made in every case but that where it is possible voluntary agreements should be made. I think that so complicated and difficult is the Bill that it will drive people to make voluntary agreements if they possibly can; therefore, when a person reads the Bill, he should see plainly that it is possible to do this.
I envisage certain difficulties in connection with the matter. At some point in the Bill it is stated that it is possible for authorisation, which is planning procedure, and the order, which is operative against the owners and occupiers, to be made at one and the same time. I hope that that will not result in a person who wishes to object on grounds of planning being prevented by reason of time from making a favourable bargain and avoiding the difficulties and complexities of an enforced bargain under the rest of the Bill. That is why I want to see somewhere, in some form, something to stress the necessity that attempts shall be made to make agreements before orders are approved. What I have put down in the Amendment may not be the best way of bringing that about, but this is the only part of the Bill which I could find suitable for putting in something to that effect. The Amendment begins by saying that the Minister "shall be satisfied"—that is a very flexible expression and I think we can take it that in practice he will be satisfied on this point before he approves an order. I do not suggest that these are the only words which could be used but, as a matter of policy, I believe that some words should be put in. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after "Minister" insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: At first sight, this is an Amendment which the Government ought to be able to accept, for it appears to do no more than give effect to our declared policy that the Board will use their compulsory powers only after they have made every effort to reach a voluntary agreement with the owners, occupiers or others interested in the land they want. We do hope that there will be a voluntary agreement in the large majority of opencast work and it seems reasonable therefore to include some reference to those agreements in the Bill. The Amendment proposed, however, is contrary to all precedents. It is the general policy of all public authorities with powers of compulsory purchase to seek to obtain the land they want by agreement and to use their compulsory powers only when this is not possible. But the Acts which conferred powers of compulsory purchase, such as the Electricity Act, 1947, and the Gas Act, 1948, do not say specifically that compulsory powers cannot be used until after an attempt has been made to reach agreement.
We have followed these precedents in this Bill, not just because they are the precedents but because there are two very good reasons for them. In the first place, the question of what is a reasonable agreement involves questions of compensation: the Minister could not be satisfied whether reasonable efforts had been made to reach agreement without going into those questions. If, however, a compulsory rights order is confirmed, the question of compensation may have to be settled by the Lands Tribunal and any consideration of this question by the Minister at an earlier stage might prejudice a subsequent reference to the Tribunal. In the second place, quite apart from this difficulty, it would often be hard for the Minister to say when reasonable efforts have been made to reach an agreement. It would be only too easy for the objector to a compulsory rights order to argue that there should just have been one more round of negotiations.
For these reasons I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will be able to accept an Amendment on these lines. But I have received a categorical assurance from the National Coal Board that they will always seek to obtain the land they want for opencast coal working by agreement with those concerned and that
908
they will use their compulsory powers only in the last resort. This is another case of assurance; but while I do not hold out any great hope that I can introduce any words into the Bill which will not present me with other difficulties, I will, between now and Report stage, give further consideration to this matter, if the noble Viscount would agree in the meantime to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALL: We are a little disappointed with the Minister in regard to this Amendment, which I should have thought was one of the most easily acceptable of the Amendments. After all, it only emphasises a point which I feel should be emphasised, and it would be helpful to both sides if something like this were inserted. Everything has not gone smoothly under the new Electricity Acts; there are difficulties. Something like this Amendment in the Bill could be referred to from both sides in the event of the issue of a compulsory notice. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider accepting this Amendment, which I feel will be helpful both to the Board and to the occupier of the land.
LORD MILLS: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I have already said that, for the reasons I have given, I cannot accept this Amendment, but I will study the matter between now and the Report stage to see whether any other form of words can be introduced to give effect to your Lordships' desire.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am glad to hear that. I do not feel convinced about the precedents of other compulsory purchase orders, for this reason. Until now, land for opencast coal working has been obtained by requisitioning, where there has been no possibility of consultation or agreement. I think, therefore, it is important to get it into people's minds that it is now expected to be done by agreement. That leads me to a further point which I would put forward for the consideration of the Government—namely, that if this Bill ever finally comes to an end, in spite of all the Amendments we are told may be necessary on the Report stage, and becomes an Act, it will be important to have some sort of simplified description of it made available for people, particularly those who are likely to be concerned with it. I think it would

909
be a good thing if in due course the Government would do that. This is not something that can be understood quickly, and I think it only fair that people should be given some simple guidance on how they should set about negotiations, if the need should arise. On what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said, I am only too pleased to withdraw this Amendment, because no doubt he will produce a better Amendment than I can. I hope that he will put something down, but perhaps he will not mind if I again put down this Amendment on Report, in case he is unable to find a form of words, in order that we can have a further discussion then. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Effect of opencast site orders]:
LORD CHESHAM: In moving the first of the Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, I feel that I must briefly refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, when he gently chided the Government on producing a badly-thought-out Bill, and pointed to the number of Government Amendments as evidence. I could more readily accept his mild reproof were it not for the fact that this is a long Bill, of great legal and technical complexity, and our one desire is that it should be as clear as possible.
Few of the Government Amendments contain anything of substance or principle, and many are purely drafting or technical, or consequential. The Government have tried to be helpful, and a number of these Amendments are in fulfilment of assurances given to the Opposition in another place during the later stages of the consideration of the Bill there. This Amendment and the next are such Amendments, and are purely drafting. A similar Amendment was put down by the Opposition in another place, but because they did not put down the following Amendment, which is consequential, it was not called. We thought, however, on examining the Amendment that it represented a definite drafting improvement, and it is now put down again with the appropriate consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("a compulsory rights order, being").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: On behalf of my colleagues in another place and in your Lordships' House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for putting down these Amendments as a result of argument put forward by my colleagues in another place. There will be several other Amendments put forward on the same basis and, in order to curtail the proceedings, I should like to thank the Minister and his colleagues now for all those Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("compulsory rights").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Limited compulsory rights orders]:
LORD CHESHAM: This and the next Amendment, No. 14, are the first of a series of technical Amendments which do two things. First of all, they provide that a person who has obtained the right to work minerals by means of a court order under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, shall be treated for the purposes of this Bill, and particularly for compensation, in the same way as a mineral lessee. Secondly, they leave out various odd references to timber felling contracts which have survived from an earlier draft of the Bill. I shall in due course move an Amendment to Clause 51, which provides that contracts which give a man a right to fell timber are to be treated as, "easements or similar rights." This is quite logical, as well as much simpler, since these similar rights already include the right to take water, wood, turf and so on from the land. This is entirely a tidying operation, and as the tidying involves quite a number of Amendments scattered right through the Bill on the same subject, as I come to them, for the convenience of your Lordships I shall refer to them briefly as either mineral working rights

911
or timber felling contracts and say no more about them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, after ("lease") insert ("or order conferring working rights").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment refers to the timber felling contracts I have just mentioned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 31, leave out paragraph (d).— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Property exempt from inclusion in compulsory rights orders
9.—(1) A compulsory rights order shall not comprise any part of a building which, at the time when the order is made, is a building whereof the whole or any part is occupied as a dwelling-house, or any part of the land adjacent to such a building which, at that time, is occupied together with the whole or part of that building and either—

(a) is within fifty yards from a part of that building or

(b) not being land falling within the preceding paragraph, and not being agricultural land, forms part of a garden, yard court or forecourt belonging to that building.

(3) No compulsory rights order shall be made so as to comprise any land which is or has been comprised in a previous compulsory rights order as confirmed by the Minister. other than a previous order which, as so confirmed, provided that its operation should be limited as mentioned in subsection (1) of the last preceding section.
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words after the second "or" down to the end of the subsection: and insert:
"land within fifty yards of any part of such a building or any other land occupied together with that building, and not being agricultural land, which forms part of the garden, yard, court or forecourt to that building."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is somewhat similar to the Amendment under the authorisation, but it is different in this respect. We are now dealing with the types or parts of land which must be exempted from an order. In the Bill as now written, an occupied dwelling-house which has a garden adjoining it or land forming a courtyard,
912
or something of that sort, occupied by the person occupying the house, cannot have an order made against it; and, indeed, the order must keep fifty yards away from the House. If, on the other hand (I think I may be wrong here): a house has land next to it which is not occupied by the occupier of the house, a compulsory order may be made close up against the wall of the house itself.
When we were discussing general questions under authorisations, the Minister said that there were various reasons why, although he was in sympathy, he could not agree to this in all cases. However, he has proposals in the Bill under which certain houses would be exempted. That is justified, I suppose, by the legal position under which the person who lives in a house and does not occupy the land next to him has no rights over the land. I thought it was a similar question to that which we discussed earlier. It might, and I think probably will, lead to the position that a rather large house with a big garden round it would be protected if the owner of the house occupied all his garden, while a small cottage, which might have a small garden in front and none behind (the occupier, therefore, not occupying the land behind him) might have a works close up against the wall of his house.
It seems to me that if, on compassionate grounds, anybody is exempted from works coming too close, then everybody should be exempted, whether he has a large garden and land round his house or only a small one in front of it. It is quite a simple point. As the Minister said he could not accept authorisation being evaded in respect of all houses, I am not quite clear why in the Bill he has arranged for a compulsory order to be limited in respect of some. I do not quite see the distinction. I do not see why there should be a distinction between the larger house, with a large garden, and a small one without any garden. For that reason, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, leave out from ("or") to the end of line 18, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: I am a little surprised that the noble Viscount has gone forward with this Amendment, because we dealt fully in Amendment No. 3 with this

913
problem of preventing opencast coal mining within fifty yards of a dwelling house. The position in regard to a dwelling-house which has a garden or other land occupied with it is that there is no right to interfere with the occupier's enjoyment of the garden or other land within fifty yards of that dwelling-house. Other land is in the same category in relation to a compulsory rights order as it is in relation to an authorisation and if we take the line that for practical reasons it is impossible to exempt that land from authorisation, the same applies to this Amendment. Therefore, I would ask the noble Viscount to consider withdrawing it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am not very clear about it, but I will study what the noble Lord has said in Hansard and perhaps suggest something on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to the clause:
"(4) No compulsory rights order shall be made so as to comprise any land which has been requisitioned under the Emergency Powers, for the purpose of opencast coal working."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is very similar to the one following in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. The argument on it is this. If land which has had a compulsory rights order on it is exempted from a later order, then land which has had a requisitioning order put on it should also be exempted. As I understand it, earlier working on requisition was done with machinery which could only go to a certain depth. At the present time the machinery can go very much deeper so it is naturally desired to go back to that land and work it again. On the other hand, would it not be reasonable to assume that in the next ten years machinery will be developed which might go deeper still? If it is proper to go back to land and work it again if it has been requisitioned, it would be equally proper to go back if it had had a compulsory order upon it. If, on the other hand, it is not right to go back if the land has had a compulsory order, then surely it is equally not right if it had been requisitioned. It seems to me that the same should apply
914
to both, and that the Bill ought to be logical in this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: We are in a slight difficulty here, in so far as my Amendment cannot be called until we have disposed of No. 16. But they both deal with the same matter, so I think we will take the debate on Amendment No. 16, and No. 17 can be dealt with in the light of that. We need to go back to the war period, to the initial stages of opencast, to get a real picture of what is happening. In those days we needed coal, and we needed it immediately, with the result that we took the upper seams everywhere we could, in order to get immediate coal. There was the reason put forward by the noble Viscount; we had not the machinery to go much lower. But in any case we did not want at that time to go lower; we wanted all the surface seams; and we got them, and then we restored the land. It was known then that there were several seams below, but no one ever thought of working them because it would have meant delaying getting the coal. Now, however, it is suggested that where the Coal Board consider it advisable it should be possible to return to those places which have been restored.
Bear in mind what that means. The land had been worked by opencast methods, and when finally the position was that no more coal could be got, the site was closed and the land restored. Then for a number of years the farmer has been getting his crops. Now it is suggested that the Coal Board might go back there to work these deeper seams. I can appreciate the argument, provided that it is related to an emergency, that we need the coal below immediately, regardless of any disturbance to a pre-disturbed place. But I want to look at the matter fairly carefully, because, after all, we do not need that coal, in my opinion, just at this moment. I say that for this reason: in all the new sites we can go down to the deepest seam possible. Let us therefore open up our new sites, get down to the deepest seam where coal can be got by opencast and work upwards. I think that if that were done the Coal Board would get as much coal as

915
they want by opencast methods. So I say: leave alone those sites which have been worked before. If in the course of ten years we find that we have exhausted all our coal in these new sites, then we can consider going back to those which have been disturbed, but I do not see the argument for disturbing them now.
Moreover, we have to remember this fact: when you have taken your top seam you could take the remainder by shaft methods. There is no reason why you should not. But if you take what you can by opencast methods you may lose several seams which opencast cannot get. Then you are faced with a shaft to go down to the bottom seams. I am not sure whether the question of what is at stake in tonnage of coal has been examined in that way. You will have several seams you cannot touch by opencast methods. You have taken the top four or five. It may be expensive to get down to those bottom seams afterwards. I know that the Minister is a technical man and well-informed on these matters, and I do hope that he will look at the point again. I am not going into the human argument; I am not concerned with that at the moment. I am on the purely technical argument, the amount we may lose by using this method and the amount we may lose by not using this method.
What does one find happened in another place? There was an assurance given. I find that the Parliamentary Secretary, Sir Ian Horobin, had this to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 589 (No. 121), col. 810]:
"After this discussion in the Standing Committee on the question of re-entry on to land previously requisitioned I made a detailed survey of all the new sites likely to be available for production in the next three years. This survey showed that new sites containing about 35 million tons of coal would be available, and that if there were no re-entry on to land previously requisitioned under Defence Regulations, about 10 million tons of this coal would be lost."
I question that statement, having regard to what I have said about deeper seams. He went on:
"In these circumstances, to prevent the Board from making C.R.O.s on land previously requisitioned would involve putting at risk an unacceptably high proportion of future output. The Board might still get some of this coal by agreement with the landowners and
916
occupiers, but without compulsory powers in the background we could not rely on that.
"The Government, therefore, cannot amend the Bill,"—
I do not know why, but that is what he said—
"but it is already our policy to avoid re-excavating land which has previously been excavated except in those cases where the land was worked in the early days of opencast, and re-excavation to a greater depth will now yield a substantial tonnage of coal. The Government and the Board propose, if this Bill goes into operation, to extend this policy, and the Minister—the House will forgive my reading from my brief but the statement is important—will not confirm compulsory rights orders against the wishes of the owners and occupiers of land which has been previously requisitioned for opencast coal operations unless there is a really substantial tonnage of coal at stake."
There is the point—another undertaking! I would suggest that the Minister, if he possibly can, should look at this point again to see whether he himself could find a form of words that would meet what we all have in mind. I do not want to lose coal and see the sterilisation of millions of tons, but that will be the result of re-entry on these sites for opencast working. He will lose tremendous tonnage if he has re-entry powers. I should like him to look at that aspect again. If the calculations have been made taking that fact into account, there it is; but I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and myself have made a case for reconsideration.
LORD HASTINGS: I should like to support this Amendment of the noble Viscount or the alternative one of the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has given technical reasons from the mining viewpoint why this Amendment should be accepted. He has also mentioned very briefly grounds of personal hardship which may be inflicted upon farmers and others. I should like to mention a third reason, again a technical one, from the agricultural viewpoint. Is there any case yet where land has been worked twice for opencast mining and restoration has been made? I believe not. Has the Minister taken the advice of any agricultural experts as to the possibility or likelihood of land which is restored a second time being in any way comparable to its present condition after even the first restoration?
I do not believe that one can expect such a result after a second digging or

917
working of opencast. I feel that that land may be ruined permanently, especially from the drainage point of view. Technically speaking, I believe that it would be a disaster, from the agricultural point of view, to allow any site which has once been worked for opencast to be worked a second time, and I hope the Minister will accept the suggestions which have been put to him that new sites shall always be worked in priority, and only in special circumstances—special stress and national need—should old sites be worked a second time.
LORD LAWSON: May I just comment upon this Amendment? This morning I tried to bring the Committee to some sensible understanding of the general irritation and indignation which prevails in many areas in the country over this opencast business. If you go back a second time or, as I understand, even a third time, I can imagine the indignation there will be among farmers as well as miners. All I would add to this discussion is the question: is not this an illustration of the fact that larger machines for deep working are contemplated? The only reason for not working the coal on the first occasion was that the machines did not dig to that depth. Now it is contemplated that they will go back a second or a third time, and I am most disturbed about the rumours that I have heard about the use of larger machines. I was disturbed about it because I have lived in an area which is, as to a good deal of it, more shallow than the depth to which some of the machines can dig down. If they are going to dig down 500 or 600 feet there is going to be trouble with those who are working the seams. It seems to me absurd and really asking for trouble to go back a second time, to say nothing of a third time.
3.23 p.m.
LORD MILLS: I can well understand the reason which prompted the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to put down this Amendment, and the reasons which have prompted noble Lords to talk on it. Of all the Amendments that have been put down, this is the one which I should most have liked to accept. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has, I think, been most helpful to me and to your Lordships in this matter. He said what I think is very true: that we should
918
not use this power except in case of real necessity. But this is an enabling Bill, and we must see that in this Bill we preserve those powers which might, in certain circumstances, become necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said that he thought that new sites ought to have priority. I quite agree. Because of our anxiety to avoid the situation of working land more than once, we have provided in Clause 9 (3), that no compulsory rights order can be made on land comprised in a previous general compulsory rights order. The question of extending this safeguard to cover land previously requisitioned was raised in another place, and I have gone into it very carefully. It was only with reluctance that I came to the conclusion that it would be necessary for us to keep this particular power. It is true that in future when a compulsory rights order is made the Board will know that they cannot go to that place again, and they have to plan on that basis. But we must have regard to the fact that in the past they have worked on quite different assumptions, and that it may be that there is coal there which we should not rule out as being impossible to get. Therefore I think it is right that we should keep this power.
I have been twitted—perhaps rightly so—on giving a lot of assurances, and I have also given a lot of promises that I will look at the matter again and will reconsider it before Report. I do not know what it is possible to do here. We must not deny ourselves the right to go back to places and obtain substantial tonnages of coal if we need them, but I hope the Committee will be satisfied with my saying that I will have another look at this matter, not from the point of view of denying ourselves that right but to see whether in any way we can express it in a manner more acceptable to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT HALL: We are most grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for saying that he will have another look at this matter. I thought the commitment given by his Parliamentary Secretary in another place was a most definite one. Strange to say, he said that he could not amend the Bill; yet the Government have down for our consideration to-day no fewer than fifty to sixty Amendments. And here this most important—I should

919
say, outstanding—difficulty has arisen. I repeat that my noble friends and myself think that going down too deep, or indeed dealing with opencast coal at normal times, is a great mistake. Where enterprising contractors are most anxious to continue with opencast, of course they will do all they can to carry on. After or during the consideration which the Minister will give to this matter—I know he will give it consideration—I should like him to let not only myself but the mining industry know to what depth it is intended to go to secure coal by opencast methods instead of by deep-mining methods.
Some of us have lived on the coalfields. To take my own coalfield, which I know best, we have about nine seams, almost all of which are outcropping at various points. The seams vary from about 18 inches to 9 feet, or not very much larger than that. But the first seam in many cases is down to a depth of at least 200 feet; it goes deeper and deeper and the other, thicker, seams are down between 20 to 40 feet, each seam below the upper one. If this opencast coal is to be in competition with deep-mined coal, then I believe the National Coal Board and indeed the Minister himself should let us know where we stand in the matter, for it is a very important one. I hope consideration will be given to it. I cannot, for a moment, conceive that anything more than, say, 30 feet or 40 feet of overburden should be removed to get 2 feet or 3 feet of coal. In South Wales, at any rate, one cannot get thicker seams of coal within workable distance for sensible men to work with opencast operation.
I conclude by saying that we are very pleased that the noble Lord the Minister is to give consideration to this matter, and I trust that some of the points to which I have referred will be taken into consideration. We hope he will give us some information as to the depth of working and the amount of overbearing which it will be necessary to remove to obtain the coal he expects to obtain if, as we understand, opencast working is to continue.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Lord the Minister has been good enough to say that he will look into this subject; and while I appreciate his point that it
920
may be necessary to keep the ultimate power, I understand him to mean that he hopes to put into the Bill something to show that this provision applies only where there is extreme necessity. On that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Provisions as to minerals other than coal, and as to timber, crops etc.]:
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I believe a certain amount of time can be saved here, because since I put down this Amendment a number of others have been tabled, particularly one to Clause 51, which appeared only yesterday. While I am not at all sure of its effect on the point I wish to bring up, I believe it has some bearing upon it. I think it will save time, therefore, if, after moving this Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw it and, if necessary, put something down on the Report stage if my point has not by then been met. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, leave out "get" and insert, "purchase at a reasonable price."—(Viscount Ridley.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Having said what I have said, it will save time if this matter is not discussed now, as I believe the point is covered. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Suspension of certain public rights of way]:
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This is quite a simple point. There is special procedure for diverting or temporarily closing a footpath. It is merely a question of whether it would not be simpler to provide also for the closing or diversion of a road, which often has to be done. If the Minister is to have discretion to authorise, and indeed to give an order for, the working of a rather large area of land, should he not, in co-operation with other Ministers, be in a position to make an order for temporarily closing a road? It is purely a point of machinery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17 Line 5, leave out "not being a right enjoyable by vehicular traffic."—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: I suggest that it is not right to extend the powers of the Minister in this way. It is arguable where the line should be drawn in a matter of this kind, but Her Majesty's Government consider that it is better to follow the precedent in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and restrict the special expedited procedure to rights of way not enjoyable by vehicular traffic. That does not mean that it will be impossible to close roads which cross opencast coal sites. The National Coal Board will be able to apply to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation for a closure or suspension order to be made under the ordinary procedures of Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and Section 32 of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951. Her Majesty's Government think that the closing of a road, which is a pretty important matter and may affect a great many people, should be dealt with under these full procedures, and that decisions should rest with the Minister mainly concerned—the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation—although he would, of course, always consult the Minister of Power in a case affecting opencast coal working. I hope that the noble Viscount will be content to leave it in that way.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It seems to me that in this Bill the Minister of Power is given authority over so many matters not strictly within his Department that he might have this power also. There may be cases—indeed, I know of some—where a site could not be worked at all without this being done, and I should have thought that such a provision would make matters simpler. But I do not want to press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Acquisition of rights for purposes of drainage or water supply]:
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is designed to make it quite clear that the compulsory purchase under Clause 16 of a right to discharge water on to land does not relieve the Board from complying with the general law and, in particular, with the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. It has been put down to meet a point raised by the River Boards' Association. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 32, at end insert—
("(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising any interference with the exercise of a public right of way, or any contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in any other Act).").—(Lord
Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Compensation by way of payment of cost of works]:
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it quite clear that the obligation on the National Coal Board to pay the cost-of-works compensation applies only in relation to special work needed to complete the restoration of the land, and not to work involved in the ordinary maintenance and use of that land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 21, after ("out") insert ("(over and above the ordinary maintenance and use of the land)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON): There is an Amendment to the next Amendment as printed. In subsection (5) (a) the wording should be "The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection shall be …"; and in (5) (b) it should be "An estimate shall be made, and agreed, of the total cost of the works in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, and one-fifth …" I do not know whether your Lordships have that Amendment.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) At the end of the occupation of the land by the Board, the Board shall agree with all persons interested in the land the actual works to be done to the land, and only such works as are so agreed shall qualify for payment of cost of works. In default of agreement, the matter shall be referred to arbitration, under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948
(4) The works which may qualify for cost of works payment are—

(a) Drainage of the land, subsoiling or other cultivations, before or after drainage, and replacement of a crop on the land after the land has been drained.

(b) Maintenance of Tile drains for five years after the land has been drained.

923

(c) Other works to be carried out within five years of the end of the Board's occupation, being works which can be carried out without disturbing the subsoil of the land, and which are agreed to be necessary to complete the restoration of the land to a reasonable condition for the use to which it is to be put, whether for forestry or agriculture.

(5).—(a) The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection shall be carried out and paid for as cost of works at a time when it is agreed between the owner and the Board that the land is ready to be drained.

>(b) An estimate shall be made, and agreed, of the total cost of the works in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, and one-fifth part of this amount shall be paid to the occupier for each of the five years following the end of the occupation of the land by the Board."

The noble Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I must apologise for the mistake in it as printed. I think it must have been due to my handwriting. As the Amendment appears in the Marshalled List the references are in fact wrong, and I thought it might be helpful to have a note made of the right references, because that makes the Amendment a little more clear. I excuse myself a little for the mistake on the ground that one day last week the noble Earl the Leader of the House said that he wanted the Amendments put in the next day, and they were rather hurriedly and inadequately dealt with. I apologise in respect of this Amendment and for another which comes later on and which was so amateurishly drawn up that I suppose, as written, it could not stand in the Bill. There was very little time to deal with it. I am quite clear, however, as to what is intended under this Amendment.
What has happened about general compensation provisions is a long and rather difficult story. As I see it, the objects of these compensation provisions should be, first of all, to ensure that the land is fully restored, and, secondly, to ensure that the owner and occupier do not suffer any loss of their interests. The original proposal was that terminal compensation could be claimed either as cost of works or because of diminution of value. That was clearly unworkable, and I am glad that the Government have made the change they have as regards both cost of works and diminution of value. But as it is now, and even allowing for the new Schedule, I do not think that the cost-of-works arrangements are done in such a way as to correspond with the actual
924
treatment required by the land. As I see it, the land must be drained, and that cannot in fact be done at the time of the ending of the occupation by the Board, because the land almost certainly has not settled, and until it is settled it has to be looked after. Until the drains are in the land, there is, in practice, I submit, little one can do to it. I have had the opportunity in the last few days of consulting a number of people who have been in practice concerned with restoration and treatment of land, and I have heard that common view. All that one can do is a little extra cultivation and use extra manures. That does not have any permanent effect on the land, particularly before it has been drained, and that is why I make an attempt to define how this cost-of-works compensation should be dealt with.
First I mean to express that there should be an arrangement, as there is now with requisitioned land, between the Coal Board and the owner of the land, that drains will be installed, and that they will be installed at such a time as it is mutually agreed that the land is ready to be drained. That seems to me a commonsense method of approach. Associated with the drainage is the restoration of the crop on the land when the land is actually drained. Modern drainage methods make a great mess; the work is done by machine, the land needs subsoiling and it is nearly always necessary to reseed it also. Further, there is the question of maintenance of drains for a period of, say, five years when the end of occupation comes, and the compensation under Clause 23 comes to be settled. Those items will be in the future, but they should not be unknown; they should be operations which are clearly understood. They can then be defined from a knowledge of the land as it is and the nature of the land, and they can be settled as a commitment on behalf of the Coal Board.
Other cost-of-works payments will, to my mind, be very minor items. Having put the drains in, there is nothing else one can do to the land. One cannot dig it up again; it is not practicable to dig it up and put it back on a different level. All one can do is to farm it well, and rather expensively. I would suggest that the practical thing is that the actual cost-of-works operations should be considered at the end of the period of

925
occupation. They will consist of things which are really minor rectifications of restoration, such as the cost of removing stones, which periodically creep up to the surface, the extra cost of maintenance of fences, the replacement of fences or gates, and minor items of that sort. I suggest a period of five years, but I would not insist that that is the period over which the payment should be made.
What requires to be done to the land after that—and this is what has happened so far—is this. When the period of occupation ends, the terminal compensation is paid, and out of that payment the owner, if the land is let, must reduce his rent. The tenant therefore has a cheaper rent, and he spends more on fertilisers and cultivators and is in a better position to improve the land. He is in a far better position in that way than if he is left, as under this Bill, for an unspecified period of years, with the feeling that he can go back to the Coal Board for practically everything he wants. I believe the result of that would be expenditure which is unnecessary; it would not have any permanent effect on the land itself, and it would make the question of the diminution of value of the land extremely difficult and complicated. I base that view on the fact that the land I know of, which is heavy land, suffers from the structure and the composition of the land which is some good way below the surface. It is true, I have been told (and I believe it), that lighter land does not suffer in that way, and probably there is little diminution in value. I have not seen any, but I have no doubt that that is so.
I come back to the question of heavy land, which appears to me to be the type of land which suffers and is therefore the main type of land we have under consideration—the fact that it is packed closely together for a depth of 100 feet or more is something one can never get over. You can cultivate such land only on the surface; you have to work on the surface, at the top; and I think the practical thing is to sum up at the end of the occupation the minor things which want putting right; and then to sum up the diminution in value and to pay that. Then let the rent be reduced, and the tenant, or the occupier, can farm the land. He can farm it better and buy some fertiliser and carry out cultivation.
I do not think that that is a contradiction of the principle of having both cost-of-works payments and diminution of value payments. I think that that is right, but I have attempted to show what I think should be the relationship between the two things. It does not qualify the cost-of-works payment principle, but it qualifies it in amount, and I think rightly. The noble Lord has a new Amendment down to leave out the Third Schedule and insert a new one which comes to nearly six pages, and in that new Schedule he qualifies it. He qualifies it in a different way than I qualify it, but I submit that mine is the more practical way. This is not the right time to refer to that Schedule in any detail because it comes much later, but it bears very closely on this Amendment which I am now moving. In view of all those considerations, I believe that something along the lines which I propose is the more practical way than what we find comes later, in the Third Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 30, at end insert the said subsections.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: I regret that this is not a subject which I can deal with in a few words. I greatly respect, as I am sure we all do, the noble Viscount's knowledge and experience of this subject, but the Government have had access to the Agricultural Departments and to other authorities in different phases of this matter. Their advice differs in many respects from that of the noble Viscount, and I feel that the Government have no option but to conform to the advice they have received from the sources which they have consulted.
As the noble Viscount has said, when this Bill was originally introduced in another place the landowners had a choice between compensation on the diminution in value basis and compensation on the cost-of-works basis, and I am glad that the noble Viscount agrees that that was wrong. The Government finally decided that terminal compensation should consist of cost-of-works compensation plus compensation for the residual loss of value calculated after taking into account the Board's outstanding liability to pay cost-of-works compensation. That change was generally felt to be in the national interest, and it was also felt to

927
be much fairer to the tenant farmer—that is an important point—who had to go on using the land and would benefit from the works which were executed but who would not get any share in the diminution in value compensation except in respect of his own improvements. The majority of the large number of Government Amendments which were introduced in another place were in one way or another consequential on this one change of policy. The Amendment which we are considering this afternoon would not only reverse this change of policy but would put us even further back. The landowner would not even have the choice but, willy nilly, would have to take an important part of his terminal compensation in the form of a diminution in value payment. Indeed, the cost of works compensation, other than on drains, is so limited by the Amendment that in many cases all the eligible works would have been carried out before the end of the Board's occupation and all the terminal compensation would be in the form of a diminution in value payment.
That is my main objection of principle to this Amendment, but there are several important but detailed objections. In the first place, no provision is made for paying the costs of the extra fertilisers, which I understand are often necessary for up to fifteen years after the end of the Board's occupation, in order to restore the full fertility of the soil. In the second place, the noble Viscount has naturally concentrated on agricultural land and woodland. As a result of changes which were made, and generally welcomed, in another place, cost of works compensation is now also payable on non-agricultural land. The list of works contained in the noble Viscount's Amendment is inapplicable to non-agricultural land, but it would be quite impracticable to draw up lists of works for all the various types of non-agricultural land which might be taken under a compulsory rights order.
In the third place, I am advised that it is impracticable to draw up a complete list of works of restoration at the end of the Board's occupation. The work needed may be affected by later developments, such as settlement, and by year-to-year experience in using the land. In
928
the fourth place, the work of restoration cannot possibly be completed in five years from the end of the Board's occupation, particularly if settlement occurs. If that settlement was due to deep-mined subsidence, the Board would under other legislation have to repair the damage, however long ago they worked the coal; it seems to me only fair that the same principle should apply to land which has been taken under compulsory powers for opencast coal working.
I appreciate the noble Viscount's anxiety to protect the National Coal Board against unreasonable claims. The noble Viscount recognises that the installation of permanent drains may have to be delayed beyond five years from the end of the Board's occupation, and I think he would agree that the Board ought to have to repair damage caused by settlement in the same way as they have to repair damage caused by deep-mine subsidence. On the other hand, I agree with the noble Viscount that the Board's liability to pay cost-of-works compensation cannot be without limit. It was announced on Report stage in another place that we should be introducing Amendments (they are contained in the new version of the Third Schedule to which the noble Viscount referred and to which we shall be coming later) which would limit the Board's liability, with a special exception for settlement, to work carried out within fifteen years of the end of their occupation of the land.
The difference between us is thus whether it should be for five years or for fifteen years after the end of the Board's occupation that works other than those on account of drainage and settlement should qualify for compensation. As I said at the beginning, on the best advice available to us, five years would be definitely too short a time in which to complete all the work which needs to be done. Ten years would be rather too short, but fifteen years should be long enough, in the large majority of cases, to complete a very large part of the work of restoration. I trust that, in view of the difference of opinion, of the really substantial difficulties which his Amendment would involve, and of the new Amendments set down by the Government, the noble Viscount will not press his point.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I obviously cannot press this Amendment, because it is so badly drawn. On the point of the period of years, I do not feel adamant as to the five years. When I put down the five years, I did not know that the fifteen was coming in the Third Schedule. My object here is to simplify the procedure if possible and to recognise the fact that in my belief, and in my experience so far. there is nothing we can do to this land except farm it well, provided that we have arranged for draining it. Somewhere in the Bill it should be provided that drainage must be carried out after the end of occupation. I think that it is rather dangerous to leave it to the cost of works not referred to, because this is the most important and vital matter of the lot. I am not certain that fifteen years is long enough to wait for drainage in every case and that is why I wanted to allow drainage to be left open as to time. When opencast working began, it was thought that it would take at least ten years for land to settle before it was safe to drain, but the opinion in my locality now is that it should be drained within a year or two of de-requisition. But, in fact, nobody knows. I think that the drainage period should be left open.
As regards restoration, after the land is put back together physically (this was one of the points which the noble Lord was good enough to speak on earlier), there is a period of rehabilitation which lasts for five years, so that the Coal Board, or whatever body is responsible—probably the agricultural executive committee—will be working the land for that period and watching it while it is restored; so that on top of the period of which we speak we already have five years during which we shall obtain a good deal of knowledge of what the land is like and how it is behaving. That ought to be remembered. To summarise, I should like to leave the timetable for drainage entirely open and to have some means of assessing at the end of the five years, what is required for the land over the ensuing few years.
The noble Lord said that when there was subsidence in deep mines the Coal Board are obliged to repair the damage. They have either to pay for the damage or for the diminution in the value of the land. Certainly in deep mining there are a good many places where it is practically
930
impossible to restore land to its level and in those cases depreciation damage is paid. I take the view that if land settles badly, it will not be possible or practicable to do much about it. These are all practical points, and my reason for putting them down was to get something that I thought might work better. However, we shall have a discussion on them when we come to the Third Schedule and may be able then to suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill some way to improve it. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Compensation by reference to the diminution in value of the holding]:
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This Amendment raises an important point, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain to us precisely what subsection (1) means. It refers to compensation for diminution of value and the method of valuation. Subsection (1) provides that compensation shall be payable
"with the benefit of any prospective right to compensation by way of payment of cost of works in respect of the holding."
My Amendment is to leave out those words. I do not want to leave them out: I want to ask the Minister what they mean in terms of the Bill. I hope they mean that in the end the land will be valued at what it would be worth at that time if it were drained and if whatever works likely to be put upon it were done. That is the method which is more or less familiar under requisitioning. It would help if the Minister would clarify the point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 39, leave out from ("be") to ("is") in line 41.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: I am glad that the noble Viscount has put down this Amendment as it gives me an opportunity to explain how these important terminal compensation provisions are going to work. Terminal compensation under the Bill consists of two elements. First, there is compensation under Clause 22 equal to the cost reasonably incurred in restoring the land taken by the Board to its original condition—that is, cost of works. Secondly, there is compensation under

931
Clause 23, equal to the difference between the value of the land in its undamaged condition and its value in its damaged condition. In assessing the value of the land in its damaged condition, the valuers are to take into account the Board's outstanding liability to pay cost of works compensation. This is rather a difficult concept and it may be helpful if I illustrate it by an example.
Let us assume that a piece of land is worth £100 in its condition before opencast coal operations began. After working and restoration by the Board and the agricultural treatment by the Ministry of Agriculture it is worth £80. The Board have a liability to pay for further works of restoration which will get the land back to almost the same condition as when it was worth £100. At the end of the Board's occupation, however, no one will pay £100 for that land because the further restoration will take time and it is uncertain how complete the restoration will eventually be. The market value of the land might be only, say, £95, which would mean that the market was in effect allowing £5 for the delay and uncertainty. It is this £5 which we call residual loss of value and which will be payable by the Board to the landowner under Clause 23. There is one point I should like to stress. In calculating this residual loss of value, the actual cost of the works is irrelevant. We know that in many cases that cost will exceed the value which the works add to the land. What matters is what the market will give for land which carries with it this right to claim on the Board for cost of works.
The effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be to disregard altogether the Board's liability to pay cost of works compensation. That means that in the example I have given the landowner would get £20 in diminution in value compensation or the full decline in the value of the land attributable to the damage caused by the Board. He would subsequently get most of this damage repaired at the Board's expense. That would involve a substantial overpayment of compensation. I understand that the noble Viscount put down this Amendment in order to obtain an explanation of the way in which these difficult provisions will work. I hope that my explanation has been clear and satisfactory and that he will not feel it necessary to press his point.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Lord has been most helpful. This is not an Amendment that I thought should be agreed to, and, as I explained, it was put down with the object of finding out the meaning attributed to these words. The noble Lord has explained it clearly, but I should be grateful if he could go a little further. He said that at the time the Board went out of the land to which he was referring its value was estimated at £95, and that, after the completion of the cost of works, in so many years' time it would be worth more. He said that the difference which the owner would receive would be the deferment value—that is to say, the fact that it was worth only £95 instead of £100 for a period of so many years. I understand that, and it is helpful.
There is, however, this further point. I assume that a valuer experienced in these matters who has seen opencast coal land in the neighbourhood would conclude that there would probably be a permanent reduction in the value of the land. I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether he thinks, if that were so, it would be met by this part of the Bill. I know of land which has been restored and drained, but which is not improving very much. Nobody knows how long it will take. I think it is inevitable that during the upheaval, in the digging up, some percentage of the topsoil must be lost. I realise that contractors try to keep the topsoil and subsoil separated, but there is some loss which it takes time to replace. There is the other matter of the actual structure and condition of the subsoil. In the result, the belief at present is that there is a permanent drop in the value of the land. From what the noble Lord said, I think that would be covered by the valuation made, but he can help me a little further by telling me if that would be so.
LORD MILLS: I thought I had made it clear in the illustration I gave—perhaps I did not—that it would be uncertain how complete the restoration would eventually be, and that would be one of the factors the valuer would take into account. The difference between that and the value of the land when it was taken over by the National Coal Board would be paid to the landowner.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I must read in Hansard what he has said. He has given a clear

933
explanation, but I was not entirely clear on the second point. I thank him for what he has been able to tell us, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: This is another Amendment dealing with the points about timber felling contracts and mineral working rights that I explained to your Lordships earlier. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 32, leave out ("timber felling contract") and insert ("order conferring working rights").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Compensation in respect of minerals]:
LORD CHESHAM: This is mineral working rights again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 20, after ("lease") insert ("or order conferring working rights").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Time when compensation accrues due]:
LORD CHESHAM: This and the next Amendment simply deal with the time when compensation under Clause 32 is to become payable. They are consequential Amendments on the introduction of Clause 32 in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 39, after ("thirty-one") insert ("or subsection (2) of section thirty-two").—(Lord Cheshanm.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 24, at end insert—
(" (d) under subsection (4) of section thirty-two of this Act, or").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This and the next Amendment fulfil an undertaking given in another place that we should consider providing for compensation on forced sales to become payable when the transfer of the property takes place. The next
934
Amendment also provides that the quarterly advance payments of annual compensation shall be payable on the usual quarter days. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 33, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 36 and insert ("in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due on the effective date of the sale, or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the effective date of the sale").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 47, at end insert—
("(9) In this section 'quarterly payments' means payments calculated by reference to the usual quarter days, and 'effective date', in relation to a sale, means the date on which the property sold becomes the property of the purchaser,")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Record of condition of land]:
LORD CHESHAM: This and the next Amendment fulfil a further undertaking given in another place. Clause 36 requires the Board to make various records of the condition of the land which are necessary to help in the assessment of compensation and to send copies of those records to all persons known to them to have a legal right in the land or a restrictive right over it. This undertaking, which is now fulfilled, was that we should require those records to be served under cover of a notice in a prescribed form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("every") and insert ("serve on").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 37, at end insert ("a notice in the prescribed form together with a copy of the record").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Consequential adjustments between landlords and tenants in respect of mortgages and mining leases]:
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment deals with mineral works rights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 37, after ("leases") insert ("or orders conferring working rights").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after Clause 41 to insert the following new clause:
Prevention of water pollution
" .—(1) Nothing in this Act or in any authorisation granted or compulsory rights order made under this Act shall prejudice or limit in any way—

(a) the operation of section twenty-one of the Water Act, 1945 (which imposes a penalty for the pollution of water used for human consumption), or

(b) the provisions of any byelaws made by statutory water undertakers under section eighteen of the Water Act, 1945, for the purpose of protecting water against pollution.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (3) of the said section eighteen (which provides for the payment of compensation where legal rights are injuriously affected by byelaws relating to water pollution) a right to work coal by opencast operations in pursuance of an authorisation under this Act shall be deemed not to be a legal right."
The noble Lord said: I have the privilege of moving this Amendment because, for some reason or another, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, was promoted following our Second Reading debate. That might also be the reward for somebody else—one never knows! Had he not been promoted, the noble Earl would have moved this Amendment. This is an Amendment with which I am quite certain the whole House agrees. Coal is important—no one would suggest that it was not—but I think water, to say the least, is equally important. If the extraction of coal were to lead to the pollution of water, it would not be a good thing for this country. That is the basis of this new clause.
I understand that it was thought by the Government in another place that the Bill safeguarded the position as it should be safeguarded, but on May 22 a letter was addressed to the British Water Works Association informing them that there had been a slight mistake. I will read a part of it. It says:
"In our discussions on the Bill we have several times made the point that there was nothing in the Bill which enabled the National
936
Coal Board to override the Water Act, 1945, or by-laws made under it.
"The Parliamentary Secretary made the same point in the discussion of the new clause about the pollution of water supplies at the meeting of Standing Committee B on 29th April. We have been looking again at this point and we are now advised that although our previous statements were, broadly speaking, correct, the rights to control the use of land which statutory water undertakers may enjoy under the 1945 Act or by-laws may sometimes fall within the class of rights restrictive of the use of land. In that case they would be overridden by a compulsory rights order made under the Bill, but the statutory water undertakers would be 'persons directly concerned' in the relation to that order. Under Clause 3 (5) and the Second Schedule they would have the right to receive individual notices of the making of the order, to lodge objections and to have their objections heard at a public local inquiry or hearing. We should, of course, act in the closest contact with the Ministry of Housing in dealing with any such cases which arose."
Then follows this:
"I think that in our earlier discussions your main concern was to ensure that statutory water undertakers received notice of any opencast coal working which was likely to affect their interests so that they would have an opportunity to lodge objections. The arrangements under the Bill as drafted fully meet this point in the case of land over which the water undertakers have restrictive rights but as the position is a little different from our previous explanation of it we thought we should drop you a line."
As a result of that "line," this new clause and the Amendment to Clause 52 were drafted by the British Water Works Association. I will not say any more. I think the Minister is fully informed on this matter and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MILLS: This Amendment, which is associated with Nos. 49 and 74 on the Marshalled List, is not acceptable as it stands, but I think I can go a long way to meet the points which the noble Lord has raised. The first objective of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that nothing in the Bill permits the National Coal Board to override the Water Act, 1945, or by-laws made under it. I am glad to say that, with one exception, that is already the position under the Bill as drafted. Clause 1, subsection (3) states explicitly that the grant of an authorisation for opencast coal working does not in itself confer any new rights or powers on the Board, and Clause 5, subsection (5) and Clause 6,

937
subsection (3) make it clear that the Board's rights under a compulsory rights order are only against the "persons directly concerned" and do not permit the Board to override statutory provisions.
The one exception which I have mentioned is that the rights conferred by water by-laws may sometimes fall within the class of rights restrictive of the use of land, and when that happens they may be overriden by a compulsory rights order. It is not our intention to override statutory provisions in this way, and I shall be moving an Amendment at a later stage to close this loophole. When that has been done, the Bill as drafted will fully meet the objective of this new clause. Indeed, the only reason why I cannot include a specific provision about the Water Act, 1945, is that it is only one of many Acts with which the Board will have to comply when carrying out opencast operations, and to refer to it specifically would inevitably cast doubt on whether those other Acts, which could not all be specifically mentioned, still applied.
I am afraid I cannot be quite so forthcoming about the second but subsidiary objective of this clause. Under Section 18 of the Water Act, compensation is payable by a statutory water undertaking if one of their by-laws curtails or injuriously affects the legal rights of another person. That compensation is already payable to public authorities as well as to private individuals and to other mineral workers who may be prevented by water by-laws from working their minerals. The Amendment would deny such compensation in opencast coal cases. I can see no reason why the Coal Board, when prevented from exercising their legal rights to work coal by opencast means, should be denied the compensation which is payable to everybody else, and which is indeed already payable to the Board in respect of their deep-mine activities. I hope that, in view of the Amendment we are putting down, and the extent to which the Bill meets the objectives of this new clause, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am most grateful, and I am glad to withdraw it. It may
938
be that those advising me will want something else on Report stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Provisions as to mortgaged land and other special cases]:
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of Clause 32 to the Bill on Report stage in another place. It provides that when the land to which that clause relates is in possession of a mortgagee, the annual compensation will be payable to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 14, at end insert—
("(3) Where under subsection (2) of section thirty-two of this Act a person is entitled to compensation as the owner of any land, and his interest in that land is subject to a mortgage and the mortgagee is, to the extent of that interest, in possession of the land or of the rents and profits thereof, the compensation shall be paid by the Board to the mortgagee, and shall be paid or applied by him as mentioned in the last preceding subsection."). (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the cost-of-works compensation under Clause 22 will, in cases when land is subject to a mortgage, be payable to the actual person who carried out the works and not to the mortgagee. This is reasonable, as he is the person who has incurred all the expense of doing the work, while the mortgagee will benefit indirectly because the execution of the work will have increased the value of his security. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 16, leave out ("other than any annual compensation") and insert ("not being annual compensation or compensation under section twenty-two of this Act").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 29, leave out from ("compensation") to ("would") in line 30 and insert ("falling within subsection (3) of this section"). (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is entirely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("by") in line 36 and insert ("by virtue of the operation in relation to that land of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, compensation is recoverable from him").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a technical Amendment which defines the person to whom terminal compensation is to be paid where the land concerned is settled land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 40, at end insert—
("(5) Where any compensation falling within subsection {3) of this section is payable in right of an interest in land which is subject to a settlement, or is otherwise held in such a manner that the person entitled to that interest would not be competent to give an effective discharge for the proceeds of a sale thereof, that compensation shall be paid by the Board to the person who would be competent to give such a discharge.
(6) In this section 'annual compensation' means any such compensation as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-five of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Interpretation]:
4.32 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it quite clear that a compulsory rights order enables the Board to exclude from the land comprised in it any persons who may have a customary right to use that land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 4, leave out ("includes any interest in land") and insert ("in relation to any land, includes any interest in or right over that land (including any such right inuring for the benefit of the public or of a section thereof)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is another drafting Amendment, designed to make it quite clear that land includes land covered by water. It is required because the Coal Board occasionally take ponds and small lakes and drain them in order to get at the coal underneath. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 4, at end insert—
("'land' includes land covered by water").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I should like to ask whether it should not be land covered by fresh water. Appalling complications will arise if it means sea water as well as fresh water.
VISCOUNT HALL: Might I ask whether this concerns reservoirs in the coal areas? There are many reservoirs owned by local authorities and by water boards in a coal area, and when they were built they purchased, of course, the coal from the lower seams, the workable coal, to prevent subsidence of the reservoirs. But if opencast coal is not going to give the same guarantee in relation to the working of the coal of the upper seams, then, as we have seen in some of the areas in South Wales, there may be difficulties. Some of the reservoirs have suffered so much from subsidence that they are no longer able to contain water. I will not ask the Minister to give a reply now, but if he will consider that point I can raise it again.
LORD CHESHAM: I think the best thing is that I should look at these points again. My impression at the moment is that no problem arises, but I will certainly double check that point and see that there can be no misunderstanding about it. My impression on Lord Hall's point is that that would be overriding other statutory considerations and I do not think it would occur. I will make inquiries about it.
VISCOUNT HALL: I am very grateful. It is an important matter for these local authorities. I think it is a concession which we deserve in return for the Government's having a quick run through with the Bill to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment and Amendment No. 48 are designed to meet a point raised in another place. The point was that it is now not unusual for mineral operators to work the minerals in waste heaps. It was suggested that the definition of "minerals" now in the Bill would not cover minerals in waste heaps and that, as a result, the concerns which were working them might not be entitled to compensation under the Fifth

941
Schedule. We are anxious to avoid even the slightest possibility of doubt, so we are moving these two Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 8, leave out ("other natural") and insert ("similar").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment deals with mineral working rights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 29, at end insert—
("'order conferring working rights' means an order made under Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This deals with timber felling contracts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 16, leave out lines 16 to 20.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment makes two important changes in the definition contained in Clause 51, subsection (2), of the words "similar right" when used in the phrase "easement or similar right". In the first place, the new definition brings in such sporting rights as do not constitute an interest in land, which were previously excluded. I understand that in Scotland, in particular, sporting rights may not constitute an interest in land, and. I see no reason why the owner of those rights should on that account be deprived of compensation for their loss. Secondly, to cover the timber felling contracts which I have already mentioned, we bring into the phrase "easement or similar right" any right to fell and remove trees standing on land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 33, leave out from ("means ") to end of line 39 and insert ("any of the following rights, that is to say, any right to take game or fish or other sporting right exercisable in respect of that land, any right to fell and remove trees standing thereon, any right to take timber or other wood, water, turf or other materials therefrom, any right to work minerals thereon (otherwise than by virtue of a mining lease or of an order conferring working rights), and any right to depasture cattle or other animals thereon, except any such sporting or other right which—

(a) subsists only as a right incidental to the ownership of the land in question, or to
942
some other interest therein, or to a right to occupy that land, or

(b) is exercisable by virtue of a licence granted otherwise than for valuable consideration;

and any right over land which constitutes an easement or similar right in relation thereto, if apart from this subsection it would not constitute an interest in that land, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as constituting an interest therein.").—(Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Would the noble Lord help me with the meaning of paragraph (a) of this Amendment. It excepts rights which subsist
"only as a right incidental to the ownership of the land in question, or to some other interest therein, or to a right to occupy that land."
I take that to mean—though I hope I am wrong—that if an owner of land lets his shooting he gets compensation, whereas if he does not let it but shoots it himself he will not get compensation. I hope I am wrong, but I should be grateful for an explanation.
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Viscount is wrong. The purpose is to bring in sporting rights which do not constitute an interest in land, and to make the position completely clear it does exclude, by paragraph (a), such rights as are only incidental to the owner's right in the land, which, naturally, are catered for elsewhere in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.40 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I am proposing this Amendment to clarify the numerous places in the Bill where compensation is in some way related to the state or condition of the land. It has been suggested, and particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that the Bill is not very clear about the matters which ought to be taken into account in assessing the state or condition of land, and, in particular, that it is not clear that, for the purposes of assessing the diminution of value compensation under Clause 23, land is to be taken to include the minerals in it. I think that this Amendment completely removes these doubts and that it should make things much easier for those who have to operate the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 39, at end insert—
("(4) For the purposes of any provision of this Act, in so far as it refers to the state or

943
condition in which land was at a time specified in that provision, regard shall be had to all matters relevant to the state or condition of the land at that time, including (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) the characteristics of the soil (whether on or below the surface), the presence of any minerals in or under the land, the growth of trees, hedges or other vegetation thereon, and any buildings, structures, apparatus or other works which were on, in, under or over the land at that time; and any reference in any provision of this Act to the state or condition in which land would have been, or might reasonably have been expected to be, in circumstances specified in that provision, shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think this Amendment is helpful, but as it was put down only yesterday it needs to be considered. I have an idea that it meets some of the points which I have been trying to establish in some other way. To that extent I am grateful for it. But I should like to be able to make some comment on it on the Report stage in case it does not, in fact, do what I now think it does.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I referred to this Amendment also when moving Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 5, at end insert—
(" (6) For the purposes of this Act waste heaps and other deposits resulting from the working of minerals shall be taken to form part of the land on which they are situated, if apart from this subsection they would not be taken to form part thereof, and any reference in this Act to the working of minerals on, in or under land, or to underground or surface working, shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [General application to Scotland]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR had given Notice of his intention to move to add to subsection (3):
"and for any reference to section eighteen or section twenty-one of the Water Act, 1945, there shall be substituted a reference to section sixty-one or section sixty-four respectively of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment that I have already withdrawn, and therefore I have no option but not to
944
move it. In saying that, I would now ask the Minister whether he would agree to adjourn the Committee stage at this point. We are coming to the rather substantial Amendments on the Schedules. He will notice that my good friends behind me have vanished already, and I do not wish to shoulder the rest of the Bill alone. It would suit my personal convenience also if he would agree, and I can say definitely that his agreeing will facilitate the passage of the Bill.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The Schedules are more important than any Amendment we have discussed. I thought it would be right that they should stand adjourned to the Report stage. That will facilitate the passage of the Bill on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Does that mean that these Amendments will remain on the Report stage?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes; they will be transferred from the Committee stage to the Report stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: That would mean, in the case of difficulty about these Amendments to the Schedules, that there would be only one opportunity to discuss them. To-day there have been many matters in regard to which it has been considered necessary to defer further consideration to the Report stage. That would not be possible in this connection. I wonder how that can be arranged.
Schedules agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Do I understand now that the Amendments to the Schedules set out in the Marshalled List are all going in the Bill? Exactly what is happening now? If we approve the Schedules now, the Amendments go in the Bill in their present form, without any discussion whatever.
LORD CHESHAM: Not the Amendments.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: They are the Amendments to the Schedules on the Marshalled List. Are we now agreeing to those Amendments on the Marshalled List?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have not put the Amendments. The Bill in that respect goes through as it stands.
LORD MILLS: I should just like to say that we have accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that we should dispose of the remainder of these Amendments on the understanding that all matters relating thereto will be dealt with on the Report stage. I would ask for the cooperation of noble Lords opposite and my noble friends in dealing with these matters, for, as I have already warned your Lordships, there are still many Amendments to come on the Report stage and I think your Lordships will have a
946
formidable day's work in front of you next Thursday.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Will the noble Lord, Lord Mills, tell us when the Amendments will be printed? We saw many of these Amendments only yesterday and I hope that for the Report stage we shall have a little more time in which to try to understand them.
LORD MILLS: I will keep the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, firmly in mind and see that as long notice as possible is given of those Amendments.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes before five a'clock.