Sitting of 23 April 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Pigeons
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the numbers of wood-pigeons killed in the recent shoots arranged by county pests officers; and what was the cost falling on the public funds.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): It is estimated that about 30,000 wood-pigeons were killed in recent shoots in England and Wales and the cost to public funds was approximately £6,000.
    Sir A. Hurd: It sounds a useful bag, although the cost was considerable. Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has any further plans for dealing with this pest?
    Mr. Hare: Yes. During the last three or four years a good deal of research has been going on into nest destruction as a method of control, and I hope to be able to say something about this very shortly.
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that pigeons have been destroyed in various parts of the country by nicotine poisoning; and, as this may cause danger to both human and animal life, what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. John Hare: I have seen reports of this. I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend.
    Sir C. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that pigeons have been picked up in a dead or dying condition over a wide area and that one pigeon submitted to Cambridge University contained sufficient nicotine poisoning to kill six men? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous danger to cattle, dogs and even human beings if this is allowed to continue?
    Mr. Hare: In the area in which I am making the investigation, general warnings have been given to the public by the police and other authorities. I am investigating the matter and, as I have said, will let my hon. Friend know the result. I do not think it is as widespread, however, as he has indicated.
    Sir C. Taylor: Could not a warning be given on the B.B.C.?

    Beef
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the supplies of beef from home sources, Australia, and Argentina, during the first quarter of this year, have compared with supplies in this period last year; and what is the five-year average.
    Mr. John Hare: Total supplies of beef from home sources, Australia and Argentine during the first quarter of this year were 12 per cent. below those in the same period last year and 6½ per cent. below the average for this quarter in 1955–1959. I will, with permission, circulate more detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir A. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend give us brief reasons why the home production has fallen? Will my right hon. Friend say whether the fall in Argentine supplies has continued in the first quarter of this year and whether Australia has to any extent made that good?
    Mr. Hare: Yes. There are two main reasons for the fall in home production. One is that the progressive reduction in the age of slaughter, which contributed to the high rate of production in recent years, now seems to have reached its limit. The other is that there has been a falling off in the number of store cattle imported

    571
    from Ireland, which had also been exceptionally high in the past few years.
    On the other point, I am glad to say that imports from Australia have risen from 8,000 tons to 37,000 tons, which has helped to make good some of the shortage.
    Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he considers to be the prospects for the remainder of this

    UNTTED KINGDOM

    HOME PRODUCTION AND IMPORTS OF BEEF AND VEAL

    '000 tons

    Period

    Home Production

    Imports

    Total Imports and Home Production

    Australia

    Argentina

    Other Countries

    Total

    January—March, 1958

    219.1

    8.4

    83.6

    3.7

    95.7

    314.8

    January—March, 1959

    195.0

    36.7

    41.1

    7.6

    85 4

    280.4

    AverageJanuary— March, 1955– 1959

    204.7

    24.8

    62.4

    15.1

    102.3

    307.0

    Meat
    Mr.s. Slaterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to state when further regulations are to be introduced on the staining of meat unfit for human consumption.
    Mr. John Hare: I cannot add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on 9th April, when I said that proposals for new regulations were being prepared and would be sent to interested organisations for comment as soon as possible. It is too early to say when new regulations will be made.
    Mr.s. Slater: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there ought to be some urgency in this, in view of the need to safeguard people— not animals particularly but people— from possibly being sold meat unfit for human consumption, either in the raw or in made-up commodities? Will not the right hon. Gentleman see whether it can be speeded up in view of this danger?
    Mr. Hare: I do not entirely disagree with the hon. Lady. We have to look at this with a sense of proportion. The sale
    572
    year? Will we be short of beef for the rest of the year?
    Mr. Hare: No. There is every hope that home production should show an upward trend towards the end of the year, when we shall begin to get the benefit of the record number of calves which have been retained for beef. 1 think that the situation will improve.
    Following are the detailed figures:
    of unfit meat or knacker meat for human consumption is prohibited by the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. I have no information available to me that local authorities are not enforcing that Act.
    On the hon. Lady's general point, 1 have said that I do not wish there to be any undue delay, but there are considerable differences of opinion on this subject. They have been expressed from both sides of the House. I must ensure that there is proper consultation with authorities who have views on this and who have a right to be consulted.

    Local Food Officers
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many local authorities in England and Wales have now nominated local food officers to supervise food control organisation in the event of war.
    Mr. John Hare: Six hundred and twenty-nine local authorities in England and Wales have submitted nominations for local food officers. In some cases local authorities have combined to form joint food control areas, and the number of nominations received is 541.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not 541 out of 1469 local authorities a poor response to the Government's circulars of March and November of last year? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the response would have been much better if he had not instructed local authorities to keep these circulars secret from the Press and the public? Would it have been dangerous to let the public know about these precautions to be taken in the event of war?
    Mr. Hare: No. The hon. Member is exaggerating. This is a very reasonable response. We are receiving, and shall continue to receive, nominations from local authorities. The correspondence was classified as restricted because at this stage it is a matter purely between local authorities and the Government. There is nothing mysterious about it.
    Mr. EMr.ys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in one of the defence debates we were told that in the event of war the country would be knocked out and broken-backed? What would the food officers be able to do after a fortnight of that kind of war?
    Mr. Hare: For my part, I intend to see that there is an effective organisation available should the tragic and terrible possibility of war occur.

    Pigs
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the concern felt by breeders of coloured pigs caused by the tendency on the part of the Pig Industry Development Authority to concentrate its attention on bacon pigs, in particular the landrace and the large white; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: I am aware that some breeders of coloured pigs have expressed concern, but I have no reason to doubt the Authority's public statements that its policies contain no special consideration for particular breeds of pigs nor any narrow concentration on the needs of any one outlet.
    Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the idea that a good bacon pig makes a good pork pig does not command universal agreement and that there is genuine concern amongst the breeders of pork pigs at the tendency by the Authority to spend most of its money primarily on bacon research? Does my
    574
    right hon. Friend not realise that the most important aspect from the point of view both of the industry, the Government and of the consumer in facing this difficult problem is that confidence should not be undermined by rumours and suspicions, which are now rife?
    Mr. Hare: I have given my view about the rumours and suspicions: I do not think they are justified. I would, however, point out that P.I.D.A. is an entirely independent body. Doubtless, attention will he paid to what my hon. Friend has said in the House. I have every confidence that the Authority is dealing with the interests of the industry as a whole and not concentrating merely upon one section of it.

    Horticulture
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on his discussions with the National Farmers' Union about assistance to horticulture.
    Mr. John Hare: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) on 8th April. We are still pursuing our useful discussions with the National Farmers' Unions. As I told my hon. Friend on 8th April, I hope to make a further statement this summer.
    Mr. Willey: While I am obliged to the Minister, who will appreciate that there is considerable interest in the matter and whose statement we welcomed, may I ask whether he can assure us that we will have the necessary legislation this Session?
    Mr. Hare: No. 1 have made this absolutely clear. There was never any question of the legislation coming this Session. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I have always said that the legislation would be in the next Session and not this one.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Commonwealth Conference
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when it is proposed that the next Commonwealth Conference should meet.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The Commonwealth Conferences so far arranged for 1959 include the Commonwealth Meteorological Conference in May, a meeting of Commonwealth Senior Economic Officials in May, the Commonwealth Education Conference in July, a conference of Commonwealth survey officers in August, the Commonwealth Inter-Service Conference in September, and the meeting of the Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Research Council, also in September.
    Mr. Brockway: While I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, has he not omitted any reference to a proposed Commonwealth conference of Prime Ministers? Is this being arranged this year, in view of the great and urgent political and economic problems which now face the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Alport: If the hon. Member wishes to ask specifically concerning that, perhaps he would put down a Question. It is, however, well to remember that although the Prime Ministers' conferences are the most important, other conferences continue to carry out the consultation at all levels throughout the year.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we are holding the Commonwealth Education Conference, which was promised some months ago in the House?
    Mr. Alport: I mentioned that in my Answer, but perhaps the hon. Member did not catch it. The Commonwealth Education Conference is to be held in July.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA

    Legislation
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what arrangements he makes for ascertaining the views of this House with regard to Bills introduced into, and laws passed by, the Southern Rhodesian Legislature towards which Her Majesty's Government have responsibilities under Sections 28 and 31, respectively, of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution Letters Patent, 1923.
    Mr. Alport: My noble Friend's formal responsibilities under these Articles do
    576
    not become operative until legislation has been passed in its final form by the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly. Any question regarding the allocation of time for the discussion of these matters. in so far as the Rules of Order permit, should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the responsibility that this House has towards legislation passed in Southern Rhodesia. will the Under-Secretary ask his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to arrange for the House to have an early debate on these discriminatory Bills as soon as they are passed?
    Mr. Alport: As far as I know, it has never been the practice of this House to debate legislation which is being discussed in the legislature of a self-governing country of the Commonwealth, nor do I think that it would be in order to do so.

  CENTRAL AFRICA

    African Affairs Board
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomasasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representation was made to the Central African Government by Her Majesty's Government about the future composition of the African Affairs Board, when the objections of the African Affairs Board to the Constitutional Amendment Bill and the Franchise Bill were overruled by him.
    Mr. Alport: None, Sir.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the Minister realise that as the result of his overriding the objections of the African Affairs Board to these Bills it was inevitable that the settlers should obtain a majority on the African Affairs Board? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that majority has made the African Affairs Board as a safeguard for African interests absolutely useless? Is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Alport: I do not for one moment accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. The composition of the African Affairs Board is laid down in the Constitution. It consists of three European members and three African members.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will not the Minister direct his mind to my question? I am perfectly aware of the composition of the African Affairs Board. Let me repeat what I said. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that as the inevitable result of his overriding the objections of the African Affairs Board to the two Bills referred to in the Question, the settlers get a majority on the Board? Does he not recognise that as a result of that, the African Affairs Board as a safeguard for African interests is absolutely useless? Is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Alport: The hon. and learned Member has twice said that the settlers get a majority on the Board. He said that he knew the composition of the Board, which, he will realise, consists of three Europeans and three African members.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Elected members, of course—elected now by the majority party.

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Hotels, Salisbury
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what official notification he has had from the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland regarding recent measures to allow coloured diplomatic staff to use hotels in Salisbury.
    Mr. Alport: None, Sir.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Federal Government recently announced that diplomatic representatives in Salisbury, even if coloured, would be able to have special permission to use the hotels, provided that they carried passes with them? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a depressing commentary on the colour bar in Salisbury? Is it not rather depressing that these special dispensations should be necessary for diplomatic staff? Have any representations been made to allow the dispensation to be extended to Commonwealth Members of Parliament who happen to be coloured?
    Mr. Alport: It would not be appropriate for me to comment on this legislation, which at the moment is in the
    578
    form of a Bill. The hon. Member should, however, study all the details concerning the background of this legislation in the near future, which may help him to understand its significance rather more clearly.
    Mr. Wall: Is not this Bill, together with other legislation which is being introduced into the Southern Rhodesian Parliament, indicative of the way that the colour bar is breaking down in Southern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Alport: A whole series of Measures has been undertaken, both by the Federal and by the Southern Rhodesian Governments, during recent weeks, which underlines clearly what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Bottomley: Whilst joining in the encouragement to break dawn the colour bar, may I ask whether it is not a fact that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not give that same kind of support? They would be more worthy if they did.
    Mr. Alport: These are matters which, as the right hon. Member is well aware, are within the purview of the Governments concerned and should be left there if real solutions are to be achieved with the willing co-operation of all concerned.

  EDUCATION

    Schools (Sanitation)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Education how many schools still have earth closets.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am sorry that this information is not available in my Department, but I will make special inquiries about any particular area the hon. Lady has in mind.
    Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his courtesy, may I ask whether he will make a general inquiry, because would he not agree that in 1959, with so many good modern schools being built, it is quite beyond the pale that a number of children should have to go to schools where there is no modern sanitation? Will he press local education committees in this matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: Without following my hon. Friend in her exact phraseology, broadly speaking, I agree with her. This

    579
    problem is dealt with wherever waterborne sanitation is available locally. It is primarily a problem that can be dealt with under the minor works programme, to which I have allocated the largest amount which has ever been allocated and I think that a lot of progress will be made in this matter.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that Hampshire, which had 120 such schools ten years ago, has got rid of this form of sanitation in practically all of them as a result of a vigorous minor works programme? Will the Minister encourage all local authorities to get rid of this real nuisance?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes. In accordance with our policy outlined in the White Paper. I want to encourage all local authorities to bring their modern schools up to the standard reached in Hampshire.

    Kenbury School
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education what action he has taken following his investigation of conditions at Kenbury School.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I have served a notice of complaint on the proprietors under Part III of the Education Act, 1944, on the grounds of unsuitable premises and accommodation and also have told them how to put things right.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the fact that he has taken action in connection with this school will give satisfaction to people up and down the country who are troubled about the shocking allegations made, not only of the physical conditions of the schools, but of all the conditions that obtain inside the school to which some local authorities are still sending children?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

    War-damaged Schools, Bristol
    Mr. Wilkinsasked the Minister of Education (1) how many Bristol schools were damaged during the 12 major raids on the city during the last war; and how many school places such destruction represented;
    (2) how many places resulting from war destruction were reinstated between the years 1945 to 1951, and 1952 to the last convenient date.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Twenty-two Bristol schools were almost wholly destroyed and five seriously damaged during the war. Of the 7,500 places lost, 1,360 were reinstated on the old sites between 1945 and 1951, and the remainder have been made good elsewhere.

    Burnham Committee (Teachers' Pannel)
    Mr.s. Castleasked the Minister of Education what criteria he has adopted for the selection of the Teachers' Panel of the Burnham Committee.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Adequate representation of all categories of teachers in the various types of schools with which the Committee are concerned.
    Mr.s. Castle: Is not that a general kind of criterion? Could not the Minister be a little more specific so that those associations, some of whom feel that they should be represented and others who feel that they should not, can clearly understand the principles behind selection?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Lady were a little more specific about the associations which she has in mind, it would help me to be more specific.

    Secondary School Education
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Education what arrangements he makes for the education of a child qualified for secondary school education by age, ability and aptitude, whose parent or guardian refuses to sign a school agreement provided for by a local Act of Parliament.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I have no evidence that children are being deprived of a suitable secondary education because their parents have refused to sign such an agreement.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister issue a special circular to local authorities drawing attention to the point which he made in his report on the Halifax Corporation Bill, that there should be no compulsion on any parent or guardian to enter into such an agreement?
    Mr. Lloyd: Even if such an agreement were entered into, it would not relieve

    581
    local authorities of their overall obligation to provide suitable secondary education under the terms of the main Education Act.
    Mr. Hayman: I am grateful for that answer.

    11-Plus Examination
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Education what advice he will give to local education authorities concerning candidates for the 11-plus examination who have been subjected to hypnosis, or have consumed medicine described as 11-plus tonic.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: None, Sir.
    Mr. Stewart: May I ask why not?
    Mr. Lloyd: Because I think that this is a matter best left to the common sense of parents.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the Minister note that, as long as the present tripartite organisation of secondary education persists, we are liable to get recurrent crops of this kind of nonsense?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree. It can arise in cases where there are bad secondary modern schools due to the bulge, but under the Government's White Paper it is our intention greatly to improve the secondary modern schools and in particular to provide the G.C.E. courses at "O" level which can be taken just as well in them as in the grammar schools. In that case, this matter will assume a very different degree of importance.

    Commercial Education
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Education what steps, following the publication of the McMeeking Report, he is taking to promote commercial education and, in particular, to encourage day release of employees for this purpose.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I shall announce my conclusions on the Report as soon as I have completed the necessary consultations. Meanwhile, I have told local education authorities that after 1961 I propose to give special priority to building projects for commercial education.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the Minister consult his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General about the nationalised Indus-
    582
    tries for which his right hon. Friend is responsible to make sure, for instance, that the National Coal Board and the other boards concerned are fully seized of the desirability of granting day release to their employees for commercial education?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes. I also propose to take steps to make it generally known to employers of all kinds that it is important that they should take this matter very seriously. Broadly speaking, while technical education is swinging along well, commercial education is still hanging fire.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    British Firms (Foreign Control)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to recent sales to United States residents of a substantial part of the equity in British firms; and, in view of the relevance of such sales to security, defence production, Commonwealth development, employment policy, labour relations, and the balance of payments, if he will appoint a committee of inquiry to consider the relative gains and losses to the national interest of such transactions.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 21st April to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow).
    Mr. Wilson: This Question was tabled before 21st April. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members in all parts of the House probably draw a sharp distinction between American investment in this country, which brings new firms, factories, techniques and know-how, and the purchase of shares, which may lead to the control of an important British firm by alien ownership?
    Mr. Erroll: I appreciate, as does my right hon. Friend, that there is such a distinction, but in the case of British Timken Limited I should like to remind him that it is only the purchase of a minority interest which is proposed just now, as the transfer of control of British Timken to the United States company took place in April, 1951, when the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were in power.
    Mr. Snow: In spite of what the Economic Secretary said, is it not a fact that there is already evidence at his disposal that where American companies establish subsidiaries in this country or take over control of existing industries they ensure that there is no free export franchise? To that extent, there is a long-term problem which his Department ought to look into.
    Mr. Erroll: Naturally, we keep this matter constantly under review. I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which United Kingdom companies have been partially or completely acquired by United States companies;
    (2) whether he will state the subsidiary companies of United States companies now established in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Erroll: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not this a rather important matter? While not wishing to pronounce on any particular transaction, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that one of the causes of the Russian Revolution was, and one of the causes of much international resentment and ill-feeling today is, the transfer of the ownership of vital national enterprises to foreign concerns in creditor countries?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend may or may not be historically correct, but the point at issue in 1959 is that Great Britain invests abroad, and we rightly believe that foreign interests should have the right to invest here.
    Mr. Bellenger: When the Economic Secretary says that the information is not available, does he mean that it is not available in his Department? Is it not available, for example, from the Financial Times or from the Economist, and could not the Government enlist their aid if they have not sources of information themselves in order to give the House an adequate reply?
    Mr. Erroll: No, the information is not available from official sources. I have been looking into the question whether returns of this sort could be obtained, but one must remember that it would necessarily impose additional work on firms who will be asked to provide the information required.

    Shipping Industry (Taxation)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the loss of revenue in the present financial year if ship owners were permitted to write off the cost of a ship so soon as their profits allowed.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): Assuming that the concession was applied to 1959–1960 Income Tax assessments, the cost would be about £5 million.
    Mr. Peyton: I am rather surprised to hear that it is as high as that. Will my hon. and learned Friend urge his right hon. Friend not to lose this invaluable opportunity which is offered to him at very little cost to restore the competitive power, or something of the competitive power, of the British shipping industry? Does he realise that this chance is one which may not come again and, as I said, at very little cost it offers him the possibility of setting the whole pattern for the future on very much more favourable lines than now exist?
    Mr. Simon: I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who will, no doubt, shortly have an opportunity of discussing these matters more fully.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor are unable to do anything in this regard—there may be sound reasons for refusing to do so—what is to be done about the plight of British shipping? Does lie appreciate that other countries are not only subsidising their shipping but they have flags of convenience and flag discrimination, all to the detriment of British shipping? What is to be done about it?
    Mr. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman may well be right in what he says and in the matters to which he draws attention. They are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and we can hardly discuss them by question and answer at Question Time.

    Foreign Exchange Control
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what foreign

    585
    exchange control he exercises in respect of United Kingdom companies setting up subsidiaries or factories in France, the Federal German Republic, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg or Italy since the formation of the European Economic Community; and if he will give a list of the companies which have done so.
    Mr. Erroll: Consent under the Exchange Control Act, 1947, is required for direct investment projects in all countries outside the sterling area, and no exception is made in favour of any particular countries. A number of proposals for investment in the countries named by my hon. Friend have received consent hut, as these matters must remain confidential, it would be contrary to existing practice to publish a list.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since factories and subsidiaries are being set up, can we not draw the moral that it is a preferential area of some kind which attracts investment, and should not the countries of the British Commonwealth and other European countries, therefore, get together in some form of association of reciprocal and preferential economic arrangements, without prejudice to making satisfactory reciprocal arrangements with the countries of the so-called European Economic Community?
    Mr. Erroll: As I said, approval is required for direct investment projects outside the sterling area. Therefore, countries inside the sterling area have an advantage. At the same time, we should not wish to discourage the trend of investment in the countries named by my hon. Friend in his Question.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the Minister take steps to encourage investment in Scotland by those firms, realising that Scotland is very badly in need of such investment?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, the Government are always glad to see investment taking place in Scotland.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Consumer Protection (Committee)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement on the proposal
    586
    made by the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution that an independent national body representing every aspect of consumer interest should be established.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): The proposal of the Consumer Advisory Council will come within the terms of reference of the Committee to be set up to consider questions of consumer protection.
    Miss Burton: As there is considerable interest in this matter in the House and outside, in trade generally and the consumer organisations, will the President answer one general question? Will he say what he means by a departmental committee? Is it a committee composed entirely of civil servants or with a civil servant at its head, or will it have power to co-opt?
    Sir D. Eccles: It will not have any, civil servants. The name is a regular name for a committee of distinguished men and women, but not a Royal Commission.

    Factories, Larkhall
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the employment position at Larkhall, Lanarkshire, where the total employment now existing is equal to substantially less than 50 per cent. of the insured population; and, in view of recent colliery closures, if he will authorise Scottish Industrial Estates Limited to build additional factories at Larkhall Industrial Estate, with a view to attracting new employment to the area.
    Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of the serious unemployment situation, although the hon. Member's assessment does not agree with my information. As I announced on 22nd January, we are prepared to consider the provision of factories anywhere in North Lanarkshire to firms wishing to set up or extend there.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that no new factory has been built in this area since his party became the Government in 1951 and that employment in the town has declined very considerably over that period? Does he not think it is about time that he took some action in the matter?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that there is an advance factory to be built at Coatbridge, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says that he has in mind another factory which also is to go up there, though not an advance factory.
    Mr. Fraser: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the problem of Larkhall will be relieved by the building of a factory in Coatbridge? Has he any idea of the travelling distance between Coatbridge and Larkhall? It is like saying that people in Lancashire need not worry because there is a factory being built in Wales.
    Sir D. Eccles: We realise that this is a difficulty, and we are doing our best to get new industry to go there.

    Restrictive Trade Practices
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many restrictive trading agreements have been dissolved before being called before the Restrictive Trade Practices Court.
    Sir D. Eccles: Two hundred and five registered agreements have either been abandoned or all registrable restrictions have been removed from them. The Registrar has been informed that similar steps are being taken in respect of another 150.
    Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend think that that is a reasonable figure? It seems a lot. Is he satisfied with that number as a result of the Court being set up?
    Sir D. Eccles: It is a good start. It amounts to about one-sixth of the agreements on the register. If we can go on like that, it will not be bad.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: How many of those agreements have been replaced by other restrictive agreements which are not caught by the Act?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have no information that any have.

    Exports to Canada
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage increase in the total of the United Kingdom's exports and re-exports to Canada since 1951.
    Sir D. Eccles: Thirty-eight per cent. between 1951 and 1958.
    Mr. Harrison: That sounds a very satisfactory figure. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that this increase continues?
    Sir D. Eccles: We do a very great deal to promote exports to Canada. Lord Rootes, who is the chairman of the Dollar Export Council, is going there now.
    Mr. Jay: We welcome this increase, but is there not still a large gap between what we export to Canada and what Canada exports to us?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, there always has been.

    Exports to Ghana
    Miss Vickersasked the President of the Board of Trade by what percentage British exports to Ghana have risen since 1951.
    Sir D. Eccles: Sixteen per cent.
    Miss Vickers: Does my right hon. Friend think that this will be kept up in future? Is it not most important for maintaining and improving the standard of living of the people of Ghana?
    Sir D. Eccles: As my hon. Friend probably knows, a mission has just been to Ghana and I am awaiting its report. I am confident from what I have heard that it will be very valuable and will help us to keep up our trade in that important market.

    Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
    Sir J. Barlowasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the cotton industry.
    Sir D. Eccles: As the Answer to this Question is long, I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

    Promotion of Exports (Committee)
    Mr. Gowerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will fulfil the recommendations of the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil Weir on promoting exports.
    Sir D. Eccles: Sir Cecil Weir and his Committee are to be congratulated on a

    589
    valuable and stimulating Report. Most of the recommendations are addressed to industry. We are studying those which recommend further action by the Government.
    Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend say how long he estimates it will be before his Department can act in this matter?
    Sir D. Eccles: I should think that the action will be piecemeal. As and when we can usefully do something, we will.

    Woollen Goods (United States Tariff)
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has received from the United States Government to representations by the United Kingdom Government on the United States tariff quota on imports of woollen goods.
    Sir D. Eccles: The United States decision on this subject was announced on Tuesday. We recognise that the United States Government have made an effort to meet the difficulties of our exporters of the better quality wool. The net result, however, is disappointing, because what has been done in this respect is outweighed by the reduction of the quota as a whole.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not exceedingly disappointing that the United States Government should not merely have completely ignored representations from the Prime Minister, but should actually have made this week an even more restrictive decision? Is not this doing great damage to a very important British industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman now say what the Government are going to do?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think that the view of the United States Government is that they do not completely ignore our representations and they have made a small gesture towards a better quality wool. It is unfortunate, in our view, that this is not going to help us. We therefore have to continue our representations to them, and they have said that they will review the situation on some long-term basis next year.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wool trade, like myself and many colleagues, is appreciative of
    590
    the strenuous efforts made by Her Majesty's Government this year to represent to the United States Administration the views of the textile trade? Will he also bear in mind that as about 60 per cent. of this tariff quota is already filled at this very moment, that is in the same week as it is announced, and that our share is almost half of what it was two years ago while that of Japan has almost doubled, these efforts at representing United Kingdom views in the interest of our trade relations with America ought to be stressed as strongly as possible?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I will.

    Advance Factory, Speke
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the President of the Board of Trade where in the Merseyside area the Government advance factory is to be sited; and how many workers the factory could employ if fully utilised.
    Sir D. Eccles: This factory of 35,000 sq. ft. will be built on the Industrial Estate at Speke, Liverpool. Production space varies widely with differing industries but I would expect at least 200 workers would be employed.

  TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921
  Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister if he has now considered further the extent to which existing procedures are satisfactory for investigating such matters as the Waters case; and if he will make a statement.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  The Government are keeping this matter in mind; but I am not at present in a position to add to the answer I gave on my right hon. Friends' behalf to the hon. Gentleman on 26th February.
  Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread anxiety about the procedure of these tribunals and that it appears that the use of this procedure for matters such as the Waters case is not what was envisaged when the procedure was set up

  591
  and is liable to very considerable criticism?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Various members of the Government have already expressed interest in the possibility of some amendment in the Act of 1921 in the light of experience, but I do not think that we are satisfied yet, on the material before us, about the nature of what the step might be.
  Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us and, I think, many of the people of Scotland completely support the action of the Government in setting up the tribunal but wish them to review the question of whether it is really worth spending £8,000 of the taxpayer's money to deal with an incident which proved to be trivial?
  Mr. Butler: That is taking the matter from the general to the particular. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support but, keeping to the question of the form of machinery to be used on this or somewhat similar occasions, I think that we want a little more expression of opinion before we can act.

  GENERAL ELECTION (POLITICAL BROADCASTS)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is doubt regarding the application of the Representation of the People Act to arrangements for allocating television broadcasting between the political parties and candidates in a General Election; and if he will institute an inquiry for the purpose of drafting clarifying legislation, and report the result to the House.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  I hope that any doubts there may have been about the arrangements announced so far for political broadcasting at the General Election will have been resolved by the statement issued by the British Broadcasting Corporation on 17th of April. With regard to the second part of the Question, we do not think that it is necessary to set up an inquiry.
  Mr. Shinwell: If the Government are not prepared to set up an inquiry into the relations between television broadcasting for the election and Representation of the People Act, has the right
  592
  hon. Gentleman taken notice of pronouncements by the two television corporations about their intentions in a General Election, and would it not be advisable for the Government, in order to clear up any doubt about these matters, to issue a Government statement and not leave it to the television corporations to make their determination? Could a statement not be embodied in the OFFICIAL REPORT, if there is no alternative?
  Mr. Butler: I am putting the B.B.C. statement in the Library for the benefit of hon. Members. So far on the I.T.A. side the only proposals announced are those of the Granada Company, and I understand that legal advice has been taken by the Authority in relation to the validity or otherwise of the company's proposals. Therefore, I think it is a little premature to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I think it would be right for me to keep in touch with the Leader of the Opposition and hon. Members so that if a statement were necessary it could be made to alleviate fears about the possible operation of the Representation of the People Act in relation to these proposals.
  Mr. Shinwell: While I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has just said, because I think this may clear up some of the ambiguities, will he take note of the announcement by the Granada Television Company and the pronouncement by the B.B.C., which appear to be in conflict?
  Mr. Butler: Granada is a company and its proposals have been examined by the Authority. Until we have the Authority's view, coupled possibly with its view based on legal advice, I do not think we can make any progress on that. I think that it will be important to be quite clear that hon. Members are satisfied with the arrangements, and it is at that stage that it may be necessary to say something further.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Home Secretary say whether the guidance of the Government and their legal advisers has been sought by the I.T.A. or any of the television companies on this, and would he not agree that it is desirable, as my right hon. Friend suggested, that in some appropriate form a clear statement should

  593
  be made giving an authoritative explanation of the legal points so far as the Government are able to do that?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I think that it would be valuable, as I said, if we could exchange views with the Opposition and with any hon. Members, because as the right hon. Gentleman said before, this is not a matter only for the Front Benches, before we decide to make a statement. I know that my noble Friend is also interested from a letter I read of his in a newspaper. It is likely that a little more consultation is necessary. In answer to the right hon. Gentlemans supplementary question, I do not think there has been any formal contact or formal advice, and so far as we can see from our point of view the statement made by the B.B.C. will stand up in law.

  GERMANY (NATIONALISM AND MILITARISM)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to inform the German Chancellor in reply to his recent official representations, of the increasing concern felt in this country at the symptoms of a revival of German nationalism and militarism and at the growing influence of ex-Nazis in the army command, the civil service and the judiciary.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had discussions with the German Chancellor on many occasions when these and other matters have been dealt with. As my right hon. Friend said, it is to be hoped that the exchanges which followed Questions in the House on 14th April will serve to put these matters in their correct perspective.
  Mr. Zilliacus: As the right hon. Gentleman will recollect the consequences of disregarding the danger of German militarism, nationalism and Fascism before the war because of the Government's policy of treating Germany as a shield against alleged Soviet aggressive intentions, will he not at least in pursuing a similar policy today stop short at supplying Germany with nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Butler: That is enlarging the question and getting into the field of our
  594
  N.A.T.O. activities, which I think should be the subject of a separate question.
  Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon Friend not aware that the vast majority of the people of this country are anxious for friendship with a peacefully-minded, industrious and democratic Germany, but they look to the Government to take early and immediate action if there is any sign of the old militaristic spirit reviving?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, certainly. We must realise that this matter of de-Nazification and, for example, judicial appointments in the Federal Republic and so on is really governed by the Bonn Convention on Relations, which entered into force in May, 1955, whereby the Federal Republic has full authority over its internal affairs. We still retain an interest in the matter, and the Federal Government recognise this, because it closely affects Anglo-German relations and, although there is a limit to what we can do in relation to the internal affairs of another country, this is not a matter we shall neglect.

  TANGANYIKA

    Holidays With Pay
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what consultations have taken place with the trade unions in Tanganyika about the application of the provisions of the Holidays with Pay (Agriculture) Convention 1952, to the sisal industry;
    (2) when the Holidays with Pay (Agriculture) Convention. 1952, will be applied in Tanganyika.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): A declaration by Her Majesty's Government applying this Convention to Tanganyika was registered with the I.L.O. in February this year. No special consultations have taken place since the law of Tanganyika was already in conformity with the Convention.
    Mr. Swingler: Does that answer mean that the Convention has already been completed in Tanganyika, or are the Government at the moment considering how it is to be applied? Would it not be desirable to have some discussions with the trade unions in Tanganyika about the way in which this could be introduced, which is a slight improvement?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Convention is registered, and that is all that is required. As the law was already in conformity with the Convention, consultations did not appear necessary, although naturally the trade unions and the Government are in constant touch on many matters.

  KENYA

    Makerere College (Students)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the entry of Kenya Africans to Makerere College at post-school certificate stage has been cut from 97 in 1958 to 68 in 1959; what is to happen to the balance of 54 students who passed school certificate in the first division in 1958; and what similar economies have been made in awarding scholarships for higher education to European and Asian students in Kenya.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friends reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on 14th April, 1959. I am consulting the Governor of Kenya about the second and third parts of the Question and will circulate my reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Johnson: Bearing all that in mind, would the Minister not confirm that Africans have no post-school certificate work and no sixth forms at all in any school in Kenya? Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to that, because if they had them there would be no need to do what is being done in cutting the numbers going to Makerere College and sending some to the Royal Technical College?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We shall have a fairer judgment on this if we await the Governor's information. The student population at Makerere will increase this year to the record figure of 374, As to some being obliged to go to the Royal Technical College rather than to Makerere, students in this country, too, are not always able to choose precisely where they will go.
    Mr. Johnson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Africans have no post-school certificate education and no sixth forms, while Europeans have them? Is not that important?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very anxious about that, but it would be better dealt with when I hear from the Governor.

  ZANZIBAR

    Secondary School, Pemba
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the only secondary schools in the Zanzibar Protectorate are in Zanzibar Town itself, and that there is no secondary school in the island of Pemba; and whether he will recommend to the Governor of Zanzibar that a new secondary school should be built in Pemba.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Committee on Education, whose report was published last month, has recommended that a new double-stream secondary school should be built in Pemba. The report is now being considered in Zanzibar.
    Mr. Johnson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree also that a dangerous situation is developing in Zanzibar where Africans win all the elected seats in the Legislative Council but the Administration is almost wholly Arab? Is it not a very dangerous dichotomy and would it not be better to give the Africans a greater chance of education so that they can go into the Civil Service?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am only too anxious that all who live in Zanzibar, whether Arab or African, regard it as their home, and anything that will help to that end I will naturally encourage.

  MAURITIUS

    Legislative Council (Mr. Ah-Chuen)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Governor of Mauritius is consulting the Sino-Mauritian community with regard to a nominated member for the Legislative Council who would represent their interests.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on the 20th April, 1959, Mr. Ah-Chuen, a member of the

    597
    Sino-Mauritian community, has been appointed as a Nominated Member of Legislative Council.
    Mr. Johnson: Is it not a fact that Mr. Ah-Chuen has been in this position for the last ten years but has never opened his mouth in the Legislative Council during that time? Is it not a fact that he is disowned by large numbers of SinoMauritians in the island and is it not also a fact that he went to Formosa as head of a Nationalist delegation, giving 20,000 dollars to the Kuomintang Party? Is not this somewhat indecent and unfitting behaviour on the part of a Member appointed by the Governor to the Legislative Council?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I deprecate personal remarks by Members of this House about Members of another House in a British Colonial territory. Mr. Ah-Chuen obtained the highest number of votes of all the Sino-Mauritian candidates at the recent elections and it is not always Members who speak most in the House who matter the most.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the number of SinoMauritian voters and their qualifications? The right hon. Gentleman says that the numbers who voted for this gentleman were more than those who voted for the other candidates. Is he aware that they were mainly influential commercial gentry, members of the Nationalist Party who have followed an anti-Socialist line for so long?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member had better put that Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many speeches he makes in the House?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order at all.

  NYASALAND

    Sentenced Persons
    Mr.s. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names ofthose Africans in Nyasaland who, since 3rd March, 1959, have been sentenced to periods of imprisonment for being members of an unlawful organisation,
    598
    together with the length of the sentence in each case.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have asked the Governor for the latest information and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr.s. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the African National Congress in Nyasaland was a perfectly lawful organisation up to 3rd March this year but that in a matter of a few weeks 90 people have been charged with being members of an unlawful organisation? Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that in all these cases these people have not been charged with doing something which was perfectly legal at the time when they did it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was asked the Question on the Order Paper and it would be wise to await the information.

    Miss Grace Kahumbe
    Mr.s. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the evidence advanced at the trial of Miss Grace Kahumbe, of Nyasaland, on which it was presumed that she was a member of an unlawful organisation.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No evidence was advanced. After the charge had been read and explained to Miss Kahumbe she pleaded guilty.
    Mr.s. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter from Miss Grace Kahumbe in which she says:
    "I am surprised to read that I pleaded guilty"
    and that she has disputed the finding in her case? Is not this another example of a case where someone who has not denied being before 3rd March a member of the African National Congress being found guilty without any evidence being advanced that they had always been a member? Is not this a most serious situation developing throughout Nyasaland as a whole?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. It would be quite improper for either the hon. Lady or myself to comment on the action of the courts.
    Mr. Gaitskell: But will the right hon. Gentleman not reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr.s. Castle), namely, whether, supposing the person concerned had only

    599
    been a member of this organisation before it was declared unlawful, he would regard that as falling within the ordinance?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. It would be equally improper for me to comment on that.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman is refusing to give the House necessary information on this matter. This is a matter of fact. Let me reframe Lie question. Was it the right hon. Gentleman's intention in approving this regulation or ordinance that those who belonged to this organisation before the date but not after should be caught by it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. Those who belonged to the organisation certainly would be guilty of an offence if they continued to belong to the organisation.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. For the guidance of the House and the assistance of the Colonial Secretary, could you, Mr. Speaker, inform the House whether it is out of order to comment in good faith on the decision of a court? Is not the only rule that we must not criticise or call in question the good faith or other behaviour of a court but that comment on its decision is perfectly proper?
    Mr. Speaker: It depends on the circumstances of each case. I should say myself that the ordinary rule is that one should not comment on a case which is sub judice in a way which might have the consequence of perverting justice or influencing it the wrong way. Also, comments which attack the integrity or otherwise of a judge, or even his competence, must be put down as a Motion and should not be made at a peradventure. That is all that I can say. I am ignorant of the status of this court or the law on the subject, but that is the general guidance that I can give.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order. Do you not recall, Mr. Speaker, a case in late 1946 or early 1947 when the right hon. Gentleman who later became Lord Bracken referred in the House to a decision of the counts in relation to an Order on building licensing? He did that in order to draw attention to what he considered to be the unsatisfactory nature of the Order under which a prosecution was brought forward and a decision taken. Is not that an exact
    600
    parallel with the case raised in this instance?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not remember the incident sufficiently accurately to say whether or not it is a parallel. If, in fact, on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the object of the intervention of Mr. Bracken, as he then was, was that the Order itself was a bad Order and the court had perforce to come to an unsatisfactory decision because the Order was bad, I should have thought that was all right. But if it was in fact suggested that the court had somehow or other misbehaved itself in giving judgement, that would be wrong. That is the broad distinction that I would make. I cannot comment on this one because I do not know enough about it.
    Mr. Silverman: Would it be a fair interpretation of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that as long as the integrity of the court is in no way criticised and proceedings are not actually pending, comment is perfectly proper and there is no rule which would allow a Minister to deny information on the ground of impropriety in those circumstances?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know that I would be prepared to go as far as all that. It is quite improper, of course, to comment on the integrity, which is a matter of the personal character of the members of the tribunal. That would be clearly wrong, but there might be comments of an abusive character, which might refer to their intelligence or lack of it, which would be equally wrong, and therefore it is not entirely limited to a matter of integrity. Without notice, I would not be prepared to go much further than I have gone, but I have tried to give the House the general sense of what I have always believed to be the practice in this matter.
    Mr. Hale: As recently as yesterday, questions were asked about a court-martial decision. When the Labour Government were in power in 1945–50, there were questions about the decisions of a lady stipendiary appointed by the Labour Government, who was apparently under criticism because of that. Questions were also asked about a former Recorder of Liverpool. There were discussions in the House about the conduct of a stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Mead, which resulted in a committee being set up. The

    601
    decision of a court was challenged on the Adjournment Motion in the case of Edmund Galley who was rehabilitated by the House 42 years after his conviction, and there was the case of George Edalji when the House appointed a committee of inquiry, three or four years after his conviction. This is part of the common practice of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not remember all the instances to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has referred, but I know that in certain cases the House has bestirred itself with what it believes to be a miscarriage of justice in a specific instance, but that is not the case here. At the moment I am dealing with a Parliamentary Question, and although I admire greatly the memory and the lore of the hon. Member for Oldham. West, I cannot be bound by everything that happened when I was not Speaker. I am giving the House the best advice I can on a general question, but I am conscious that general answers to Questions are apt to be dangerous, and that is why I am reluctant to go further unless the exact facts of the case are present in my mind. Sir David Eccles.
    Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask a question?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Shinwell: On a point of order, Sir. I think my point of order is a legitimate one. It is this: are we to understand that if hon. Members raise points of order immediately before half-past three, while a Question is pending in the House which you have permitted, an hon. Member who wishes to put a supplementary question is precluded from doing so simply because of those points of order?
    Mr. Speaker: I am bound by the Standing Order not to allow Questions after half-past three, and I do not see how I can avoid that.
    Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend the Member for wednesdays (Mr. stone-house)—whether I agree with him or not is another matter—was on his feet and was called, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: But then the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) intervened on a point of order. to which I was bound to give precedence. All the time the hon. Member for Nelson
    602
    and Colne was dealing with his point of order the mechanism of the clock was working.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order, Sir. It is normal on occasion for the initial Question to be asked before half-past Three and for a series of supplementary questions to he put which sometimes continue, with your permission, for as long as a quarter of an hour. On thiy, occasion you called my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) but my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) intervened on a point of order. Are we to understand, from what you have just said, that in future, as soon as there is an intervention on a point of order, the opportunity for asking further supplementary questions on the original Question lapses? Is there any precedent for this, particularly in a case where you have called an hon. Member to put a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Wednesbury and was anxious to hear his question, but when a point of order is raised, that must come first, because the business of the House cannot go on until the point of order is settled. It was put to me in the form of a point of order and I had to listen. I am afraid that the argument which transpired. and all the minor questions I was asked, put the question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury out of my mind. In general, I think I am right in saying that after half-past three I should not allow Questions, although on occasions, when a Question has just been asked, with the indulgence of the House, I stretch the Standing Order to allow a supplementary question to he asked. So on this occasion, if the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about it, I think it would be fair to call the hon. Member for Wednesbury to ask his question, but I hope it will be brief.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Without wishing to delay the House, Sir, may I ask the Colonial Secretary if he is aware that the charges against Miss Kahumbe were quashed because the charges were wrongfully brought? In view of this, and in view of the seriousness of this and similar cases, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to make an early statement to the House?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. Even at this late hour the hon. Gentleman must not try to get away with that comment. The High Court set aside the conviction not on the grounds that it was wrongly brought in the general sense of the word, but on the grounds that, the consent of the Governor to the prosecution had not been obtained—Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that the trial was therefore null and void. The conclusion to be drawn from this should be that the rule of law in its most exact form prevails in Nyasaland.
    Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order, Sir. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    An Hon. Member: What a revelation.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION)
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the reorganisation of the cotton industry.
In recent years the cotton industry has been exposed to formidable and increasing competition from textile industries established inside its traditional export markets. Moreover, Commonwealth countries have emerged as large exporters to the United Kingdom itself where they meet no tariff barrier. These changes have brought distress and anxiety to Lancashire. The result is a situation complicated and worsened by the existence of a large volume of surplus and obsolete equipment. The outlook, however, is by no means all black. The growing purchasing power in industrialised economies opens up excellent prospects for the better fabrics and made-up goods. Special measures are, therefore, called for to make the industry compact, up-to-date and efficient.
Following the Hong Kong undertaking to limit exports, the industry has been working out plans to adapt itself to changed conditions and to reorganise and re-equip its capacity. Leaders of the different sections have been discussing with me a contribution from the Government which they feel to be essential to the success of their plans.
604
The Government have no doubt that the circumstances of the cotton industry which I have just described justify the exceptional course of direct financial assistance from public funds. Accordingly we shall seek powers from Parliament to meet the industry's request for help.
The first step must be to remove surplus capacity. The Government are ready to contribute from public funds two-thirds of the cost of bringing this about under schemes to be approved by the Board of Trade. The balance will be met by the industry by statutory levy. A severe time limit will be set for qualifying for assistance and, in order to start without delay, arrangements will be made whereby, subject to the fulfilment of the necessary conditions, a firm which scraps machinery after today can qualify for assistance.
The Government have agreed to bear a high proportion of the cost of eliminating surplus capacity on the clearly understood condition that the industry itself will compensate operatives faced with loss of employment as a result of the schemes. This is a matter for the employers to settle directly with the trade unions concerned. The Government will do everything in their power to assist those displaced by the reorganisation schemes to find alternative work.
After the elimination of surplus capacity, the next step is to encourage re-equipment. Provided that the Board of Trade is satisfied that enough surplus capacity in the industry will be eliminated, the Government will be prepared to pay a grant of one quarter of the cost of modernising existing machinery and providing new machinery. Orders for machinery placed after today will be eligible for this grant, subject to the fulfilment of the condition to which I have referred, and to the granting of powers by Parliament. Re-equipment and modernisation completed during the next five years will rank for this assistance.
It is not possible to estimate at present how much the total charge on public funds will be. This depends on the extent to which the industry takes advantage of the assistance now offered and on such factors as the terms which are settled for eliminating surplus capacity. I can only say that, given a favourable response from the industry, the cost to the Exchequer

605
might well be about £30 million over five years.
These arrangements will require detailed administration. For this purpose the Bill which we propose to introduce will contain provisions for setting up a special agency under the Cotton Board to carry out the schemes in accordance with directions from the Board of Trade.
The House will see that this set of proposals forms a comprehensive whole. We shall meet with problems that we cannot see in advance, but with good will from both sides of industry they can be solved. I know that the employers will bring the trade unions into the fullest possible consultation at all stages. The Government will follow closely the reorganisation schemes and will do all they can to maintain the impetus to carry them through speedily and effectively. These joint endeavours will reshape our cotton industry and equip it to compote in the expanding markets of the world with the types of cloth that are wanted wherever living standards are high.
Mr. Jay: Can the President of the Board of Trade say, first, how far the cotton trade unions were consulted in drawing up these proposals? Secondly, as a good deal of public money will be spent, what assurance is there that every operative displaced as a result of these schemes will receive compensation? How is it to work? Thirdly, since by far the most important point is that people who lose their jobs should be able to find alternative productive work, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the central agency that he is to set up under the Cotton Board will have a say in the selection of the actual mills for closure, and confirm that this question will not be left simply to private firms?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also say that we have some expectation of a plan to dovetail the introduction of new work into these areas, both in time and place, with the actual closure of individual mills?
Sir D. Eccles: The schemes were brought to me by representatives of the different sections of this complicated industry. They did not bring trade union representatives with them. They were considering only their own capital structure. But we told them that we made it a firm condition that they should
606
agree compensation schemes for displaced workpeople and, as a matter of fact, the discussions are going on now—and going on well, according to my information. We shall look at those schemes for compensation for the workpeople before any Government grants are paid, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will have heard that is a condition of the whole plan.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the central agency would have a say in the selection of the surplus capacity to be eliminated. I think that the answer must be "No", because the main object of this exercise, without which we shall not have a prosperous cotton industry, is to make it efficient and at the same time to take care of the workpeople who are displaced. I do not think that there will be very many, because the industry has told me that it should be able to absorb a good number of them.
Sir J. Barlow: All of us from Lancashire will be very grateful for the statement which my right hon. Friend has made. It will obviously take a great deal of working out and understanding, and we shall have an opportunity of discussing it later. I should like to put three questions to my right hon. Friend so as to obtain a little information now. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no compulsion for firms to enter the scheme, and that those who do will do so voluntarily? Secondly, can he say how the unit price of a unit will be determined? That may be very important. Thirdly, can he say how the whole scheme will come into taxation?
Sir D. Eccles: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that there will be no compulsion. We have always thought that the cotton industry, with its very long tradition and its immense variety, was not the kind of industry in which any form of compulsion would succeed, even if it were part of our political principles to try compulsion. It has always been our firm conviction that it would not work. It is a voluntary scheme from start to finish.
As for the second part of the supplementary question, the unit price will have to be worked out by the agency in consultation with the industry, and will have to be approved by the Board of Trade

607
and the Treasury. We have had preliminary discussions on this matter and I do not think that we are very far apart.
I assume that by his third question my hon. Friend wanted to know how payments of public funds would be treated for taxation purposes. The present law raises a number of complicated questions in regard to balancing charges, and what happens when a firm goes wholly or partially out of production. We have examined this question, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is authorising discussions to take place. We shall apply the law—but not change it—as sympathetically as we can towards the cotton industry.
Mr. Thorton: What part has the Cotton Board Played in these negotiation? Why has the scheme come directly from the separate employer's organization rather than from the Cotton Board of Trade has always dealt in the past on matters affecting the whole industry? Secondly, although I am ware of certain difficulties about consultation with unions in the recent weeks, is the right hon Gentleman aware that Sir Alfred Roberts, one of the most respected and responsible of the cotton trade union leaders, made a complaint as recently as yesterday that the Cotton unions have been kept completely in the dark by the Cotton mill owners?
Sir D Eccles: I believe the hon Member know the Peculiar structure of the Cotton industry After the agreement had been made with Hong Kong, I said to the leaders of the industry, "Will you tell me the best way to prepare reorganisation schemes?" They answered, "There is no hope of getting these schemes unless they are brought forward section by section," And they formed a steering committee under the chairmanship of Lord Rochdale, to collect these schemes and bring them together to the Board of Trade.
We ought to congratulate them upon the fact that they have completed such a very complex job so quickly I am sorry to have noted that Sir Alfred Roberts By bad luck, was absent from the meeting of the Cotton Board when the steering committee reported these schemes to the Board of Trade last week
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the makers of textile machinery can meet, both in quality and rapidity of delivery, the demands that his scheme is likely to make upon them?
Sir D. Eccles: We have begun to think about that important question and are, in fact, in touch with the textile machinery industry.
Mr. Hale: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government have in mind in relation to compensation for displaced workers? What would be the likely amount of that compensation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Cotton Textile Factories Association has prepared its own scheme of reorganisation, but has never been consulted about it by the Government at all in any formal way? Why are the Government always against planning expansion, but always in favour of planning contraction? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this business looks like providing a couple of brass plates for the coffin of a very great industry?
Sir D. Eccles: I cannot give the hon. Member any details about compensation schemes, because they are under discussion between the employers and the trade unions. I am sure that both sides wish to come to an agreement and then to report the agreement to the Board of Trade.
On the hon. Member's last point, the whole purpose of a scheme of this kind is to provide a basis from which expansion can start again.
Mr. Leavey: We generally welcome the fact that about £30 million of public money is being spent to help the industry, but can my right hon. Friend say whether any assurances are to be built into this scheme to make it as certain as possible that plant which is not only new, but is efficient and up-to-date in every respect, will be purchased for the development side of the scheme, and, also, whether there are any safeguards to ensure that the spending of this substantial sum of money will not mean an undue inflation of the prices of that new plant?
Sir D. Eccles: My hon. Friend will recognise that very much more money than £30 million is at stake here, because the industry itself is to make a very large

609
contribution. In particular. the industry is to pay three-quarters of the cost of the new machinery. On the whole, I should have thought that that was a fairly good safeguard that care will be taken that the machines bought are likely to be efficient.
Mr. Holt: Following upon the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), to the effect that the scheme was not compulsory, do I take him to mean that firms who do not wish to pay the levy need not do so, but that in return they will not be eligible for the Government grant for new machinery? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman means by the scheme not being compulsory?
Secondly, as the phrase "surplus capacity is not an absolute one, can the Minister say how he intends to assess it? Upon what criteria will he decide that the surplus capacity has been removed?
Sir D. Eccles: I am glad that the hon. Member raised the point in the first part of his supplementary question. What I meant was that there would be no compulsion upon a firm either to go out of the industry or to re-equip. But the industry has indicated to me that it would like to have powers under the Bill to raise a statutory levy for the purpose of financing its very large contribution to the two parts of the scheme.
Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend's statement represents something very new in economic policy. Can he say whether, under any circumstances, such reorganisation schemes will be applied to other industries in a similar plight?
Sir D. Eccles: As we said when considering the question of voluntary quotas on the imports of textiles from Asia, we consider that the cotton textile industry in this country is unique, and must be treated as such.
Mr. H. Wilson: We shall obviously want to study the Bill with the greatest care, and especially the long overdue provision for compensation for displaced workers. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement this afternoon, so far from being anything good on behalf of the Government, is a shocking epitaph to seven years of failing the
610
industry? Does not he recognise that, apart from a quite useful reintroduction of the scheme which Sir Stafford Cripps introduced in 1946, for re-equipment, all that the Government have done is to stand aside while an industry has bled to death, and that they are now offering a fairly generous contribution to the funeral expenses of many important mills?
Sir D. Eccles: If the right hon. Gentleman had been with me in the negotiations with the leaders of the cotton industry he would not have used language like that. In their opinion, they could never have got this very complicated industry to adopt this very far reaching plan before. We have done it at the first moment that it has been possible to get the industry together. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the scheme of Sir Stafford Cripps did not succeed. I studied it carefully and I hope that this one will be better.
Mr. Shepherd: As I understand that the Government are to advance two-thirds of the cost of redundancy, can my right hon. Friend tell me the basis on which the value of this redundant plant will be assessed?
Sir D. Eccles: In answer to a previous question, I said that the basis would be worked out by the agency with the various schemes brought to the Board of Trade and the Treasury for approval. The industry has mentioned to us a number of figures which led to the very rough estimate of £30 million which I gave previously.
Mr. S. Silverman: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about surplus capacity does he wish the House to infer that when the scheme is applied the capacity will he less than it is now? If the answer is. "Yes" is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industry has been rapidly contracting for the past seven years, and that half of the mills have closed down in the last seven years without a public cry that they should do so; and that there are many towns in Lancashire, two of which I represent, where cotton is virtually the only industry and the contraction of that industry would mean the virtual debarring of many hundreds of workers from earning their livelihood at all?

611
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in such cases a week or two's wages by way of compensation is no compensation whatever, and that if the Government are setting themselves out to reduce this industry still further the only compensation which would be satisfactory would be the provision of alternative industries where they are required?
Sir D. Eccles: It is not a case of the Government setting themselves out to reduce the industry; it is a question of market forces which have gone against Lancashire for many years, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In the case of the towns he represents and the employment of cotton operatives, what will be left of the industry when this scheme has been put into operation will make their position more secure.
Mr. Silverman: What satisfaction is that to those who are displaced?
Mr. H. Hynd: Does not the President of the Board of Trade consider that this is a very one-sided arrangement? He has made up his mind definitely that £30 million is to be paid to the industry and he visualises the payment of two-thirds of the cost of its diminution. Does he realise that this very diminution of the industry will mean further unemployment? Can he make a more definite statement about what kind of compensation is to be paid to the workers in that industry?
Sir D. Eccles: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that may not be quite the case. Roughly speaking, at the end of last year, there were nine out of 25 spindles idle and three out of 10 looms idle. We have to get the nine and the three out to prevent the weakness in the structure of the industry, and to make the efficient firms ready to put up 75 per cent. of what is required to modernise still further.
Mr.s. Castle: Is it not the fact that the Government are contributing two-thirds of the cost of redundancy and only one-quarter of the cost of re-equipment? Is not this, therefore, another sign that the Government are thinking in terms of a contraction of the industry rather than its revival?
Sir D. Eccles: We are not thinking in terms of contraction. I am sure that the
612
hon. Lady will agree that unless we get this industry into a state where it is efficient and credit-worthy, it has no future. This, therefore, is the essential first step before we can modernise throughout the industry.
Mr. Robens: Are we to judge from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that if a machine is scrapped, two-thirds of its life is to be paid, but that if a cotton worker is put on the scrap heap, the compensation for that worker is to be decided between the employers and the trade unions, and that the employers require a subvention from the Government to meet their own problems, so that they are not in a position to be over-generous with compensation?
In view of the fact that he has already said that this is a unique situation, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a case where there should be tripartite negotiations between the Ministry of Labour. the cotton unions and the cotton employers on the question of redundancy payments?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that compensation to a working man is no substitution for a job, and that the efforts of the Government must, therefore, be extended towards providing alternative employment, in addition to compensation, for those who are put out of employment as a result of this scheme?
Sir D. Eccles: I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that nothing like two-thirds of the cost of a machine or spindle will be paid in compensation, but only a very small fraction of the original cost. From now onwards the trade unions will be consulted at all stages—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. I had to take the only form in which the industry was willing to bring forward various schemes. But as soon as it was brought up in that form the Government insisted on the condition of the compensation scheme. As I said in my statement, we intend to use all our powers, under D.A.T.A.C. and otherwise, to see, if it is necessary, that alternative work be provided.
Mr. Robens: In the event of a deadlock between the employers and the cotton unions in the matter of compensation, what do the Government propose to do?
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a long period of questions. We can discuss these matters when the Bill is before the House.

EXPLOSION, WALTON COLLIERY
Mr. Creech Jones(by Private Notice) asked the Paymaster-General whether he will make a statement on the explosion and tragic loss of life in Walton Colliery, near Wakefield, yesterday.
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The overman in charge of a district and four men working with him were killed in an explosion at Walton Colliery, near Wakefield, yesterday. There were no survivors from the district. Eight men who were affected by breathing carbon monoxide during rescue attempts were taken to hospital. Six of them have now been sent home, and the other two are expected to leave hospital today.
The explosion caused considerable damage, and roof falls have obstructed access and prevented the restoration of ventilation. It has not been possible for anyone except rescue teams, wearing breathing apparatus, to enter the district. There are indications that something is still burning and because of the danger of another explosion it has been decided by the inspectors, management and workmen that the district should be sealed off The necessary stoppings are being constructed and should be finished later today.
Her Majesty's inspectors are investigating the occurrence, but it is not possible yet to determine the cause of the explosion.
The House will wish to join with me in expressing deep sympathy with the relatives of the men who lost their lives.
Mr. Creech Jones: May I thank the Minister for his statement and his promise of an inquiry and thank him, on behalf of myself and my right hon., and hon. Friends, for his expression of sympathy to the relatives of the men who have died, with which we should like to associate ourselves? May I also express our admiration of the magnificent work done by the rescue teams during this trying business?

BUISNESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal wheather 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, 27TH APRIL—Debate on Foreign Affairs with special reference to European Problems and Disarmament, which will arise on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY, 28TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Import Duties (General) (Various Goods) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 29TH APRIL— Report and Third Reading of the Deer (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 30TH APRIL— Supply [11th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Youth Employment Problems, with particular reference to the lack of Apprenticeship and Industrial Training Schemes.
FRIDAY, 1ST MAY—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
The House may wish to know that the Ballot for Notices of Motions on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates will take place in the House after Questions on Thursday, 30th April.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will continue to bear in mind the need for a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure so that the appropriate changes may be made in our practices for the next and any subsequent Session of this Parliament?
Mr. Butler: The evidence, which is somewhat voluminous, has not yet been published. I think it important that we should have the evidence available before we have a debate, although I realise the importance of such a discussion
Mr. H. Hynd: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a Motion, signed by myself and a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, referring to the necessity

615
for some arrangements being made to enable Parliament to question Ministers about police forces outside the Metropolitan Police area?
[That this House, feeling that it may become desirable from time to time for questions to be raised about the actions of police outside the Metropolitan area, asks the Government to examine this matter with a view to some Minister being authorised to answer such questions.]
Mr. Butler: My attention has been drawn to that Motion. It would not be possible to alter the existing system without further consideration, and possibly legislation. Therefore, I do not think that any immediate step can be taken. The present arrangement is rooted in the local government system of the country. I cannot say any more in answer to the hon. Member, except that I have noted his question.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have it in mind to make a statement at the appropriate time about the progress made with the establishment of the Cypriot State?
Mr. Butler: Naturally, the Government would wish the House to have the whole of the necessary material in its possession. But I do not think that the situation is quite ripe yet for a statement to be made. I will bear in mind what has been said by my hon. Friend.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it might not be desirable and useful to hon. Members on both sides of the House if the Government could find an early opportunity to enable the House to discuss in general terms the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on the reorganisation of the cotton industry, a few minutes ago? Would not it be a good idea to follow past practice in relation to important questions, and have a general debate before the Government commit themselves to definite proposals in a Bill?
Mr. Butler: There have been some exchanges after Question Time which have been noted by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Government. I can give no indication about time for a debate, because it
616
is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill. When that is done it will be possible to consider the matter fully and make use of all the opportunities which the introduction of a Bill provides for making suggestions, amendments, and so forth. That is the present objective of the Government.
Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take serious note of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? Presumably the Measure would be an enabling Bill, which would facilitate help for various schemes within the industry. There was nothing in the statement which the President of the Board of Trade made this afternoon about the schemes which the industry has submitted. Would not it be worth while to consider the publication of a White Paper in advance of the Bill to show, for example, how many mills it is expected to close and what the terms of the compensation will be? It will be impossible to debate the Bill unless we know what schemes the industry are putting forward. Otherwise, we shall have to move Amendments to the Bill to deal with an unknown set of regulations which will be made afterwards. Would it not be helpful to have a White Paper first?
Mr. Butler: The object of the Bill is to help one of the oldest and most important industries in Lancashire and, therefore, any step that we can take to make it easier to help that industry should be investigated.
Mr. Swingler: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the debate on foreign affairs on Monday will be very important and will probably be the last chance afforded to hon. Members to discuss international affairs before the Foreign Ministers' conference on 11th May. As there is likely to be the usual long queue of Privy Councillors who wish to speak, as is the case in most foreign affairs debates, would the Leader of the House sympathetically consider suspending the rule for one hour to give a greater number of back benchers a chance to speak this time?
Mr. Butler: I will consider any request made to me from an hon. Member for such an extension, but I should have to test whether that was the general view.
Mr. Hale: In considering the introduction of an enabling Bill in connection with the cotton industry, will the right hon Gentleman bear in mind that there has been a growing practice recently of drawing the short Title of a Bill with the clear intention of limiting discussion and excluding consideration of a vast number of very important debatable matters affecting that with which the Bill is concerned? In view of the great concern shown at the announcement of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that when the Government's Bill is introduced it will be so drafted as to permit of improvement, amendment and expansion, and not be limited to a policy of contraction?
Mr. Butler: My duty in answering business questions is not to get too entrenched in matters of policy but to make the business of the House go more smoothly. I can only note the point put by the hon. Gentleman and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for the period 1st July, 1957, to 31st December, 1958 (Command Paper No. 684).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
4.10 p.m.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones: This Report is a very interesting one, it is a full one, and it contains much valuable information. But we are not here to eulogise. The field to be covered is so extensive, and the time at our disposal is so limited, that we have to make our choice of topics.
From a personal point of view, I should like to speak about education. There are 30 paragraphs in the Report devoted to education, and only two to the question of the expansion of training facilities for teachers. I must forgo this on this occasion and satisfy myself by giving the Minister appropriate notice that on a future occasion we shall discuss this important matter. Graciously, we give him time to ponder this question and we hope that when we discuss it later we shall find that he had been prepared, also graciously, to meet our wishes.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I can assure the hon. Member that I shall look forward to the debate.
Mr. Jones: With those few introductory words I want to proceed to what we consider to be an important aspect of this Report and review the underlying basis of the economic fabric of Wales and draw the Minister's attention to it. We shall concentrate our attention on the question of employment and the state of agriculture in Wales.
It would be as well if I stated my personal position quite clearly at the beginning. I cannot take the view, and I do not think that any one on these benches takes the view, that Wales is an economic unit, or that the economy of Wales can be separated from that of the rest of Britain. The economic life of Wales has been integrated with the economic life of Britain, as, of course, it should be. Long ago we achieved in Britain what some countries in Western Europe are

619
still trying to achieve, namely, an integrated economic system. We have arrived and these other countries are still on the way.
Nevertheless, Wales and her people, whether they be Welsh-speaking or not, is a national entity. Community life within the geographical area known as Wales has its own identity of cultural interests, and we shall not make headway unless this fact is acknowledged and conceded.
Perhaps I can explain this by comparing the difference in the results of identical phenomena in England and Wales. If there is rural depopulation in England as there is, people move to the towns or industrial centres and there is no loss to England. English life continues. The pattern of her community life may change, but it changes only within England. When rural depopulation takes place in Wales, due very often to the modernisation of agricultural methods, the young people of Wales cross the border to England. They are a loss to Wales and to that extent the community life of Wales is impoverished.
This movement of people is not confined to rural areas. During the inter-war period Wales lost a quarter of a million of her people to other parts of Britain. This splintering of the Welsh nation has been, and still is, a vital threat to the life of a people. Welsh national life must be able to hold itself together within the geographical boundaries of Wales if the nation is to survive. This thesis has been stated time and time again, but I make no apology for saying that it is against that background that I shall discuss the Report before us today.
We are concerned with the economic and cultural life of a people living as a national entity within the boundaries of Wales. As every geographer knows, people live where they can earn a living. Such is the fundamental principle governing the distribution of population. If the people of Wales are to prosper in their own land they must be able to earn their living within the Principality. The whole problem resolves itself into that of employment.
Taking a bird's eye view of Wales. the problem reveals itself in three different ways in three distinct types of country within the Principality. There is industrial Wales based upon the coalfields of
620
South and North-East Wales, as well as a sub-industrial area based on slate and stone quarrying in Caernarvon and Merioneth. In these areas there are dense concentrations of population. Secondly, there are the agricultural areas of better land where there are lesser but more evenly distributed populations, with fair concentrations in the market towns. Finally, there is the type of country where the population is much more sparse. This is in the upper reaches of the river valleys and the hills and upland regions.
Each of these types of regions has its own peculiar problems. What has been the extent of Government action in the industrial areas? What has been the extent of Government action in the agricultural areas? What have the Government done in the upland areas of Wales? These are pertinent questions which we are asking in this debate. May I deal first, with the section of the Report on employment and industrial development. Ninety paragraphs are devoted to this aspect of the problem which touches industrial Wales. The very first paragraph is at once a confession of failure and an expression of hope. I think that that is a fair assessment of it.
We are told:
"In the period under review the adverse changes in employment outweighed the favourable ones…"
I am going to repeat what has been said many times from these benches, that the Government cannot wash their hands of their responsibilities in bringing about these adverse changes in employment. They may deny that they planned these conditions deliberately, but what they cannot deny is that they have been warned of the consequences of their policy. Unfortunately, those consequences have materialised in Wales.
We are told that there is a credit side to the balance sheet and that substantial increases in employment took place in the modern steel and tinplate works. That may be so, but conditions are substantially worse than they need be. We are concerned with the less commendable features of the balance sheet because those features concern the lives and well being of peoples.
Let us examine the Report in a fairly detailed fashion, because my hon. Friends will bring in more details during the

621
course of the debate. We are told that the manufacturing industries showed a drop of 5: per cent, mainly in the older tinplate works, in engineering, textiles, furniture, bricks and patent fuels. That is a very fair list for a country like Wales. I have furniture interests in my division, as well as a brick industry, and both these industries have suffered.
Let us go further. We are told that the mineral industries of coal, slate, granite and lead all showed a fall in employment. That is not a very encouraging catalogue, even at best. In addition, there was less overtime and more short-time employment. In view of all this, what is our indictment? It is that in whatever direction we look, wherever this unemployment is to be seen, or wherever under-employment exists, it was foreseeable in every instance. It was predictable in every instance, yet it was allowed to develop.
Take, for example, the sub-industrial area of North-West Wales, in particular the slate industry of Caernarvon. Has there not been a consistent decline in that industry over the years, and has not that decline assumed serious proportions over the past decade? Has not my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) drawn attention time and time again to this question? Even this week the Minister of Works has refused an inquiry. He said that all that is to be known is already known. If so, I suggest he is the only one who knows it. He hides behind the suggestion that industries are being introduced into the district. We have waited seven years for the Government to introduce anything tangible in that part of North Wales.
Turning to the industrial areas of South Wales. we are told that the scale of unemployment is due in the main to technological changes. That may be so, but technological changes do not take place in a day. Such changes have to be planned, thought out and implemented. Such changes are not a bolt from the blue, nor due to world causes. They involve planning and that period of planning gives plenty of time to work out schemes to absorb both labour and capital rendered redundant.
We are told that there are contributory factors such as the cuts in the defence programme. I am not going to argue against cuts in the defence programme.
622
In a sane world the defence programme shpuld be very low indeed. We are paying the price for our insanity. Yet the fact remains that even cuts in the defence programme were Government decisions and policy. The Government knew what they were doing. They knew the effect there would be on the employment situation. They knew there would be redundancy. The whole position was predictable. What alternative plans were there so that factory space and labour force rendered redundant could be reemployed?
This redundancy is distilled into all grades of employment, the able-bodied, the disabled and even youth and children leaving school. In paragraph 44 of the Report we read:
"Towards the end of 1957 it became more difficult to re-settle disabled persons, and from July, 1957, the number of unemployed registered disabled persons increased by 1,216 to a total of 5,561 in December, 1958."
What is true of Britain generally is applicable also to Wales. These disabled persons made a worthy contribution to the so-called strengthening of the £. Yet there is little evidence that they were remembered on the great day when the Budget was opened recently by the Chancellor. For all we know to the contrary, their silent penury goes on. To be unemployed is a tragedy to the home. To be unemployed and disabled is a double tragedy. Tragedy is personal; it is individual and must be borne by individuals. I suggest that it is little comfort to the disabled unemployed to read nothing but percentages and figures in a Report of this kind.
I referred to the question of youth and school-leavers. I am bound to say that this section of the Report is the most disappointing of all. Only three short paragraphs in a very full Report are devoted to this all-important question of employment of youth and school-leavers, and of those three paragraphs two are mere statements of fact. The first says that because there is more unemployment it is difficult to find employment for school-leavers. That is a gem. The third paragraph says that as employment vacancies decreased
"unemployment tended to become more prolonged."
Even Euclid never proved his proposition more convincingly. It is very difficult to find a better example of elaborating

623
the obvious. There remains one paragraph in which we are told what is belg done:
"…Youth Employment Committees pursued ways and means of stimulating the interest of the employers in Wales and in the Report of the Carr Committee on 'Training for Skill'."
Before examining that statement, I state again that the general indictment still holds. This situation was also predictable. It was clear years ago that the bulge then in the schools would, in due course, enter the labour market. It was calculable to a high degree of factual accuracy.
I do not say that the Government did not foresee the emergence of the bulge to the labour market, but I do say that the Government failed to see that the entry of the bulge to the labour market would coincide with the consequences of their own economic policies. Less than three years ago the entry of this additional labour supply was considered as something which would help to overcome the labour shortage. It was considered as a labour force windfall, something to make full use of and take maximum advantage of because of the decline in our labour resources. That was the purpose of the Carr Committee. It was not set up to find employment for youth. Employment was broadly taken for granted. The task of the Committee was to make full use of youth in employment.
The economic policy of the Government has gone awry and as a result the labour force presented by the bulge cannot be absorbed. That is why the Carr Committee Report is, in this context, completely irrelevant, extremely valuable though it may be in other directions. The fact is that the percentage of unemployed among young people in Wales has been about double that for Great Britain as a whole. The answer is that more employment must be made available for youth within the Principality itself and something must be done immediately because the full effect of the bulge has not yet been felt.
here was twice the number of youth unemployed in December last as in December, 1957. At this rate what will be the situation in 1962? True, the Government have begun to recruit additional youth employment officers, but that will avail little if the jobs are not there. Here
624
is a wealth of young human material, the greatest treasure any nation can possess, but what do we see? Boys and girls leaving school are unable to find interesting and suitable employment, a fact which will warp, if it will not destroy, the life pattern of these unfortunate youngsters. Instead of being provided with employment at the most formative period of their lives, they are allowed to drift. It is too much to expect to build a strong nation on a drifting youth. It is too much to expect youth not to drift if we fail to provide them with firm economic anchorage.
I wish to deal briefly with the second type of problem, that of the agricultural areas of Wales. I refer now to the agricultural areas of the better lands of which Anglesey, Caernarvon and parts of Merioneth are good examples among others in the Principality. In one respect the cause of the adverse employment situation is similar to that obtaining in the industrial areas—it is due to modernisation of methods. Thanks to mechanisation, farming output is on the increase. As the Report states, in paragraph 152:
"the continued rise in net output has been achieved with a labour force in Wales which has fallen by 20 per cent. in the last ten years —a striking indication of the increase in efficiency that has been achieved."
That is perfectly true, but the problem of the 20 per cent. remains. The labour market for agricultural workers has shrunk by 20 per cent. in ten years and there is little doubt that this will continue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) has said many times, the percentage of unemployed in Anglesey is 12 per cent. In Caernarvon, as my hon. Friend the Member for that constituency has said more than once, it is 9 per cent. There is no solution to this problem along the lines of agriculture, but there is hardly an advantage when we have an expanding cattle population and a diminishing human population, when increased milk, butter and cattle output move in harmony with increased unemployment.
I am tempted to quote:
"Cars and lorries, tractors and ploughs
Have come at last to the world of cows.
The cattle do thrive and the milk does flow:
Machines have come and men have to go".

625
Welcome the advantages; we want to wipe away the disadvantages.
This question has been raised again and again. It has been ventilated by hon. Members from this part of Wales from every possible angle. Yet, year after year has gone by and, while we welcome the recent decision of the Minister to build one of the advance factories in Anglesey, we repeat that areas such as North-West Wales should have been scheduled years ago so that the Development of Industry Act, 1945, could be implemented there to the full and community life sustained and strengthened.
Finally, there is the third type of area to which I have already referred, a type different from the other two, which poses a problem of its own and demands a solution of its own. I refer to the more sparsely populated areas of the upper river valleys, of the hills and the uplands, to areas such as Radnor and Brecon and the central part of Wales. There, farms are in severe isolation. There are fair concentrations of population in the villages and rural towns on the valley floors. There rural depopulation is at its worst. It is there that we find schools closed for lack of pupils. I put in a word here in favour of the rural child. He has plenty of disadvantages because he lives in the country. If there are educational advantages to be obtained, let him have them.
The chapter on Rural Wales is very disappointing, if the Minister will forgive me for saying so.
Mr. George Thomas: Forgive you? It is your duty to say it.
Mr. Jones: I am always gracious to people who cannot agree with me.
There is one confession to which I want the House to listen. The Report states:
"Inevitably, the effect of the financial restrictions "—
due to Government policy—
"that have been in force has been felt in the agricultural field, as in other sections of the economy."
I am sorry to say that the whole chapter shows a pathetic lack of drive. If hon. Members read that chapter they will agree with my observations. The dead hand of despair is much more evident than the living fist ready to deliver its punch.
I have always held, and I have argued so in the House, that the solution can
626
be found only by resuscitating the old, well-established villages and towns in this part of Wales, and this can be done only by introducing suitable industries. Up to the second part of the nineteenth century these centres hummed with activity, both economic and cultural. There was equilibrium between the economy of the farm of the hills and the simple crafts of the valley communities—the craft of the smith, the carpenter, the tailor, the weaver, the shoemaker and the cobbler. Those crafts have disappeared and many of the people have left.
A vacuum was created, and that vacuum has never been filled. If we examine the map, however, we shall find that all is not lost, for these small villages and rural towns are on the periphery of the forests, now beginning to yield their timber. New housing estates will have to be built for the forestry workers. These should be built in or near to villages or towns long established. New industries meeting rural requirements, and some of them ancillary to afforestation, should also be established near these centres of population to bring variety of occupation and to add to the richness and attractiveness of community life.
True, according to the Report a few small factories have been introduced. It is equally true, I am sorry to say, according to the Report, that some of these factories have been killed, not by the people there but by the Government's economic policies. In paragraph 479, we read chapter and verse:
"Unfortunately, the adverse economic climate of the period under review caused the failure of a few small factories…"
There is the answer.
The economy must be planned. I have a feeling that we are dealing with the problem in bits and pieces through a multiplicity of councils, committees and associations. A Welsh Board of Industry after the Scottish pattern might help to find an answer. In any case, if private industry cannot be persuaded, we shall have to fall back upon other means and upon other methods, because we cannot stand by and watch this part of Wales die before our very eyes.
Nothing short of an economic plan, comprehensive in scope and in character, will meet the needs of the immediate future. We must concentrate on the three different types of areas to the advantage

627
of all three and to the neglect of none. Such are the economic foundations of a nation rich and varied in resources but richer and more varied still in her cultural life and her social pursuits. We need economic politics.
"Political economy
May not be all it claims to be:
But still it does show up the tricks
Of uneconomic politics."
4.40 p.m.
Mr. David Llewellyn: For many years I used to stare at a text on a school wall which ran:
"He may begin his work today, but God knows when he'll end."
I have sometimes thought of that in the House, but never when the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. ldwal Jones) has been speaking. He is a scholar representing a constituency with scholarly traditions. His historical atlases, which he gave us only in the briefest outline this afternoon, are supreme in their field. For all that, I cannot undertake to follow him along every contour of his speech, but I congratulate him on correcting the prose of many lines in the Report, at one moment by translating it into poetry, and on maintaining, if I may say so, a high standard of political good will and sound feeling on many matters which are dear to his heart.
There is a wish among many hon. Members that the debate should be confined to industry and agriculture and so to avoid the diffuseness which has characterised some earlier debates. Yet this Report covers the whole range of development in Wales, and part of the value of "Welsh day" in the House is that every Government Department and agency in Wales ought to approach it, as I do, in a state of healthy apprehension. At the same time, we must always try to get our priorities right, if only as an example to outside bodies.
It is inevitable and right that unemployment, especially where its incidence is heaviest and the problems are most intractable, should be foremost in our minds today, yet it should not blind us to the fact that in Wales as a whole, during the period of this Report, as can be seen in paragraph 54 of the Report, 96 out of every 100 employees were at work. To paint Wales as a vast depressed area would be to fly in the
628
teeth of the facts without helping the pockets of misery which exist and which the hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned.
To suggest that nothing has been done to help our worst-hit areas would be to ignore the measures taken to counter unemployment, which are referred to mainly in paragraph 55 and with the detail of which I will not weary the House. I was very glad that the hon. Member for Wrexham did not say—indeed, he is much too intelligent to suggest it—that the Tory Governments which have ruled this country over the last seven-and-a-half years have deliberately worked to produce unemployment. That would be quite untrue. If any Government worked for unemployment it would be not only wicked, but also very foolish, because, clearly, the electoral chances of any such Government would be gravely endangered by such an action.
There should not go out from the House today the false impression that Wales is a land of despair, for she is a land of expansion and opportunity. From Llanwern to Trawsfynydd, from Milford Haven to Tryweryn, she is a land of exciting new projects, and though we must never he blind to unemployment, wherever it exists, it would be a mistaken kindness to give a false impression of Wales to potential bringers of new industry.
The Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire has made a number of criticisms of the Government's employment policies which merit some attention in detail. First, there is a complaint of the fact that some local authorities show a reluctance to make available houses for key workers, and that is a very serious matter indeed. Secondly, the Treasury is accused of dilatory decisions on applications for extensions to Government premises. Thirdly. the suggestion is made that rentals charged for Government factories
"inhibit the development of existing industries and the introduction of new."
Fourthly, the criticism is made that
"more encouragement should be given by local authorities, the planning authority and other departments"
to expansion. The Memorandum states:
"It is essential that the time lag between the presentation of a detailed case for an extension and a decision thereon should be reduced to the minimum."

629
It is always easy to make charges of a general character, but I hardly think that the Industrial Association would have made these lightly, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that each of these matters could suitably be referred to the Economic Committee of the Conference of the Heads of Government Departments.
I should also be grateful if, in due course, my right hon. Friend could tell the House what the position now is between the South Wales ports and the British Transport Commission, Docks Division, concerning new railway rates. Last February a statement was made to this effect:
"In continuation of the British Transport Commission's policy to assist in the development of trade through the South Wales ports, it has been decided that as from 1st May, 1959, British Railways will introduce a system of new rates for merchandise (with certain exceptions) through the ports of Newport, Cardiff, Barry, Swansea and Port Talbot, inclusive of rail conveyance from wagons (exports). Transit shed services shipping from quay to vessel or receiving from vessel to quay, will continue to he excluded from the railway rate."
Since that statement various rumours have been current that a state of near deadlock has once again been reached. This matter has been troubling the hon. Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and myself for so long that a further delay at this stage would be a matter of great damage to Cardiff and of great vexation to us all.
There is a further and final reference which I wish to make to the Memorandum of the Industrial Association. It states:
"The Association, in welcoming the recent measures taken by the Government which have subsequently resulted in this decrease—
that is, of unemployment—
"expresses the hope that there will be no diminution of effort in reviewing what further inducements are desirable to enable industry to offer more opportunities for increased employment in this area."
The point to which I think the House should turn its attention today is, what further inducements are necessary? The hon. Member for Wrexham said at one time that something must be done immediately. Later, he said that the economy must be planned. He also said
630
that there must be other methods, without defining what they should be. The question which we must face is whether any methods of inducement can bring new works to our worst-hit areas with sufficient speed and in sufficient strength. I read a brief report in the Manchester Guardian during the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to South-West Wales which suggested, at any rate to me, that it was his opinion that the problems of unemployment in South Wales could be cured only by direction of industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I should like to say something about it, because this is a course of action which clearly commands a measure of sympathy among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would ask them to consider two possible disadvantages of that course. First, that it might give the impression that Wales is a country to which new industry would only go under direction; and, secondly, I must remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that the direction of industry is, in part, an euphemism for the direction of management and skilled technicians, that is, of labour.
It ought to be made crystal clear, in my view, whether the Labour Party embraces as its official policy—not unofficially, as a good idea, as something that may or must be done, but as its official policy—that it is in the interests of Wales that there should be positive State direction of industry to the worst-hit parts of Wales.
Frankly, I do not feel that this is any time for stifling criticism of the Government. Had I thought that. I should have held back, I would hardly have quoted a such length what the Industrial Association has to say. Equally, it is no time for secret remedies to be held up political sleeves until they can be conveniently produced. Frankly, that is why I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) is to intervene in the debate, because if he is not always right he is always forthright, and I do not believe that he will in any way shirk the issue which I have placed before him. I hope that he will tell us in precise terms what more or what else the Government should attempt, and, indeed, whether his party is committed or not to the positive State direction of industry to Wales.

631
Whatever views may divide us on that or anything else, I am sure that the whole House welcomes the setting-up of a Development Corporation for Wales, which was inspired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs and the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs. As soon as Sir Miles Thomas became its chairman, I wrote to him congratulating him, and including among the congratulations the request that he would do something as quickly as possible for the Royal Ordnance Factory at Llanishen, which is another matter which has concerned all three hon. Members for Cardiff. It would have been so easy for him to say that this was a matter for the Minister of Supply, and that I should go to see him. Instead, Sir Miles accepted this at once as within his sphere of interest.
These are early days in the Development Corporation's life, but there are two matters of importance in Wales about which the House would like to hear a progress report. First, I think we should like to know what progress has been made by the Development Corporation in the research which it has ordered to blow sky-high, once and for all, the falsehood that labour in Wales is unduly prone to strike, for the exact opposite is the truth. I hope very much that the results of the inquiry into that matter will be published as soon as possible, because it must influence the climate of industrial opinion.
Secondly, I should like to hear what progress has been made as a result of the creation by the Corporation of an office in New York, and when that enterprise bears fruit in Wales I hope that we will not hear complaints of "dollar imperialism" and the rest. I am sure that Welshmen and Wales are equally in the debt of the trade union movement in this matter, for it could have kept aloof from the Development Corporation, if it had wished to do so, but has shown instead, a deep understanding of its work and purpose.
I believe that this Corporation could, in time, become not only the bringer of work to Wales, but could bring about a great improvement in the industrial, social, and, indeed, the cultural life of Wales, for its articles of association are most widely and imaginatively drawn. With all the vast development under way and planned in Wales, we may well be at
632
the dawn of a golden age for our country, but such is the spirit of Welshmen that it will not be golden so long as there is left one valley of despair.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. W. E. Padley: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) is as adept at drawing red herrings across the path as the "Junior Member for Treorchy", who writes in the Press of South Wales. No doubt he challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) to follow that series of red herrings in an attempt to obscure the point that, of all the annual reports on Government action in Wales that have ever been published, this is demonstrably the worst, when looked at from the standpoint of industry and employment.
When the hon. Member sought to suggest tentative remedies for attracting industry to Wales, he showed a total lack of understanding of what the problem in Wales is, as well as of the remedies to be applied. The fact of the matter is that in Wales, as Lord Kilmuir said not many days ago, a new industrial revolution is taking place. There is the reorganisation of the two great basic industries of South Wales—steel and coal —and everyone knows that these reorganisations will lead to employment problems. Economists call it structural unemployment, but what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and the members of the Government do not appear to realise is that the problem of structural unemployment cannot be solved except in an economic climate of expansion. In other words, if the problem of general unemployment is not solved, the chances of solving the problem of structural unemployment in Wales are very few.
I referred unkindly to this document. The Report refers to the closure of two pits, sited in the Aberavon constituency, which employed 760 men some of whom live in my constituency, and of two advance factories in Maesteg, built by the Labour Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Angelsey (Mr. C. Hughes) will not be too hopeful about the mere erection of an advance factory, because it will require intelligent economic policies if tenants are to be

633
found. In addition to the two pits and the two idle factories referred to, there is the closure, which we expected, of the coke oven works at Tondu, as part of the revolution which is taking place in the South Wales coal industry.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North challenged us to say what the policy of the Labour Party is, but, surely, it is superfluous for him to do that. In this matter, as in many others, actions speak louder than words, and the record of the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951 shows that the negative power of control, the effective use of the weapon of the industrial development certificate, in a climate of economic expansion can in fact deliver the goods.
Certainly, in my own constituency, it provided new jobs for between 5,000 and 6,000 of my constituents, and I have no reason to believe that the return of a Labour Government, bringing with it a change in policy and a real desire to use economic controls and the industrial development certificate in a climate of general economic expansion, would not have similar beneficial results.
Mr. Llewellyn: I am following the hon. Member's theme with great interest. Does he say, in effect, that the weapons already possessed by the Government are sufficient to cure unemployment in the really bad areas of Wales?
Mr. Padley: I say that during the last four or five years the Government have not used the weapons at their disposal. If the hon. Gentleman will study the replies given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on new factory building in the Development Areas—in Wales, in particular—in contrast to the South-East of England and London and the industrial Midlands, he will see that during those four or five years the Government have not used the weapons they have to hand.
Further, I say that if those weapons proved ineffective I would use other weapons. As a Socialist, I should not oppose—indeed, I should energetically support—proposals to establish publicly-owned industries in those remote parts of Wales to which private industrialists might not be attracted. Taking the longterm view, that is probably part of the solution of the problems existing in far Wrest Wales and North-West Wales.
634
I turn now to the problems of the coal industry. As I have already said, two pits involving my constituency have been the subject of panic closures. Let hon. Members remember that if the sunshine talk of the Tory Party at the last General Election had proved right, if the Home Secretary's confident prediction that industrial production would rise 3½ per cent. each year had been fulfilled, then, after four years, the demand for fuel of all kinds would now amount to a coal equivalent of 15 million or 16 million tons more than are now required.
It is, therefore, quite clear that no matter how serious may be the competition from oil and nuclear power, the panic closure of pits, and the consequent unemployment of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams), would not have been necessary. The panic closure of pits was the result of the inability of the Government to pursue policies of full employment and economic expansion leading to an annual growth in the output of the British industrial system.
This, again, illustrates the fact that, unless there is a general climate of expansion and full employment, one cannot hope to carry through structural changes in great industries without causing unemployment. Everyone in South Wales, and certainly those connected with the coal industry, realised that following nationalisation there would be reorganisation and long-term planning involving the closure of pits, but it was expected that this would be done on a planned basis, and that displaced men would be reabsorbed either in existing pits or in new ones to be sunk.
For example, under the long-term plan, the closure of pits on the edge of my own constituency was accompanied by a proposal to sink a new pit at Margam, close to the Margam steel works. That proposal seems now to have been abandoned. In addition, it was part of the long-term plan of the Labour Governments of 1945–51 that there should be a conscious provision of new industries in those parts of the coalfield where planned closures would otherwise lead to redundancy and unemployment.
I therefore tell the Minister that, as a result of their bankrupt economic policy,

635
the Government stand condemned of inflicting substantial suffering on large numbers of Welsh men and women. Wales has 28 Labour Members out of a possible 36. If the Minister for Welsh Affairs wishes to do his duty he should go to his colleague the Prime Minister and urge him to go to the country at once, so that we can have a Labour majority in the House and the present number of 28 Welsh Labour Members can be increased to 36.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thomas: I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) has said about the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones). I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune in being chosen to open this debate. He spoke in the moderate way that we expect of him, though he was somewhat selective in his references to the Report.
Perhaps I should mention that the hon. Gentleman was given his task today by the Welsh Parliamentary Party. He continually referred to "we", but it should be known that he was then talking about the members of the Welsh Parliamentary Party on the opposite side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Twenty-eight."] Yes, 28, and within possibly another year I think that that number will have considerably decreased.
Listening to the hon. Member for Wrexham and his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), I wondered what impression they gave about the Principality. I think that the general impression would be that Wales is a distressed and depressed area, with very little hope, a country in which an industrialist would be a fool to place any confidence. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North said. It is doing no justice to Wales, and offering no help to her, continually to emphasise the depressing features.
It is right, of course, that hon. Members opposite should probe matters of which they complain. It is right that we should discuss today that part of the Report dealing with unemployment, as that is a matter of importance to us all. I submit, however, that it is not right just to forget the other things. If one is to paint a picture of Wales one's duty
636
as a Welshman is to paint a fair and objective picture.
The hon. Member for Ogmore was perfectly right when he said that Wales was going through a great economic transformation—I think that he was referring to what my noble Friend Lord Kilmuir said in Cardiff quite recently. It is quite true. No other area of Britain has had such an economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution. Unemployment in Wales today is not the type of unemployment that we had between the wars, which was unemployment caused by a recession in our two great basic industries. Today, the unemployment in Wales is due mainly to adjustment, to progress, and a change-over from the old-established industries to the new. In this exciting new period of transformation which we have been going through over the last few years, we are reaching—in fact, we have already reached—an overall prosperity that we have never known before. Also, in Wales there are new opportunities which were not there before.
It is only right, in a debate of this sort. that at least one hon. Member should mention some of these things. The hon Member for Ogmore talked about the coal industry. As we know, there have been great technological changes, not only in the coal industry, but also in the iron and steel industry, which is the other great basic industry of Wales. There has been a reorganisation of the coal industry in Wales costing millions of pounds, and new modern collieries are now replacing some of the old uneconomic pits.
The same is true in the iron and steel industry. There have been similar transformations. Wales has the biggest blast furnace and the most modern steel works in Europe. We have the most progressive tinplate industry in the world. There have been transformations in Wales in the last few years in the production of power. I do not mean just in gas and electricity, though there have been great strides forward in those two methods of producing power. I mean in petroleum and soon in nuclear power.
There has been, as the hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned, an infusion of new industries in Wales. It interests me that hon. Gentlemen opposite all the time take credit for the 1945 Act. The 1945

637
Act, as hon. Members opposite know only too well—but it should be mentioned again—was introduced in the House by the Coalition Government. I think that it became an Act at the time of the Caretaker Government. Hon. Members opposite had the use of that Act at a time when industry was crying out for the opportunity to go to places and when there was a tremendous opportunity for people to set up industry. It is very different today.
Since the war, approximately 400 new industries have come to Wales. I agree that many of them came under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. They have played a great part in the new situation that obtains in Wales. They have infused a variety into our industrial life which is part of the strength that we have at present. Up to last year 44 million square feet of industrial building had been approved in Wales since the war. It is interesting to note that out of that 44 million square feet, 36 million was privately financed. That shows the faith that private industry has shown in Wales.
That means that Wales today is no longer a nation dependent on two main industries. We have been given new opportunities for new and varying jobs. In particular, since the war there have been jobs for women, which is quite new in the life of Wales. Compared with 1948, 57,000 more people in Wales are employed in manufacturing industries. There are greater and wider opportunities for all of us, and we are still on the threshold of greater things to come.
The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned that when there are these great changes then, obviously, there must be an upheaval and disturbance. That is so. We have felt that greatly. The hon. Member for Wrexham said that this upheaval and disturbance should be predictable and that one should have been able to plan for it. I was surprised to hear him say that, because one of our problems of late has been the closure of the old hand tinplate works in West South Wales. It must have been obvious to anyone at the time that the first continuous strip mill was opened that, if there are to be strip mills, the old hand mills would have to be closed.
One would have thought that planning for this would have gone on long before the Conservatives came to office in 1951,
638
but the fact was that many hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that, because of the great demand for tinplate in the world, the two new mills in Trostre and Velindre could work hand in glove and side by side for several more years with some of the old hand mills. It was because the world demand for tinplate fell suddenly that the present situation arose and many experts were taken by surprise.
Listening to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it appears to me that what they have been doing today is not debating Welsh affairs, but debating economic affairs. The speeches which have been delivered could properly have been delivered in a debate on the general economic situation for the whole of Britain.
Mr. Padley: And the hon. Gentleman's own speech.
Mr. Thomas: Both hon. Members opposite have condemned what happened in September, 1957, when there was the credit squeeze and when certain measures were taken to combat inflation. I do not think that it would be proper for me to enter into that argument. I think that, if those measures had not been taken and if the Government had not conducted and succeeded in a determined economic policy to combat inflation there would be far greater unemployment in Wales at present. That is a matter of argument between the parties which probably will never be resolved in a debate of this sort.
Unfortunately, a very difficult situation arose in West South Wales, but there is great hope for the future. It is all very well to play around with figures and percentages. I agree with whoever said that the only thing that statistics support is statisticians. One can always change figures around to suit one's argument.
The position now is that in West South Wales, these old hand tinplate factories having closed down, projects are already afoot to provide 5,000 new jobs. We heard the hon. Member for Wrexham indicting the Government. If he wished to be perfectly fair, he should have mentioned some of the things which the Government and Government agencies have done in areas such as that. Why are hon. Gentlemen opposite reluctant to mention, for instance, the new factory to he built at Swansea for Pressed Steel, at a cost of £2 million?
Mr. Percy Morris: Even that detail in the hon. Member's speech is not correct. The factory is not being built at Swansea.
Mr. Thomas: It is to be built near Swansea. I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) will not in future interrupt me on a small matter like that. The new factory to be built near Swansea for Pressed Steel at a cost of £2 million will be the largest engineering workshop in Wales. It will assist local industry by consuming large quantities of locally produced steel. As the hon. Member for Swansea, West knows, it will be the largest factory ever financed by any Government in a Development Area.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Swansea, West thinks that that will be a good contribution to his locality. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that, in introducing and assisting to introduce that scheme and other similar schemes in the area, the Government have done something. I am sure that he will not subscribe to his hon. Friend's condemnation. His hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore indicted the Government and the Government agencies for doing absolutely nothing in this extremely difficult matter.
In Wales at present there are 47 industrial projects under construction. They will provide, when they are ready, for a further 9,000 jobs. That does not include the new strip mill in Newport, and no one has mentioned that on the benches opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have not had the chance yet."] Neither of the hon. Members who spoke referred to it. This new strip mill in Newport, as hon. Gentlemen who represent that area may wish to tell the House very soon, is to cost £100 million, and out of that the Government—I should say the State, that is to say, the taxpayers from all over Britain—will advance £60 million.
Those things, in my submission, present a much more accurate view of the overall position in Wales. The foundations have been strongly built. We are hoping to move further and further forward into a new era of progress and opportunity. Wales has been transformed and is still in the process of transformation. It is a country worth going to. Industrialists who wish to do well should be able to find opportunities there. I shall laud
640
Wales to the skies and not continually denigrate its opportunities for people outside.
The hon. Member for Wrexham very properly referred to the position in North-West Wales. This, of course, is a matter of direct interest to me. There is an extremely difficult situation there which appears at the moment to be not capable of quick solution. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) knows that there are, at the moment, one or two encouraging signs in the area. Progress will take time. One cannot suddenly build factories. It is hoped that there will be a large chemical factory at Glynllifon Park, but it cannot be built overnight. It is hoped that it will employ many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) who really need employment in that area. There is a factory soon to be built at Penygroes, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that will assist in another very difficult part of his constituency. In my constituency, on the eastern side, the Hotpoint Company is enlarging its premises and it is hoped that several hundred more people will be employed there by the time the work is finished. The Aluminium Corporation's works, in the Vale of Conway, is increasing, also, and it is hoped that there will he extra employment there.
These things cannot happen overnight, but there is a move in the right direction and we hope that soon there will be a real alleviation of present difficulties. I should not like to suggest that all that needs to be done has been done. But much is being done. Continually, people are doing everything possible to attract industry into the area, short of the direction of industry, and that I would never support. Local authorities, Members of Parliament, Departments of State and Ministers are doing all they can. The Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, Lord Brecon, has himself been most assiduous, I am delighted to say, in what he has done to try to attract industry to the area, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs has, too.
One cannot force industry to go there. I have found that people are somewhat loth to go much farther west than the Conway River. One can encourage people to come—they are interested at the moment in coming—to Llandudno

641
Junction and the area around there, but they are not particularly interested in going much farther west. That reluctance must be broken down.
There has been a decline in the slate industry for many years. It is a great problem, because slate is the one basic industry in the area. It has played a great part in the history of the community, and the people who work in the slate quarries have played a great part in its social life. It is always sad to see a great industry like that declining. I hope that it will not decline much more. I am told that nowadays most of its production is concerned with the repair of existing roofs. It is quite obvious that new markets will have to be found for the product if the industry is to have any hope of real survival.
It is easy to say. "What are the Government doing about it". Hon. Members will agree that it is not easy for any Government to discriminate in matters like this. No man who works in a tile factory, which may be in oppositon to slate, will be grateful to any Government discriminating in favour of slate and throwing him out of a job. It is extremely difficult for any Government to take a too-active part in favour of a particular industry which is in active opposite to another.
I am myself most grateful for what my right hon. Friend did in this matter. He said to the English local authorities as well as to the Welsh local authorities that, if they cared to use slate on their roofs, they could do so with his blessing and financial backing. I do not know what the effect of that has been. Whether they have reacted, whether they have taken him up and are ordering slate, is not at the moment apparent, but at least it shows that the Government are anxious to do what they properly can.
There is something which can be done. I mention it to my right hon. Friend in this debate because it has only just been brought to my notice. I should like the Government to pay particular attention to the possible restriction and prohibition of the import of foreign roofing materials. I have been told. for instance that there; s at present a considerable extension being undertaken at Catterick Camp in Yorkshire. The Bethesda slate quarries asked whether they could have the roofing work, but were told that the
642
contract had been given to a firm which was using foreign tiles.
It seems to me that this is a matter in which the Government can act. Public buildings, buildings where Government money is being used, should be roofed with materials from within our own shores. I know the difficulties in restricting trade when one has trading arrangements with other countries, but in this case not only is the material which is to be used of foreign origin but it is competitive with the slate industry, which is in urgent need of assistance. I hope that this is something which can still be stopped and that an order can be given for the roofs to be slated with material produced in this country.
I had hoped to say something about the 1948 Distribution of Industry Act, which 1 think, when some of the attitudes of D.A.T.A.C. are resolved, will be of tremendous assistance to North-West Wales, but at a meeting of the Welsh Parliamentary Party the other day we were rather dragooned. being in a minority on this side of the House, into agreeing not to speak at length. I do not, therefore, wish to say much more. I will merely remind the House that. during the last eighteen months, the general economic climate has been less favourable to large-scale expansion of production than it has in recent years. Therefore, the scope of attracting new industry to Wales has been less favourable.
Today, I think that we can confidently look forward to a new period of expansion and an upsurge in business activity. Industrial foundations in Wales are sound, and if certain types of new industry can be established in parts of Wales. such as North-West Wales, then the prognosis for the future is good.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: I will attempt to be as brief as possible, because I know that a number of my hon. Friends desire to give their views on matters affecting Wales.
The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) said that the speeches of my hon. Friends could be applied to problems that affected not merely the Principality but the whole country. If my hon. Friends had dealt with the matter in the manner which he indicated, he

643
would not have had a basis for his own speech. I think that for most of the time that the hon. Member spoke he attempted to do the impossible. He attempted to paint the rainbow. He attempted to hang on the rainbow the colours of the Conservative Party and to give the Conservative Party the credit for warning or informing the Principality that, although the rainbow colours itself, with the additional colours of the Conservative Party attached to it Wales would never suffer from the severity of the flood or deluge in future.
We must not only look at the rainbow; we must look to where the rainbow ends. In South Wales, the rainbow ends right down in the pit, within the shadows of our narrow valleys. While the eyes of the hon. Member for Conway were fixed to the stars and to the rainbow, he probably deliberately refrained from looking down from his giddy height to the depths of the valley, because he would have been greatly disturbed by the situation that prevails there at present.
I agree that in the Minister's Report there are positive proposals which are calculated to benefit the community in the years to come. It has been often summarised in this House as "jam tomorrow". The hon. Member for Conway referred to the Pressed Steel works which is to be built near Swansea and to the proposed steel works at Newport. I think that he was amiss when he refrained from mentioning also the developments at Milford Haven. The three or four industries which have been referred to are on the rim of the coal basin, and between these extreme points of prospective development there lies a vast area that is at present suffering from a high incidence of unemployment. It is on these areas that I want to concentrate my remarks.
The real stubborn problem at present does not require what Viscount Montgomery would call the American approach on the wide front. We should consider the narrower approach and telescope our points of view into the most stubborn problems. A very high incidence of unemployment still exists in those areas which suffered from a high incidence of unemployment during the 'thirties. This problem is a challenge to any Government, whether Conservative or Labour. While we wait for the
644
developments that have been indicated in the industries mentioned, a very bold policy is required to meet the present unemployment. In particular, we should look forward and anticipate what will be the effects of the trends now manifesting themselves in the coal industry.
I think that we are all acquainted with the contraction of the mining industry. We know that the Minister of Power, in conjunction with the National Coal Board, in the early part of this year announced plans for 1959. Undoubtedly, between now and the end of this year—somewhere about October—the National Coal Board, the Minister of Power and other Government Departments will have to get together to consider the extent of the contraction of manpower in the coal industry and, more important, where it will take place.
I want to give an example of what may be anticipated to become a common experience within the basin of the South Wales coalfields. I should like here to refer to my own constituency. I could give many statistics to show that, in comparison with Great Britain, the Rhondda. which was the most severely hit area in South Wales in the 'thirties, has held that position throughout the last ten years. Whereas the figure of unemployment in Great Britain is 2.4, in Wales it is 4-1. In 1958 it was 6.1. The percentage of unemployment for this former depressed area on 9th March was nearly 10 per cent. I understand that since then there has been a slight improvement and that unemployment is now settling down to the figure of 8 per cent. Within that figure lies the core of the problem as it affects the Rhondda and its neighbouring constituencies.
In December, 1958, total unemployment in the Rhondda was 1,994. Of that figure, 747 males and 423 females, or about 60 per cent. of the total, have been out of work for over three months. Forty-three per cent. of them have been out of work for over six months. In view of the possible contraction of manpower in the industry and in view of the anticipated closures of pits, the Minister should admit that if this takes place it is bound to result in a very depressing state of affairs.
Because the recessions of the past, including those of the recent past, have been due largely to economic causes,

645
such as, for example, the changing pattern of the economy, I anticipate that these will have a very short-term influence upon the position of the coal trade. The greatest potential impact upon it, however, is from the emergence of the new fuel and power agencies now being delivered to us by the backroom boys. Therefore, in looking ahead, not to the remote future but over, say, the next ten years, the emergence of these new technological forces inevitably will have a severe impact upon the coal trade, as a result of which many of our existing problems will become more stubborn.
I implore the Minister to have the closest consultations with his noble Friend the Minister of Power and with the Coal Board, so that, if we are to have this inevitable contraction, adequate preparations will be made to deal with it in the formulation of the Government's plan for 1960. We have had a semi-assurance from the Minister of Power that the 1959 plan remains but that the plan for 1960 has not yet been finalised.
I know that the Minister has an intimate knowledge of the South Wales valleys, and especially the coal valleys. In his early days, he served a form of apprenticeship at the Maes-yr-haf, in my constituency. Therefore, there rests upon him as Minister for Wales a grave responsibility to bring his influence to bear upon the Coal Board and upon his noble Friend the Minister of Power that when they determine where the contraction takes place, they shall not be influenced merely by economic or technological considerations, but will throw into the balance the social considerations also.
These valleys in South Wales have already suffered from the closure of pits. As Minister for Wales, the right hon. Gentleman must accept his responsibility to ensure that if the closures and contraction in manpower are inevitable, they must be so phased as to cause the minimum disturbance to these social communities in South Wales who, for the past twenty or thirty years, have never come up completely from the shadows of unemployment, the fears of which are stalking the valleys again. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will do all he can to avoid an unfortunate situation developing and that we will go forward to 1960 with his assurance that these considerations will be borne in mind.
5.44 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: I endorse what has been said by most previous speakers about the reasonable and friendly manner in which the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) initiated this debate. He commenced by dealing with the industrial problems and he concluded his remarks with some references to the agriculture of Wales. It is about the latter subject that I should like to say a few words.
As the hon. Member will appreciate, successive Governments, have, by their policies, recognised that Welsh agriculture has a number of special and particular problems. Despite those problems, however. and because of the manner in which successive Governments have treated them, it is true to say that any impartial witness today would be impressed by the progress of agriculture in the Principality, sometimes under difficult conditions.
Indeed, many hon. Members, like myself, were rather surprised when they saw the livestock population figure for Wales up to June of last year and discovered that it was 27 per cent. above the 1947 figure, as compared with an increase during the same period of only 16 per cent. in England. This underlines the achievement of agriculture in Wales. Just as noteworthy was the record total of 1,104,000 cattle in Wales reached by June of last year.
It is satisfactory to note that, despite the economic and financial difficulties of 1957–58, no fewer than 1,665 farms in South Wales were connected for the first time to an electricity supply.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: Does the hon. Member also know that there are more farms still to be connected in these areas than in any other part of Great Britain?
Mr. Gower: I appreciate that. The hon. and learned Member will, however, recognise the progress that has been achieved at a time of economic difficulty. I would remark to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I have never been able to ascertain similar information for North Wales. From the Report on Government action, it appears that these figures are included with those of new consumers who have been connected for the first time and no distinction is drawn between householders and farmers.

647
A number of Acts which have been passed by the present Government have had a particular impact in parts of the Principality. We recall the farm improvement scheme initiated in 1957. To the end of last year, no fewer than 2,818 proposals from Welsh farmers had been approved. As we learnt from the latest figures, these involve an expenditure of £1,539,000. That is an impressive indication of how the benefits of the Act are being taken up in Wales.
Secondly, we remember the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Bill, which has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am quite satisfied that this Bill will be of great benefit in Wales, which is so largely a country of small farmers. Indeed, I understand that of 28,000 farms in Wales, 10,000 are likely to benefit from the help to be afforded by the Bill when it becomes an Act.
Another Act which was brought forward by the present Government and which is of particular interest to agriculturists and farmers in Wales is the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, passed in 1955. Of the £4 million authorised to 1962, something like £2 million can be expended in Wales. I would also for a moment like to refer to the closely related subject of forestry.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman on the question of rural roads? Will he indicate how much money has been spent already and how long it will take to spend the £2 million at the rate that we are spending it at the present time in Wales?
Mr. Gower: I appreciate the implication of the hon. Gentleman's interjection that at the commencement progress is necessarily slow, but it has speeded up very quickly now and I anticipate that much greater use will be made of this Act in the months ahead. I should like to refer my right hon. Friend for a moment to another closely related aspect concerning forestry.
The Forestry Commission, as he knows, erected a number of houses for their employees in the area of my constituency, notably at Fair Onen, just outside Cowbridge.
648
Many of my constituents are disturbed by the proposals for the increase of the rents because they say that the rents paid by agricultural workers, who earn not dissimilar wages, are not similarly affected. They also call attention to the fact that in many cases these houses are situated in somewhat remote places, lacking, in most cases, lighting and other amenities. They are not satisfied with the explanations so far given by the Commission and, to me, by the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to look into this. My constituents say that these are by their nature service agreements and the low rents are related to comparatively modest earnings, which are usually lower than earnings in industry, and they feel that there should be a case for reconsideration of these proposals.
After agriculture and forestry, it seems appropriate to turn to road and rail communications in Wales, which may be described as the very lifeblood of industry, the very arteries, in fact, of industrial production. The Government have recognised that good roads and communications are vital in Wales. Like Ulster and Scotland, Wales has suffered, particularly in the past, owing to its comparative remoteness from the great centres of population in England, and also from the poorness of some of its road communications.
A few years ago, the Lloyd Committee, in its assessment of the problems of South-West Wales, recognised that the improvement of road communications would be a vital factor. The record, as I see it, is a mixture of good and bad, with the good predominating. In the case of North Wales, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) will agree that it would seem reasonable that priority should be given to the Conway Bridge, and I do not doubt that he would agree that proposals for the Queensferry Bridge over the Dee, with its approach roads, also deserve a high degree of priority.
In the South, few people would quarrel with the decision in the first place to make the Briton Ferry viaduct and the first part of the Neath by-pass. It seems logical that the second part of the Neath by-pass should follow closely and

649
this is what the Government have decided.
In the same way, the Ross Spur scheme, included in the present phase of the roads programme, will be a boon to travellers and industrial traffic between South Wales and the Midlands. The decision to proceed soon with the Heads of The Valley Road seems quite natural, as this will join up the development near Neath with the development at Ross Spur.
I should like to make some mention of three roads which have not yet been mentioned and about which I have heard a good deal of criticism. Many people regret that the Severn Bridge has not been started sooner. They question the need to defer this important project until a certain stage has been reached with the Forth crossing. The view has been expressed to me by people in the civil engineering world that this is in some way a slur on the capabilities of our bridge-builders and our civil engineers. They say that we possess the skill and resources which should have made it possible for these two schemes to proceed together.
The second criticism concerns the delay in by-passing Port Talbot. There can be few worse bottlenecks in the whole of Britain. Here we have a great disincentive towards industrial growth and prosperity in South West Wales. The other omission is, I think, a notable one. With the completion of the Ross Spur scheme and the Heads of The Valley roads, there will still be a gap which will separate the South Wales ports, to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) referred, from the south-west end of the Ross Spur.
The docks at Barry and Cardiff, in particular, are fighting a very difficult battle to obtain new trade and new traffic to replace the coal exports which are no longer available. In this struggle, these ports have been sadly handicapped by the poorness of the communications between them and the Midlands. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have further consultations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on the need for a good, modern road connecting the south-western extremity of the Ross Spur scheme with the ports of Barry and Cardiff.
650
Regarding Barry Dock, which is one of the responsibilities of the British Transport Commission, I must again call my right hon Friend's attention to the fact that the shortage of general cargo trade has been accompanied by a decline in ship repairing. Ship-repair workers and other dock employees and railway workers are among those who have been affected. I know that the Minister of State, Lord Brecon, is visiting the docks this week, and I hope that his visit will be fruitful.
We are still handicapped, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North implied, by obsolete and obsolescent customs. I, like my hon. Friend, want to know more about the statement which was made about the railway rates, and I would also stress once again the need for some change in the apportionment of the dock charges between exporters and ship owners.
Only recently I heard of a business man who sought to export cargo from Barry. He obtained a quotation and within twenty-four hours he was able to obtain a much cheaper quotation from a port in the north-east. I wonder why this should be so. Are the overhead expenses in the south-west docks so much greater than those in the north-east? I cannot believe that this is so. I feel that this must be related to some of these obsolete charges and differences in charges which still apply.
Many hon. Members have referred to the industrial pattern, and hon. Members opposite have stressed the difficulties and the shortcomings. Certainly the state of Welsh industry and employment is not uniform. There are black spots, and it is right that we should give every possible attention to them. My hon. Friend has quoted instances Where attention has been given to them and it has proved successful, but I think that we must have a different emphasis if we are to see the whole picture. Far be it from me to minimise the hardships and difficulties in certain parts of Wales. In North-West Wales and South-West Wales real and tangible problems exist. I suggest that the miracle is not that our problems and difficulties are so great, but that our achievements and opportunities are so much greater.

651
It is necessary to note some of the good things. I disagree here with hon. Members opposite, because I submit that Wales, like the rest of the United Kingdom, has weathered the decline in world trade to a remarkable extent. Indeed, when we consider what has been happening in so many other countries, we can only be amazed that we have avoided the worst stresses of this difficult period in world trade. We can certainly be absolutely satisfied with the manner in which small units in industrial estates have consolidated and became established. Dissatisfaction, however, exists about some of the rentals on these estates. I read a Press report that the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs had removed these fears, but I have been assured since that some of these apprehensions still exist. I hope, therefore, that, if not at the end of the debate, then in the near future my right hon. Friend will be able to give us more information about this important aspect of the industrial problem.
As to the major of industries—coal and iron and steel—the ending of the older and less efficient steelworks and mines has not only caused difficulties, but in some cases, as has been pointed out, has provided the country with a different form of splendidly equipped industry for the future. At Margam, at Trostre, Velindre, Ebbw Vale. Flintshire and soon at Llanwern, we shall have some of the finest plants in the world. We can truly take pride in the fact that Wales now produces about 30 per cent. of all the crude steel output of the United Kingdom and almost 90 per cent. of United Kingdom production of sheet steel.
We can also take satisfaction at the success of the efforts being made to attract new industries. We can all commend what has been done by the Minister of State. The Government-built factory for Pressed Steel near Swansea is, I believe, the biggest ever provided with taxpayers' money in such an area. I understand that eventually it will provide new jobs for about 4,000 employees, and that the present projects for new factories, not including the great new steel mill at Llanwern, will provide 9,000 new jobs. And how very variegated Welsh industry has become. We have chemical processes at Newport, in Flintshire, in my own constituency, and near Swansea.
652
Nylons, plastics and silicones are being produced, handbags and fabrics, clocks and watches. There is the extension of the Hoover undertaking at Merthyr, and the go-ahead South Wales Switchgear and South Wales Cables at Blackwood and Aberdare.
I am sure that hon. Members would commend the energy of Mr. A. H. Nicholas of South Wales Switchgear who has been going out for orders. [An HON. MEMBER: "A very good man."] Our executives are becoming known all over the world. They travel not only in Europe but in America, Australia and New Zealand in search of orders. This, despite the black spots, is not a sad picture. It is not the doorway into despondency. I see it rather as the gateway of opportunity.
One matter which probably will not be mentioned otherwise in the debate is the responsibility of the Postmaster-General for a subject to which I should like to refer. Some hon. Members on both sides will disagree with me and regard it as a small matter. I refer to my right hon. Friend's policy in connection with political broadcasts. I have had representations on the subject from Labour people, Conservatives. Nationalists and non-Nationalists.
I am not at all happy about the restriction imposed by the Postmaster-General on certain political parties. The matter has been dealt with on the basis of the number of constituencies in Wales, and an unreasonable regulation provides that a party must contest 50 constituencies to qualify for the opportunity to broadcast. There is a party in Wales which if it contested every constituency would contest only 36. It might be suggested that it should contest seats in Liverpool and Manchester, but that would be going too far.
By means of a regulation of this manifestly absurd nature, a sense of victimisation is developed. It forces into forms of extreme nationalism people who may well not be Nationalists at all. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will look into this problem. I am not a Nationalist. I do not subscribe to the idea of economic or political separation, but if we are to have sensible regulations covering political broadcasts this is one rule which should be scrapped.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Percy Morris: The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) repeated the omission which the Minister's predecessor, the present Lord Chancellor, made when he addressed the Council of Wales for the first time, in 1951, and said:
"The face of South Wales has been transformed during the last five years."
He omitted to say who was responsible for the transformation. In the course of his indictment this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) said not that the Government had done nothing but that they had not done enough and had not acted with the speed which we expected of them.
The hon. Member for Conway was in error on a second matter. He suggested that my hon. Friends were under the impression that Velindre, Trostre and Margam would be able to work side by side with the old mills. We were never under that impression. It may interest the hon. Member to know that it must be twenty-five years since I was a member of a deputation from Swansea which waited upon Sir William Firth when the first strip mill was being built at Ebbw Vale. We pleaded with Sir William to believe us when we said we should not object to modernisation or mechanisation. We felt that to be inevitable, but we asked him to do everything possible to bring other industries to Wales to compensate for our loss. Pressure was then brought to bear upon us by industry to believe that our fears were groundless and that for many years there would be no trouble for the tinplate workers.
Our fears, however, were not entirely removed. We waited upon the Government of the day to take steps to make it possible for new industries to be developed side by side with the closing of the old mills. Hon. Members may recall that the then Government appointed the Lloyd Committee. We begged the Government to tell us that Committee's conclusions, but the answer we received on every occasion was that they were strictly confidential. We knew very well that the Lloyd Committee was applying another sedative in telling us that there was no need to worry, that there was no difficulty over the steel and tinplate industry when in fact Italians were being recruited. They made that further effort to persuade us that we were alarmists.
654
I was surprised at the reference of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Conway to the new steel works in Monmouthshire, because he said that would cost no less than £100 million, of which the Government would find £60 million. I thought he would have added in strict logic that if £60 million of public money is going into that venture, there ought to be a far greater measure of public control.
Mr. P. Thomas: The £60 million is an advance, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been only too willing to assist industry by making advances. That does not mean that the Government wish to take over or command the industry by nationalisation.
Mr. Morris: That does not alter the validity of my argument. The Report on Developments and Government action in Wales and Monmouthshire, and indeed the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Welsh Affairs, are far too complacent. The percentage of unemployment in Wales continues at twice the rate for the whole of Great Britain and, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the figure is five times the national average in several parts of the Principality. Who can measure the misery and anxiety implied by those figures? I was shocked to learn that applications for National Assistance have gone up by 600 and that the number of registered disabled persons has increased by 1,216. It is inevitable, therefore, that we should continue to harass the Government until substantial improvements of a permanent character are introduced.
I acknowledge that there has been a slight improvement, due to the introduction of what we hope will prove to be major industries, but they cannot bear fruit for eighteen months or two years, and something must be done immediately to provide employment during the transitional period for the middle-aged and elderly men who have been made redundant in the steel and tinplate industry.
There are many valid reasons preventing them from seeking employment in other parts of the country, but even if they did so, the consequences to local authorities would be serious. If I may be excused from making a constituency reference, there are 500 such men unemployed in Morriston, an industrial sector

655
of Swansea. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort) and myself are inundated, week after week, with inquiries about what the Board of Trade, what the Minister for Welsh Affairs, what the Government are going to do to find employment for these men.
The only major industry in that area was steel and tinplate, and modernisation has meant idleness for them for approximately 18 months to two years. They beg the Government to exercise some initiative and enterprise to provide them with work or maintenance, preferably work.
There are about 1,000 tailors and garment workers still waiting for employment. They would like to go into the vacant factory at Fforestfach Trading Estate. Incidentally, there are forty sites there available for industry. However, we have been hindered in that direction owing to the anxiety about rents. The problem of rent increases is common to all trading estates, and I respectfully suggest to the Minister that it would be worth his while to maintain employment by giving concessional rents. We hope that the Government will not be penny wise and pound foolish in that direction.
We are troubled, too, about school leavers. It was natural that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) should refer to them. In connection with the new industries coming to South Wales, unless the young lads leaving school are given opportunities for apprenticeships and special training, those major industries now coming will be short of technical men. It is of paramount importance, therefore, that these young men should be given special privileges so that they may equip themselves and be readily absorbed in the new factories when they are erected. The Report makes it clear that owing to lack of opportunity for the training of apprentices, potential craftsmen are being driven into unskilled jobs. The intake of youth in apprenticeship schemes is appreciably lower in Wales than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Civil aviation is not having a square deal in Wales; in fact, quite the contrary. The withdrawal of the Cardiff—Bristol—Manchester service is deeply deplored and is a great hindrance to the development of business connections between those
656
areas. There is a splendid service available from Manchester to all parts of the world, but this Cardiff to Manchester link has been cut, and it should be restored if only as an inducement to other industrialists to come to Wales.
Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the term of office of the present members of the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation expired at the end of last year? Although they have made repeated representations and recommendations they have heard nothing. I am wondering if the Ministry treats the Northern Irish and Scottish Councils in the same way? If so, it is time that somebody looked at these things and treated with the courtesy they deserve these men who are rendering public service on a voluntary basis, and encouraged them to do something in the interests of civil aviation in Wales.
I am bound once more to make a constituency reference. Swansea aerodrome cost the Government £3 million during the war. The local authority has spent over £30,000 there, but the mean and niggardly approach of the Treasury prevents it from having Customs facilities. I thought it used to be the maxim of the Tory Party that trade follows the flag, but we are told now, "You must first get the trade and then we will see if we can give you Customs facilities". People are being deterred from using that aerodrome because within about twenty minutes or so they have to alight at Cardiff for Customs inspection.
We have mentioned this point to the right hon. Gentleman. We have mentioned it to the Chairman of the Development Corporation. We have referred it to the Wales Advisory Council. We have pleaded with everybody and they have all agreed to help, but the Treasury, for the sake of a few pounds, stands pat and says, "You cannot have Customs facilities". So we ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will get rid of this studied indifference to our needs in that respect and see what can be done to help us.
I ask the Minister of Transport to expedite not only the planning but also the carrying out of his major road schemes. We need a much narrower gap between planning and execution. A difficult situation has arisen in South Wales. Extensive road improvements have been authorised east and west of

657
Port Talbot. It is not often I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), but really the position at Port Talbot is tragic. If the Government wish completely to ruin the economy of South Wales, let them leave Port Talbot as it is. I do not know what the Margam Steel Works people feel about it, but ask the South Wales Transport people how they feel about their transport services having to go through the town.
It has been my duty during the last ten weeks to pass through Port Talbot at week-ends. It is not a new experience to have a queue a mile each side of Aberavon. Imagine what it is like during the rush hour. The right hon. Gentleman can say quite fairly that this is not his responsibility, but it is his responsibility to tell the Minister of Transport that if he wants to save the economy of South-West Wales he ought to treat the Port Talbot position as one of extreme urgency. We shall be very glad to hear his comments on that matter.
In making this complaint, I am expressing not only my own view but also the sentiments of the Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouth—a body of 447 members representing more than 75 per cent. of the working population of Wales. It feels that the time has arrived when somebody should properly assess the needs of Wales. Send the Welsh Secretary, for whom we have a very great regard, to Caldy Island, give him a free hand and see that he has all the necessary information at his disposal to assess the real needs of Wales and then introduce the necessary Measures to cater for them. There seems to be a lack of a clear plan and even now, when new industries are coming into Wales, we are working haphazardly.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Would the hon. Member answer the question which has already been put to the Opposition'? Does he advocate the direction of industry?
Mr. Morris: I would not object if it meant giving employment to men who are now unemployed. That might have to be a priority, but I do not believe that it is absolutely necessary. The various parts of Wales are able to provide for special industries. That is why I suggest we
658
ought to have a clear design, which will enable the right things to be put in the right places. The Government should encourage and help us to the best of their ability.
I come to a close not because there is nothing more to be said but because I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends have their contributions to make. I beg the Minister to heed the fundamental points made and do what he can to help us in the coming years.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Ness Edwards: We come again to another Welsh day. Unlike previous Welsh days, however, no Minister has opened the debate. Despite that, we had an extremely good opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones), who covered the ground in a very competent way Although it was modestly put, I am sure that his speech represented a fairly heavy indictment of the Government's lack of activity in Wales.
Mr. H. Brooke: I join with the hon. Member in paying tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones), but I should like to explain that the one reason why I did not open the debate was that I wanted to give as much time as possible for other hon. Members to take part in it.
Mr. Edwards: I can understand that, but there is now in the Government a Minister who is responsible for general economic development. I refer to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. It is his business to provide employment in areas where there is now grave unemployment. I would have anticipated that he would be anxious to tell us what he has been doing. After all, he has been in South Wales for thirty six hours, and he was able to make a rather brilliant speech at the end of that time. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman himself not wanting to take up too much time, but the House is entitled to as much information about the Government's policy and activities as it is in their power to give us.
I suppose it is because we are nearing a General Election that we are having a great deal of political activity by hon. Members opposite in the Principality. The Lord Chancellor has been down

659
there, and the Parliamentary Secretary has been down there—for a little more than thirty-six hours.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I have been there twice.
Mr. Edwards: I am told that he has been there twice. He did not give sufficient publicity to his first visit. Lord Brecon has continued trotting up and down the Principality like a commercial traveller who has nothing to sell. We have seen no results from his activities. The Minister himself has been down there for meetings with his Council and with heads of the Departments, and a great deal of publicity attached to his visit. But we do not see many results from these activities.
All that they have been concerned to tell us is how good things are in Wales and how prosperous she is. So far in this debate hon. Members opposite have been very concerned to tell us how good things are, while hon. Members on this side of the House tell us of the shortcomings of the Government in their responsibility to the Principality. Perhaps that is as it should be, but I thought that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) rather overdid it. He talked about overall prosperity. He was repeating the speech made by the Lord Chancellor to the Annual Conference of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) indulged in the same sort of effort to obscure the underlying discontent at the unemployment which exists in Wales by telling us of a number of things that have happened.
As I have said, some days ago we had a visit from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. He spent a short time in Wales and had lunch at Treforest with the industrialists. He made his speech after lunch, and it sounded as if he was making it after lunch. Even the official organ of the Tory Party in Wales, the Western Mail, had a cryptic comment to make about it when it said:
"And he even surprised hard-headed Welsh industrialists when he told them,'The run is shining on the valleys, on the coast, and the nation of Wales. I can foresee a time when you might be embarrassed by industrial development here'"
660
He then dropped his voice and said:
"as soon as it gets under way."
We can only assume that that speech was as much a personal triumph for him as was his winding-up speech in the recent unemployment debate. All the industrialists to whom I have spoken and who listened to that speech were amazed that in so short a time the hon. Member could come to such an ill-founded conclusion.
But the shandy gaff of the hon. Member would convince nobody. For the annual conference of the Welsh Conservative Party heavier material was required, and it was supplied in the person of the Lord Chancellor. If black was to be made to appear as white, this was the man to do it. Here was the prosecuting counsel who would disdain all restraint in his presentation of the Tory case. In his peroration, dealing with the changes that were taking place, he ended with this gem:
"In the process Wales has now reached a state of overall prosperity she has not known for half a century."
Here was the able lawyer making black appear as white. If what we have in Wales now is prosperity, what state of affairs must exist before the noble Lord regards it as a depression? This is only to be compared with the verbal slip of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that the present rate of unemployment was not excessive.
Is not it an exhibition of the Tory mind to say that a 5 per cent. rate of unemployment in Wales represents overall prosperity? Is it not scandalous to say that with five men out of every 100 unemployed we have a state of overall prosperity? The more we breakdown the average figures the nearer we get to reality. Let us see what the position was. At the time when both speeches were made, the unemployment rate in Great Britain was 2·5 per cent. In Wales it was 4·6 per cent. and in Scotland, 4·8 per cent.
Let us get this picture of Tory prosperity quite clear. In Blackwood, Bargoed, Pontlottyn and Ystrad Mynach it was 6·2 per cent.; in the Western valleys, 5 per cent.; in Pontardawe, 8 per cent.; In Ammanford, 10·8 per cent.; in my constituency of Caerphilly, 8·4 per cent.: in Ferndale, Tonypandy and Treorchy,

661
8·5 per cent.; in Llanelly it was 8·6 per cent.; in Caernarvon, 12·6 per cent., and in Anglesey, 11 per cent. This is a state of overall prosperity. This is a condition of things for which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite pat themselves on the back. While these figures sound alarming to us, as they are, we must remember that to the unemployed man himself they represent 100 per cent. unemployment. This is a picture which requires much more energetic activity from right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
What happened between February and March to produce all these panegyrics from the Lord Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretary? From 9th February to 9th March, out of 37,791 people unemployed in the two Development Areas in Wales, one got a job. In the South Wales Development Area, 198 more people had become unemployed, while in North Wales 197 had found employment. To use that favourite phrase, the overall picture was a change of 1. That was the basis of the rhetorical triumphs of the Minister of Labour in the unemployment debate. It may be that that change inspired the hon. Member to make his speech at Treforest.
Let me give a further indication of the changes which have occurred. In the Bargoed Valley, during the month from 9th February to 9th March, out of 667 unemployed people, six got jobs. In Blackwood, out of 468 people, eight got jobs. In Tredegar, represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) three more became unemployed. So we could go on picking out the cases where, during the month when the Government were boasting that there had been a fall in unemployment, in these worst-hit valleys of South Wales unemployment was actually increasing.
Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite are doing removes our apprehensions about the future of Wales and its people. It will be recollected that because of our worries about the closing down of 36 pits we met the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the House. Since this matter has been the subject of some journalistic controversy. I want to say a word about it. Lord Mills was there, representing the Ministry of Power, to deal with the coal situation. He was asked if he could
662
give an assurance that no more pits would be closed this year. My recollection is that in reply he said he could not give such an assurance and, as for next year, we would have to wait to see how the position developed.
Coal would have to compete with other forms of fuel. I have a recollection—I can find no confirmation for it—that he said that economically it was possible to shut down the whole of the industry in Scotland and supply the coal at a profit from the Midlands. My recollection is that he never indicated that that was his intention; it was merely an economic argument. I do not suppose that there would be any objection to my quoting from the note circulated to hon. Members—may I have the attention of the Minister. Would there be any objection to my quoting?
Mr. H. Brooke: Not so far as I am aware. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to quote.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I wish to relate my memory to the actual note made by the servants of the right hon. Gentleman who were present. This is what Lord Mills said:
"The Government, by action already taken, had dealt with 1959 and they would have to wait a bit before they could see whether other pits would have to close.… He said he did not think at present that there would have to be any more special closures in 1959."
That seems to reinforce my memory.
What alarmed me was that the question was put to him whether or not it would be better to share the work among the pits rather than to shut down pits. His reply was that the guaranteed week stood in the way and that it might be a problem which might have to be faced. Frankly, we are facing an extremely serious position. I personally—and I am sure I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends—was glad to get the published assurance from Lord Mills that no more pits are to be shut down, at least this year. That is an assurance which I thought he failed to give to that deputation.
We came from that interview with the right hon. Gentleman and his friends with the impression that, irrespective of the social consequences or the national and strategic interests, the fate of coal would depend entirely upon the free play of competitive forces. Nothing else was to be allowed to interfere.
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I think I should say, on behalf of my noble Friend, that he cannot give any undertakings about the future until he has received from the Coal Board its long-term plan on which it is now engaged, as the House will be aware.
Mr. Ness Edwards: That leaves us in exactly the same quandary.
I am not saying that it is something which can be foreseen. But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, estimates have been made, plans have been made for this year. What worries us is that his noble Friend appears to be cynically indifferent either to the miners or the mining communities. I am only giving my impression which is shared by my hon. Friends.
We came from that deputation very disheartened by the story dealt out to us, in particular by the Minister of Power. I stress this matter because the fate of coal is very largely the fate of South Wales. It is the fate of North-East Wales. Here we have 100,000 miners and their families, and many mining communities, completely dependent on coal. It will be recalled that in order to deal with the coal situation this year the Government propose to cut opencast mining by 3 million tons; to stock an additional 3 million tons and to cut deep mine production by shutting thirty-six pits. We want to know how this is turning out. After all, the Coal Board has published the figures and the situation for the first thirteen weeks is alarming. Consumption is down. Exports are almost non-existent. Man-shift production is up. Stocking is taking place at an alarming rate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman by when the stock limit fixed by the Government will be reached. If that limit of 3 million tons is reached, as it looks like being reached, before Midsummer, what are the Government proposing to do about it?
There is a new serious crisis for the mining industry, and we are entitled to ask the Government whether they have planned for this position. Are they going to drift into a new crisis? It is quite possible that the detailed answer to this may not be forthcoming during the debate today. But I am sure the Paymaster-General will realise that this is a matter of the utmost gravity; one which will create tremendous difficulties for the
664
Government and very grave difficulties for people engaged in this industry. We should like some information as soon as possible about how a situation of this sort is to be dealt with if it arises.
Having said what I have about that side of the question, let me turn to what help the people of the coalfields can expect from the Government. Despite all the Government boasting, the facts are there. The first thing that this Government did was to issue that infamous Circular 59/54. Grants for the rehabilitation of the amenities for South Wales were stopped. The water scheme, the sewerage scheme the site clearance scheme were all put in cold storage. That was the first thing. The advance factory programme which we had started was stopped by this Government. It is true they have now decided to restart it. Is that because there is a General Election in the offing? I am told that they already have a tenant for one factory which proves that that policy is one which is bound to produce good results.
The Remploy factories were curtailed by the Government. The Grenvil factory scheme was brought to an end and the industrial development certificate procedure became a real farce. On 17th February the President of the Board of Trade supplied us with an excellent table indicating what the right hon. Gentleman had done in this sphere. The question has been put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and the Minister himself has put it, whether it is the policy of the Labour Government to direct industry. The answer is, "No". The proper use of the Distribution of Industry Act would be sufficient in 1959 to do what we were able to do in 1945 and the subsequent years.
Let us see what happened. According to the Table provided by the President of the Board of Trade, in 1955 to 1958, inclusive, over 10,000 new factories were built in Great Britain. Of that number, only 1,200 were in the Development Areas. Location certificates had been issued to all the rest to build round the huge wen of London and the Home Counties. If the same proportion as the Labour Government influenced to come into the Development Areas in the four years from 1945 to 1949 had applied during those four years, we should have had over 2,000 more factories in the

665
Development Areas and South Wales, on the old proportion, would have had more than 400 new factories in the last four years. That would have dealt with the situation where there exists this tremendous percentage rate of unemployment. Instead of the sun shining on the South Wales valleys, what we are afraid of is that there are a lot of gathering clouds.
I do not want to leave the impression that the future of South Wales is as grim as all that. I concede immediately that there are oases of really exciting development at Trawsfynydd, Margam and Llanwern, and the Pressed Steel factory. Yes, let us give the Government credit for that. But it is not half enough. We do not complain about what the Government have done, but about what they are not doing. We complain of their lack of energy and drive. Is it that they think that there exists no problem? If there is now in Wales a state of over-all prosperity, does that indicate a state of mind in which it is thought that nothing else needs to be done? That is the question we put to the Government.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to bestir himself and see that the Board of Trade uses the Distribution of Industry Act with vigour and energy and to see to it that location certificates are issued for areas where there is a need for employment and where men are unemployed. The present position in Wales offers a great challenge. We have the skill, the men and the sites. We have the ports if only they were used. We have all these things. What is lacking is the capacity of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to direct the efforts of this nation in the way in which they were directed between 1945 and 1950.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) dealt, in the main, with the problem of the South Wales coalfields. It would be presumptuous of me to follow him in that matter. The observations I wish to make concern more particularly the truly rural areas of the Principality. But first I wish to raise another matter.
I am pleased that I have been called to speak in this debate before the Minister, because I wish to urge him to say something, and to be forthright in what he has to say, about the constitutional
666
position of the Principality. Will he tell us what is to be the future of the Council of Wales? Are we to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what is to be the future of his own Office in relation to Wales?
When Lord Kilmuir was appointed Minister of Welsh Affairs we understood that the appointment was by way of an experiment. That is the way in which the noble Lord expressed himself at the time of his appointment. He said that he regarded it as an opportunity for him and his colleagues in the Government to acquire more direct and intimate experience of the problems of Wales so as to be able to formulate more specific proposals about the problem of devolution.
The right hon. Gentleman has had considerable experience in that matter by now, and I think that we in Wales as a whole are entitled to know the fruits of his experience. What are his views on these topics? What are his intentions and those of the Government? I hope that he does not intend to be silent. I have expressed my own views on this topic in earlier debates, and I am not going to take up the time of the House by repeating them today. But I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity of telling us what has been the result of his experience as Minister, and what his plans are in the field not only of administration if he deals with that, but the whole problem of the relationship between the Government and the Principality as a whole.
The real problem of the rural areas of Wales is that of an ever-ageing and steady drop in population, and, most disquieting of all, a steady drop in the proportion of the working element of the population. I have listened with great sympathy to all that has been said about the employment figures in various parts of Wales. There are parts of Wales where we are almost reaching the stage where we would be glad to have a population to be unemployed.
As this steady drop in population proceeds, particularly this continued redistribution of the population with the emphasis on the age element, it brings with it great social service problems for the local authorities in those areas. It has brought great problems to my area. I believe that we are carrying out our duties in a way which compares very favourably with the rest of the country

667
generally, but we are only doing it by imposing a very harsh financial burden on the community as a whole.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. ldwal Jones) touched on this problem of employment. I do not believe that the answer to the problem is an easy one, far from it, but in this Report we have no indication that the immensity of the task has been realised and that anything really promising is being done to solve it.
The Rural Wales Committee refers to this problem. What it has to say about employment in these areas is this. They describe afforestation as by far the most important way of providing additional employment. The whole emphasis of the Report of the Rural Wales Committee is on the contribution which afforestation can make to the problems of rural depopulation. I do not want to disparage the work which has been done on this, and, in particular, the special survey which is referred to in the Report, but we will be fooling ourselves if we imagine for one moment that afforestation can make any appreciable contribution towards this problem in the immediate future.
I am not doing this to deprecate what has been done by the Forestry Commission in Wales, but let me just follow this up simply to get it in its proper perspective in relation to the problem of rural depopulation. During the last six or seven years the Forestry Commission has spent about £10 million in Wales. One would have thought that that expenditure would have been reflected in a substantial increase in the number employed in Wales in afforestation, and would have been a valuable contribution to the depopulation problem.
What, in fact, is the position? The number of employed in the year that we are discussing in this Report was the average for the whole of that seven years. There was no appreciable increase during the whole of that time. In actual fact, however, the position is more disturbing than that. For the year that we are discussing the figure given for the number of workers in afforestation in Wales is 3,136, which is roughly the average for the whole seven-year period. The figure given in last year's Report, or the last Report we had, was about 3,500, which means that between those two years. far
668
from afforestation contributing towards employment in Wales, there was a drop of 364.
Inevitably, alongside that is the continual drop in the number of people employed in agriculture. The figure is down by 20 per cent. in the last ten years and there was a drop of 1,400 last year. It is pleasing to have over 3,000 people employed, but we regret that the Rural Wales Committee reported that more and more Welsh wage packets were being made up by the Forestry Commission each year. That is contrary to the facts.
I am a little disturbed as to what is to happen in the immediate future. If one looks at the figures for the planting programme, they are not very happy. Apparently, in June, 1954, 13,099 acres were planted. In 1955, 12,650 acres were planted. In the year that we are discussing in this Report, 10,351 acres were planted. In another place, in answer to a question, the Minister said:
"The approximate area to be planted in the next three seasons, is 12,598 acres…"
I find it a little difficult to believe, but that was the answer given.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Was that for the Principality, or all over England and Wales?
Mr. Bowen: I will give the specific quotation, because I should like to believe that it was wrong. The question was:
"…what further developments of their nature are contemplated; and how much land for the purpose has been acquired."
And the answer was:
"The approximate area to be planted in the next three seasons is 12,598 acres…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 16th December, 1958; Vol. 213, c. 319.]
Whether it was by mistake or otherwise, that is what was said. I hope that it was a mistake. I hope that the figure will be corrected if it is wrong. If that figure is correct, we can expect a further drop in the number of persons employed in afforestation in Wales.
There are other signs that the contribution of forestry to the solving of the rural depopulation problem will not be of anything like the dimensions many of us hoped. During 1946–47, the Forestry Commission built 340 houses in Wales

669
The number it built last year was 12. I have referred to these figures to show that if something really practical is to be done in relation to rural depopulation it has to come from a source other than the Forestry Commission. Of course, the Commission can help and it can do a great deal more than it is doing, but we must look in other directions for more help.
I was very disappointed to see that the Rural Wales Committee has not followed up the possibility of developing industries ancillary to forestry in Wales. If we want really to make a contribution in this problem of rural depopulation here is an opportunity. I visited a forestry community in the southern States of America recently. I visited a town of 15,000 inhabitants, where all the industries used timber as their primary raw material. The relation between those employed in the forests and in those industries using timber as their primary product was that for every one in the forests 10 were employed in the ancillary industries.
I do not for a moment suggest that the conditions are comparable, but, after all, the Forestry Commission is a Government agency and if it wants to make a really effectual contribution it should look again into the whole question of linking forestry with industries which could use timber as a primary raw material.
If a population is to be maintained in these areas which will make it possible for basic social services to continue to exist, it will have to come about through the introduction of light industries. As I have said, I am not underestimating in any way the great difficulties there are in this field. Those difficulties are now being extended by reason of the fact that we have pockets of unemployment in other parts of Wales. In one sense, the whole of the Distribution of Industry Act is working against these industrial areas because, as soon as an industrialist shows any inclination to go to these parts of Wales, pressure will immediately be brought upon him to go to some area with a high percentage of unemployment. The Mid-Wales Development Association has done good work. The fact that it has not been able to produce results so far is no fault of its own.
The Minister of State has been critical of the work of local government in this
670
matter, but local authorities, particularly those whose financial position is far from strong. are in great difficulties. They have been urged by the Minister to acquire sites and develop them with a view to attracting industries. Are the Government prepared to finance those projects? Are they prepared to meet the loss in revenue which is inevitable if local authorities acquire sites and have them idle for a considerable time in the hope of attracting new industry? The problem is very difficult indeed. I hope that the Government are prepared to allow expenditure by local authorities in that way to rank for grant and that we shall be told something to that effect from the Minister this evening.
One of the great difficulties about attracting industry to these areas is the problem of communications and public transport services. There has been a steady deterioration in the position for some considerable time. Rural Wales has never been worse off for public transport than it is today. An added complication in this struggle to attain light industries is the fact that there are strong rumours that a number of railway services are either to be reduced or abolished altogether. For example, there are disturbing rumours that the Aberystwyth-Carmarthen service is to be reduced, and that the Whitland-Cardigan line is to be closed and further limitations placed on the Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury line. There is reference to the activities of the British Transport Commission in this Report. I hope that we shall be told tonight that there is no truth in these rumours, so that no industrialist shall be discouraged by the prospect of having much reduced railway communications in this area.
I want to touch on one or two matters relating directly to agriculture. In paragraph 176 of the Report, there is a reference to the existence of a working party on the question of the establishment of a National Agricultural College for Wales. That matter has been under consideration a very long time. It is a considerable time since the Seaborne Davies Committee reported. I hope the working party will report soon and that its report will be favourable. If it is, I hope that this college will come into existence with no further delay.
Reference has been made to the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act,

671
1955, which is dealt with in paragraph 156 of the Report. That measure became an Act as long ago as 1955 and, according to its present terms, it is to operate only until December, 1962. Of the expenditure to be carried out in Wales, amounting to £2 million, to date only £79,000 has been paid out. The Act has been running for four years and during the first two years virtually nothing was done. The position this year is considerably better and I hope that that improvement can be maintained. If necessary, I hope that the period of operation of the Act may be extended. I want to see a rapid acceleration of the whole programme.
There has been an acceleration of the programme, particularly in those areas where unemployment is heavy. Anything that can be done to reduce unemployment in that area is good, but the tests as to what should and should not be approved under the Act are basically agricultural tests. The Government should not use an Act of this kind to help with employment at the expense of agriculture as a whole. I want to see as many schemes implemented under the Act as is possible and directed towards helping the Upland areas.
On the question of roads, I suspect that expenditure in general, particularly on those in rural areas, is not receiving the measure of Government support it should have because of the existence of major schemes throughout the country. I certainly do not deprecate those major schemes, such as the Severn Bridge, but they should not be carried out at the expense of maintaining ordinary basic road services throughout Wales.
Another problem which has already been touched upon is rural electrification. Years ago I used to find myself continually chasing the electricity boards in Wales, M.A.N.W.E.B. as we used to call them, and the South Wales Electricity Board. It would be churlish not to pay a generous compliment to the amount of work they have carried on in both North and South Wales in recent years. Probably I have pestered them as much as anyone and I have found them on almost all occasions extremely helpful. What needs to be emphasised is the vast amount of work remaining to be done in Wales and that should be compared with the
672
position in England and Scotland. I have before me the figures for farm connections in the three countries. They show that the amount of work remaining to be done in Wales is far greater than in either England or Scotland.
In England, in almost every area the number of connections totals 80 per cent. The range is 84 per cent., 81 per cent., 74 per cent., 87 per cent. It may be said that many of these areas are not comparable with the rural areas of Wales, but the figure in the North of Scotland is 66.3 per cent. In South Cardiganshire, it is 41·2 per cent. and in Montgomery it is 40·6 per cent. I have not the figure for Radnor, but in Carmarthen, with a large industrial section, it is only 46·45 per cent.
When we compare these figures, Wales comes out of the comparison extremely badly. It is only fair to say that there was far greater leeway to be made up in Wales than elsewhere. A great deal of work has already been done, but the fact is that if the farming communities of Wales are to be placed in a comparable position with those of England and Scotland there must be a rapid acceleration in the farm connection programme by these two boards. I am glad to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Front Bench. I am sure that he does not want the Welsh farming community placed in a position of such disadvantage compared with colleagues in England and Scotland.
The reason given by the Board, which I accept, for not having been able to accelerete its programme during the last few years is that there have been substantial cuts in capital expenditure. We are apparently moving into a different climate in that respect, however, and I hope that that will be reflected in no uncertain way in a rapid acceleration of the programme.
There are many other points about the rural areas on which I should like to touch, but if I did I should be unfair to my colleagues. I will, therefore, not pursue them, but I hope that the Rural Wales Panel, in conjunction with voluntary organisations and Government agencies, will attempt to deal with a problem which, I admit, is by no means easy and will see whether there are not further fields to explore in attracting light ancillary industries into rural areas.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: I can promise the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) that I shall follow him in some of the points which he has made. I welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) in which he ventured into agriculture. He spoke as a man who has studied geography. May I come down to the brass tacks?
I thank the Minister for Welsh Affairs for tidying up the Report on Government action in Wales. The period now covered is 1st July, 1957, to 31st December, 1958. I welcome the fact that there are more pages and paragraphs on agriculture, but I hope that the Minister will take one or two tips from me about what should be reported in those paragraphs. There are five pages and twenty-five paragraphs dealing with policy, legislation and organisation. If one were to change the word "Wales" to "Cornwall", no different report would be required for those paragraphs. Surely that space could be better used to give statistics on Welsh agriculture, which I know are in the possession of the Department of Agriculture. I find such statistics very useful and important. I will stress their importance later.
There is one paragraph in Part I on devolution. It is a very acceptable paragraph. How does it work in practice? Does the Minister claim that there is greater devolution in Wales and that more decisions are taken by the Welsh Secretary at Aberystwyth? If the Minister says that this is so, I will accept it, but at the moment I am doubtful about it. If all these decisions can be taken, why have me had a quibble about the appointment of a chief livestock officer and a deputy for Wales? There are rumours that the appointment was to be given to a monoglot Englishman. Has the Welsh Department been consulted about that? Is it advising on this matter? I hope that the rumour which I have mentioned is untrue, because it would be contrary to the kind of devolution which I want to see in Wales.
In my opinion, there should be regular information about agricultural schemes. The hill farming and livestock rearing schemes have been in operation for ten
674
years, and one paragraph of the Report gives the number of schemes approved and the number of applications as well as the amount of money spent. Reference has been made to 4,855 applications, but what is staggering, and what is not indicated, is that only 118 schemes in the whole of Wales have been completed. This was reported in the Welsh Farm News last week-end. I have since checked those figures. If they are correct, the mid-Wales counties of Cardigan, Montgomery and Radnor submitted and obtained approval for 1,514 applications but only 32 of them have been completed. If these figures are correct, what is the reason for them? I could suggest many reasons, but I will not go into detail.
When we discussed the Bill dealing with small farmers' schemes it was suggested that if farmers had completed their hill farming and livestock rearing schemes they could begin other schemes as small farmers. In view of the fact that so few of their other schemes have been completed, shall we have any small farmers' schemes at all?
I regret that, especially in Part II, there is no direct information about mid-Wales, despite the fact that at least five separate reports have been made on mid-Wales, including two Government Reports or White Papers. I am anxious that the people living in Central and North Wales should clearly understand that, whichever Government is in power, agriculture is their mainstay. I make that point because between 1947 and 1957, there was a decrease in the number of farms between 5 acres and 100 acres of 2,000, whereas there was an increase in the number of farms of over 100 acres of 400. Apart from the economic aspect, such a trend will affect the Welsh way of life, which is why I deprecate it.
If it is a good thing economically, may we be given information in future reports to show whether, as a result of these voluntary amalgamations, the yield per acre or the overall production has increased? I suggest that this is increasing rural depopulation because during the same period 2,000 familities left rural Wales. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of these points and deal with them, perhaps not tonight, but at some future time. I am anxious, because this trend was more pronounced

675
between 1955 and 1957 than before. That is the important aspect. Mention has been made of the decline in the farm labour force in Wales. It has been pointed out that the number of full-time workers has decreased by 4·8 per cent. since 1957. In the last ten years there has been a decline of 20 per cent. in the farm labour force, and most of the people involved were full-time, regular workers.
An aspect not mentioned in the Report concerns farm values, which is a good criterion of the situation. The value of farms over 300 acres has risen five times since before the war, whereas the value of smaller holdings has increased less than three times. The value of farms below 50 acres showed no change last year. That emphasises the problem which arises in mid-Wales.
One of the reasons for it, which is not mentioned in the Report, is the February Price Review. In 1958, the small farmer was hit because the prices for his products were reduced. In 1959 he expected an increase, but instead of that the price of eggs fell. I know that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) extolled the increased production in agriculture, which I welcome, but he said nothing about the figures for poultry production, nor did he say why they had fallen. There is no wonder that they have fallen if the farmers receive no profit on their eggs.
One of the reasons for our troubles is that the Government are faced not only with an agricultural problem but with a social problem—a social problem which has been examined by many Committees in Wales. The Economic Digest of January, 1959, had some harsh things to say. May I quote the following:
"The continued depopulation of Wales in the post-war years has been largely due to deliberate Government policy, favouring as it does the medium-sized and large farm units at the expense of smallholdings and hill farms in particular."
To what extent is that true? Inquiries which I have made suggest that it is true.
I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to look at a very important aspect of the schemes for these small farmers. Paragraph 139 dismisses two airily the decision to wind up the marginal production schemes. We cannot afford to neglect marginal land in any part of the country, because if marginal land is allowed to go out of production the
676
tendency will be for the national resources to be steered into land which gives easier and quicker results, at the expense of marginal land. Unless marginal land is looked after, it will be difficult to rehabilitate the countryside.
I turn to the second Report of the Rural Wales Committee. All this week I have been trying to find a Biblical quotation to describe the Report, but I cannot find one. It is an Epistle, but an Epistle to whom I do not know.
It contains nothing except a lot of platitudes. Is this the Report which was presented by the Big Three, who are civil servants, and who are excellent men? Did they send a shocking report to the Minister and has he been afraid to publish it? Or are they afraid of the Minister and, as a result, have been very cautious about it? If the Report as published is that which they presented, they stand condemned. If not, the Government must be blamed.
There is nothing in the Report of interest except a paragraph on afforestation. It has been presented by the Big Three, but I suggest that the Minister ought to ask for better statistical reports and action. I demand action. It is true that there were seven meetings before the first Report and four meetings before the second Report, but those four meetings took place over eighteen months. Apparently they had no official meetings with anyone. I cannot understand why they have not met Lord Brecon. I am sure that he would have put some stimulus into the Committee, knowing him as I do. Perhaps they have met him but, if so, the meeting is not recorded. They should meet him and put some stimulus into these Reports.
In addition, they could have met the mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, but they have not done so. The Report goes out of its way to say that they are
"gratified … that so much has been done".
That is all right as a peroration for a Welsh preacher. I would also point out that in this Report by the Big Three there is only one reference to Mid-Wales. The fact remains that the establishment of this Committee was due entirely to the Reports on Mid-Wales. The terms of reference were
"to co-ordinate the detailed implementation of Government policy for rural Wales".

677
It is an indictment of the Government if the Report can say nothing at all about this matter. Have the Government no policy for Mid-Wales? I should be glad to know whether there is such a policy.
The terms of reference also stated that the Committee was "to expedite the services therein". It has not expedited any services. There were to be "consultations" and it was to "foster effective measures". We have only to look at the schemes presented to see what thas happened about that.
Should not the Committee dealing with rural mid-Wales have looked at the repercussions of a Private Member's Bill in respect of permitting the farmer to claim for his own labour? This was something practical which could have been done to accelerate these schemes.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan mentioned rural roads. On the figures given for this financial year it will take seven or eight years to use up the £2 million grant allotted, but the scheme finishes in 1962. I do not know what will happen after that. No figures have been given to show what has been allocated for unadopted roads for the present year. The global figure for last year was given in a Parliamentary reply from which it appeared that only £48,000 was spent on unadopted roads. The main purpose of the Act was to deal with unadopted rural roads in mid-Wales and other parts of Wales.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will my hon. Friend also make the point that the Act does not apply to Anglesey, which is one of the hardest hit areas?
Mr. Watkins: I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will note that not only Anglesey but some other parts of Wales are not included in its provisions, including some where there is heavy unemployment. Had Anglesey been included it would have had a share in he sum made available specially for unemployment. May I ask how many roadmen were employed on schemes implementing the grant of the extra money given to the three counties? I suggest that hardly any at all were employed.
On the subject of electricity, I do not want to follow up what has been said already but I would make one suggestion to the Minister for Welsh Affairs.
678
Does he realise that the Board in South Wales and the Consultative Council have made similar statements about this and have said that no extra money will be made available for the Mid-Wales counties at all in connection with electricity? People in Mid-Wales might just as well have been just outside Cardiff as in some of the isolated villages in North Radnorshire and some parts of Cardiganshire.
No mention is made by the Rural Wales Committee of housing, but it might have paid attention to the question whether some local authorities might have gained something by using Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1956, in connection with the increased rate burden if they build houses. This is very important. On the question of water supplies, I could give the Minister a long list, but I will leave it to another occasion to ask him some questions.
I turn now to the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, which has been in existence for eighteen months and which so far has done excellent work. Despite whatever criticism I have offered of the Minister of Welsh Affairs, in as nice a way as I possibly could, may I now suggest to him that he should say a word in this debate to indicate that he agrees entirely with the setting up of the Mid-Wales industrial Development Association, because it is doing good work. May I also ask him to try to encourage industrial development in Wales, and particularly to try to get some plans for introducing industries to Mid-Wales. I suggest that he should give the Association some indication whether there is to be any overspill development in the Welsh counties, or whether there are to be any new towns, and that he should get some plans worked out in connection with that matter.
In connection with the recent announcement in connection with the Distribution of Industry (Financial Provisions) Act. a leaflet has been issued to 50,000 industrialists throughout the country giving information about developments and facilities which are available, and the Association is disappointed that no mention is made of the development fund in "Industry on, the Move". Could not some guidance also be given, as the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan suggested, about industrial sites and the

679
possibility of grants being made for their purchase?
I think that a stimulus should be given to the Rural Wales Committee and that they should light a candle, if nothing else, instead of complaining of the darkness. There is an old saying to the effect that many a false step is taken by standing still. I think they have been standing still, and by doing so, in my opinion, made a false step. I wish to express my thanks to Lord Brecon, particularly on this suggestion I made in the unemployment debate, that he should visit the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association. He did and has visited the local authorities in Mid-Wales in the area covered by the Association, and he gave them some encouragement, but I am afraid that the local authorities, with due deference to the hon. Member for Cardigan, did not rise to the occasion and so there is need for the Minister for Welsh Affairs to do something in that direction.
I am very glad to find that the Association is to circulate 25,000 copies of a leaflet, and I am sure that that will please the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas), because it gives a true picture of Wales—the Wales which he and I want to help, though not in a political sense. That is the Wales which we want to have—a Wales to which we can bring more industry, and I hope that this debate will give encouragement to the Minister. I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is to take part in this debate, because he and I got on very well in Standing Committee, when he accepted a number of points which I put to him. I hope that, though there might be a change of Government, that fact will not discourage farmers from improving agriculture in Wales, and making it as prosperous as they can in these days.
7.35 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I hesitate to intervene in the debate, but I think perhaps it might be helpful if I were to be allowed to say a few words on topics relating to agriculture which have been raised. I am very grateful for the concluding words of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) in regard to myself, and I was very interested when earlier in his speech he said
680
that he had been trying to find a Biblical quotation in relation to the Report on Rural Wales, which is the one to which I think he was referring. Listening to the debate today, I thought of quite a number of quotations from Jeremiah which might have been appropriate to some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Ness Edwards: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is also the parable of the foolish virgins?
Mr. Godber: Yes, but perhaps we had better not carry that one too far. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself seemed to be almost annoyed that any Conservative Minister should call attention to the fact that the sun was shining. I sometimes think that hon. Members opposite go so far as to think that it is a wicked invention of the Tories, because when we have a fine day it prevents people remembering that it rains sometimes. Although we look differently at these questions, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we seek to do things by different ways but try to do the best we can for the people of Wales, as well as for the United Kingdom as a whole.
In intervening in this debate, I want to touch on one or two matters of agricultural development. I think over the last year or two the story of agricultural development in Wales, as set out in the chapters of the Report we have been discussing, is a pretty good one, and one in which the farmers of Wales can take pride. In saying this, I am not forgetting for a moment the problems facing Welsh farmers. I know they are very real, and in some cases extremely complex, but I do believe that considerable progress has been and is being made in tackling them.
Before turning to specific problems which have been raised in the debate, I should like to say one or two things of a general nature. The linch-pin of Welsh agriculture is livestock, particularly cattle and sheep, and here I think the progress that has been made is very striking. The figures in paragraph 149 of the Report speak for themselves, and I would only add that the December, 1958, Agricultural Returns show that the steady upward progress is still going on. The total number of cattle has risen by 1·3 per cent. on the previous December returns, and

681
sheep and lambs were up on a cow-unit by 5·3 per cent. Again, according to the December returns, the livestock population was 30 per cent. up on the 1947 total. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) referred to a 27 per cent. increase, and I am happy to be able to assure him that the figure is even higher than that. It is quite a striking improvement.
These figures do not disclose that great strides have been made in improving the quality of animals produced in Wales and in increasing the numbers sold in a finished state.
Mr. C. Hughes: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the disease of liver fluke has decimated the sheep population in North-West Wales?
Mr. Godber: I realise that in this last winter farmers there have had very serious trouble with liver fluke, but the conditions were abnormally favourable to liver fluke. I would remind hon. Members that the Ministry was not only aware of it, but issued special warnings last autumn telling farmers that they should take such steps as were open to them in connection with it. I am only sorry that not more of them did take such steps to safeguard their own position in that respect.
Mr. C. Hughes: It is the Government's duty.
An Hon. Member: What about land drainage?
Mr. Godber: On land drainage, to some extent the Government can assist, but in regard to the type of land drainage involved in this connection, many of the farmers could have helped themselves. There are means of dealing with the particular type of snail responsible for spreading the disease and on which we have given information to the farmers concerned. Having said all that, I do realise that it was an exceptional season, and I hope that this year conditions will be better.
Hon. Members will have noted from the Report the increasing use of artificial insemination and the significant change in the use of bulls of beef breed. Here, I should like to pay tribute to the fact that no less than 97 per cent. of Welsh cattle are now attested, and we expect that by October of this year all of them will be. In this respect, Wales has set
682
the pace for the rest of the country, and the Welsh farmers deserve every congratulation.
One encouraging feature is that the production of silage continues to go up. The total for 1958—again, according to the December returns—was almost 50 per cent. higher than that for the year before, 346,000 tons being made. Grass is the most important Welsh crop and, taking permanent and temporary grass together, the acreage continues to increase. Today, it is almost 20 per cent. higher than it was in 1947.
I should now like to say something about the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. The healthy state of affairs that I have mentioned is due to a large number of factors, but we must not forget the role played by these Acts. Under them, all the upland areas of Wales are eligible for 50 per cent. grants towards the cost of comprehensive schemes for the rehabilitation of livestock-rearing farms. As the Report says, work is going on steadily on schemes estimated to cost over £13 million, and grants totalling nearly £3 million have been paid for work done.
The bald figures give little idea of what these schemes mean in practice in improving the amenities of those who tackle the very difficult task of farming the uplands of Wales. The schemes are not only of tremendous value in improving the facilities of the farm itself, but also in providing necessities such as bathrooms and lavatories on the farm. As a result, the Welsh uplands are being enabled to take fuller advantage of the revolution in agricultural techniques that has occurred over the last decade or so, and to enjoy a higher standard of living.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor called attention to the small number of schemes that have been completed. This is true, not only in Wales but in England, too. We get a large number of schemes that take a very long time to complete, but that does not mean that very real improvements have not taken place on those farms, and that the farmers have not benefited thereby. We hope to be able to see full completion of a greater number of these schemes in the near future. That will certainly be our wish, but the fact that such a small number have been completed should not be allowed to obscure the fact that in a very

683
large number of schemes a substantial amount of very valuable work has been done.
The experience gained in administering the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts has proved of value in the administration of the farm improvements scheme. This scheme has given an opportunity to Welsh farmers in the more fertile lowland regions in particular, and they have not been slow to take advantage of it. Improvements to the value of over £1½ million have been approved, and fresh applications are coming in at an undiminished rate. We have received 4,700 applications, and 3,100 have so far been approved. That is a good indication of the way in which the Welsh farmers have taken advantage of this scheme, and I am indeed glad to see it.
I am particularly glad that we were able to extend to the farm improvement scheme the system of standard costs whereby the applicant is able to choose whether to have grant based on the actual documented costs or on a standard cost basis. This is particularly important to the small family farm that is found so extensively in Wales. I hope that if the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) goes through in another place we shall be able to see still further help available for exactly this type of farmer, who appears so frequently in Wales. I am sure that standard costs are one of the most useful ways of helping the small farmer.
Speaking of the small farmer, I must mention the small farmer scheme which, I believe, has a most important part to play in Wales. It is designed to meet the problems of very many of the Welsh farmers. I am glad to say that the response from Welsh farmers has been very good. Over 4,000 applications have so far been received—and the scheme has been going for only a very short time indeed.
In view of the very large number of applications received, we are keeping a close watch on the position, and steps are being taken to strengthen the staff where necessary. An important feature of the scheme is that the advice and assistance of the National Agricultural Advisory Service will be needed in the preparation of farm business plans. This should lead to a general improvement in
684
the standard of management, and particularly to an extension of grassland management techniques which Welsh agriculturalists—and particularly the Welsh Plant Breeding Station—have done so much to develop in recent years.
I should like to add a general point that applies to all the schemes that I have mentioned this evening. It necessarily takes some time to clear applications—we must always remember that it is the taxpayers' money that is involved—but I would assure the House that we are doing all we can to deal with them as quickly as possible. I would, however, add a word of warning about the small farmer scheme. With applications coming forward so rapidly, we may eventually reach the point when we will have to tell some of the applicants that they must wait in the queue, and that if we are to deal with them effectively and well we cannot possibly deal with them all at once.
There has been some comment on rural roads, and the application of the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955. I know, of course, that these road schemes got off to a slow start, and hon. Members are rightly impatient to see more work done. It is certainly true that in the current year we have been able to step up this work very considerably indeed. For the current financial year we propose to approve work to the value of approximately £400,000 in Wales, bringing the cost of the total work approved to about £850,000. That is a very big improvement indeed, and we have been able to go a long way here to meet the concern of hon. Members. We were naturally sorry that we were unable, in the previous year, because of capital restrictions, to do as much as hon. Members would have wished, but we are really going out of the way to help now.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) thought it a little unfair that some of the funds should have been diverted in the last few months to areas of high unemployment. One cannot have it both ways. Other hon. Members have spoken of the need to divert funds to areas of high unemployment. I think that an hon. Member's attitude to this rather depends on the area he represents, but on this specific point I can give the assurance that though some authorities have been allowed to proceed faster than others during the last few

685
months the money available will be allocated as fairly as possible during the currency of the Act. This was merely an acceleration. Other authorities will get their share, and all will get it more rapidly than they have up to the present. I hope that that will be some comfort to hon. Members.
The hon. and learned Member also raised specific points on forestry, and mentioned something that has, I think, been answered in another place. He spoke of 12,000-odd acres being planted over a three-year period. Although I have not been able to check the figures in the short time available, there must be some mistake here, but as in the planting year 1958–59 it is hoped to plant 12.000 acres, it is clear that there is some error in the figure he mentioned.
In fact, the figure I have given for the current year shows an increase of 1,649 acres over that shown in the Report for the previous year. That shows that we are seeking to improve the planting acreage although we are inhibited to some extent by the difficulty of getting sufficient suitable planting land. However, we are doing our best. The hon. and learned Member also spoke of the numbers employed, and—although I accept a good deal of what he has said it is right to make one point. Thinning is now let out on contract, so that the labour employed on that work is not included in the figures. It is a secondary point but one that should be taken note of.
The hon. Member also asked about the Seaborne Davies Committee. The working party, which my right hon. Friend set up to consider the financial organisation and other arrangements appropriate if a Welsh agricultural college were to be established at Aberystwyth, is actively engaged on its task. I understand that it hopes to complete its work before the Summer Recess. Naturally, the House will be informed as soon as possible of any decision taken.
I was glad to have the tribute of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan about what has been done in the form of rural electrification. I noted his wish for more. I think that we have made fairly substantial progress in this matter. I agree that perhaps in Wales progress has not been so rapid as elsewhere, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend is as
686
anxious as anyone to see this work extended, and I am sure that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member will be carefully noted.
The period covered by the Report has been vital in the history of agriculture in Wales. It has seen first the enactment of important new legislation in the form of the Agriculture Acts of 1957 and 1958, which are designed to provide farmers with the basic conditions that they need today. Secondly, it has seen the introduction of the farm improvement and small farmer schemes, both of which have an essential role to play in putting agriculture in the Principality on to a sounder footing.
Thirdly, and very important, in my view, there has been the change of emphasis in the rôle of the county agricultural executive committees. Incidentally. I am glad that the Welsh Committees have made a good start in adapting themselves in accordance with this. Finally. there have been the changes in the Ministry's organisation in Wales designed to further the decentralisation of agricultural administration. I am sure that Welsh farmers, who deserve great credit for the progress that has been made over recent years, will not be slow to seize the opportunities which these new measures offer.
The hon. Member or Brecon and Radnor has asked me a number of specific questions on other points which I have not had the opportunity to check, but I will take careful note of the points which he has raised.
I say to the House in general that from the agricultural point of view Wales has a great deal to be proud of in its achievements of the last few years. The figures which I have quoted are merely an indication, but a fairly striking one, and, while I enjoyed listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) I could not think that his description of a dead hand of despair had anything to do with agriculture in Wales at present.
I apologise if I have taken time away from hon. Members from the Principality, but I thought that it would be useful to give this indication about agricultural matters and I hope that the House will forgive me for doing so.
Mr. Clement Davies: I should like to ask the hon.

687
Member a question about the Government's attitude towards smallholdings acquired and owned by county councils. Unfortunately, until recently—I do not know whether it is now general or whether there has been some improvement—a distinction was drawn by the Government as against county council holdings in favour of owner-occupied or landlord and tenant smallholdings. The result is that the county councils are not able to use even their own capital money for the improvement of their own smallholdings. What is the position today?
Mr. Godber: There is certainly no intention to discriminate against county councils' smallholdings. Indeed, the reverse is the case. Our policy regarding smallholdings in Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, is that we want to see such monies as are available used to improve the standard of existing smallholdings rather than for the acquisition of new ones. Acquisition by county councils does not necessarily make more land available for people in the farming community. We believe that it is necessary to bring up to date, in accordance with what is known as Part IV conditions in the 1947 Act, holdings which are already in the possession of county councils. It is only logical that that should be so.
It is only right that smallholdings provided by county councils should be equipped in the best possible way. There is a great deal of work to be done in that sphere yet. If we help privately-owned farms with small farmer schemes to improve their standard, it is only fair that those who are council tenants should have as good a standard of farm equip-meant as anyone else. Our policy is that such monies as are available should be used to that end, and I believe that that is in the interests of the smallholders themselves.
7.56 p.m.
The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I wish to protest about the way in which Welsh affairs are treated in the House of Commons. Today, we had a very graphic instance of the farcical nature of the situation. When the Leader of the House informed us this afternoon of the business for next week, he told us that the whole of next Thursday was to be devoted to a debate on the question
688
of deer hunting in Scotland. I agree that the Government's Report is a very fascinating and interesting document dealing with the whole gamut of Welsh affairs, but not only do we find ourselves limited to one day's consideration of this far-reaching document, but even the first three-quarters of an hour of our discussion today was taken up with question and answer across the Floor of the House on another subject.
I should like to make this constructive suggestion to the Minister for Welsh Affairs. I hope that the Welsh Whip will also take note of what I am saying, in view of the almost certain event that a Labour Government will be sitting on the benches opposite next year. I ask both sides of the House seriously to consider devoting two days to a debate on the Report. One day should be devoted, as we have been doing today, to industry and employment, and the other day should be devoted to social services, such as health and education. As things are now half the Members for Wales have no chance to speak and those of us who are fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye speak with bated breath, because we have to gabble our speeches at an absurd speed to give a chance to others to speak.
I should like to confine my remarks to the question of unemployment. I promise those of my colleagues who are still patiently sitting on these benches that I will limit myself to 10 minutes. If I have not sat down after 10 minutes, I am sure that one of my colleagues will pull my coat and I will immediately obey his injunction. There has been a measure of complacency in the way in which some leading Government spokesmen have discussed the unemployment situation in Wales. I have in my possession two quotations. One of them appeared in the Commercial and Industrial Review of the Western Mail of 26th January, 1959. It is an article written by the President of the Board of Trade, in which he says:
"Changes in the economic circumstances of the world and of the United Kingdom have had their impact on Wales. Wales has taken it well and still presents a picture of wide and general prosperity".
I do not accept the last three words as conveying a true picture of the situation in Wales. I do not wish to paint the picture too darkly, or to be gloomy or unduly pessimistic. Also, I do not

689
wish to incur the wrath of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas). I admit that there are very bright spots in the Welsh economy and I accept that the outlook is very propitious, but we are not discussing the unknown future. We are discussing the present situation, and I certainly would not describe it as very prosperous.
The Lord Chancellor, speaking during the annual meeting of the Wales and Monmouthshire Conservative and Unionist Area Council, in Cardiff, the other day, used these words:
"There is a great difference between the unemployment that has arisen in Wales recently and that between the two wars. Then, unemployment was recession caused by the decline of two great industries. Today, it is unemployment caused by adjustment, progress and change-over from one form of organisation to another."
I accept that as being partly true, but it is only one part of the picture.
In many parts of Wales today, the unemployment situation has nothing whatever to do with the changed techniques in industry. It is true of Swansea and of Llanelly, but it certainly is not true of the northern part of Monmouthshire and some of the tops of the valleys in Glamorganshire. It is certainly not true of other parts of Wales, such as North-West Wales.
I prefer the description which we find in the Report. It gives a fuller picture and reveals as diplomatically as any civil servant would dare to reveal anything about the success or failure of the Government's policy. It points discreetly to where a large part of the culpability for the existing situation is to be found. I quote from page 10 of the Report:
"At home, industrial production remained relatively stable for some time but, by the autumn of 1958, had declined to the 1955 level (or about 3 per cent. below the mid-1957 peak)."
These are the revealing words:
"Bank advances, machine tool orders, Government orders, houses under construction, new factory building projects started, and the building up of material stocks, all declined throughout the greater part of 1958. Exports fell by over £100 million in the first three quarters of 1958 but some improvement became apparent in the later months of the year."
Adjustment due to new techniques is obviously partly responsible, particularly in the steel and tinplate industries, but largely the responsibility for the high
690
percentage of unemployment still in Wales is to be laid solely at the door of the Government, who tried to solve the admittedly serious problem of inflation in the wrong way. The problem was admitted by both sides to be a serious and urgent one. Our condemnation of the Government is that they adopted the wrong methods to deal with that situation.
Unemployment in Wales doubled between June, 1957, and December, 1958. Can that be described as prosperity? It is no comfort to us that the situation was deteriorating also in England. But is it divinely ordained that at all times the unemployment figures for Wales must be double the national average? Is this a state of affairs which we have to accept willy-nilly and inevitably? I seriously suggest that we had better start putting the picture right.
The unemployment differential between Wales and England has widened considerably since the advent of the Conservative Government in comparison with the time of the Labour Government. It was never consistently twice the national average during the time of the Labour Government.
Mr. P. Thomas: The hon. Member will agree, I think, that two years ago the percentage was the lowest ever in the history of Wales.
Mr. Williams: I am talking about the Government Report and the current figures for Wales. They are still serious. A figure of 4·6 per cent. unemployment is not my idea of general prosperity, as, I am sure, the hon. Member agrees.
We must also particularise when we deal with the question of unemployment. I expect great things, as every sensible person would, from recent industrial developments referred to by the hon. Member for Conway, such as the new steel works at Llanwern, outside Newport—do not let us start a quarrel between Monmouthshire County Council and Newport in the House of Commons—the Pressed Steel factory outside Swansea and the other factories to which referances has been made today. We are all proud of the possibilities inherent in that changed situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and I are, however, disturbed sometimes at the way in which Monmouthshire is regarded generally as

691
being a prosperous county. Newport certainly, by any stretch of the imagination, must be regarded as a prosperous town and its future obviously is favourable. Tonight, however, I want to speak about a different type of story. I am referring to the industrial position in North Monmouthshire at the tops of the valleys. I am very concerned about what is happening and what is likely to happen, perhaps increasingly, in the history of the tops of the valleys of Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire.
I have a theory, with which some of my hon. Friends agree, that there is a greater intensity of real culture at the tops of the valleys of South Wales than when those valleys approach the coastal area. I seriously ask the Minister whether he is prepared to allow these tops of the valleys, mostly mining towns, to die a slow and lingering death with their population becoming more attenuated year after year. That is the picture now. In a homogeneous area consisting of Abertillery, Brynmawr, Ebbw Vale, Rhymney, Tredegar and Newbridge, the unemployment percentage is 4·6.
There is one matter especially on which I should like an answer tonight from the Minister. I have with me the pamphlet which the Board of Trade has been sending to industrialists who contemplate expansion in new areas. It lists the places where Government assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, is available. A whole series of areas and townships will be qualified to apply to D.A.T.A.C. for assistance in order to set up new industries.
The first paragraph of the pamphlet states that
"The Treasury have been given power to make loans or grants for purposes likely to provide more work in places where a high rate of unemployment would otherwise be likely to continue."
I understand from the Minister that the percentage of unemployment which he would regard as high must be a continuing and consistent percentage of about 4 per cent. In the area to which I have referred, in North Monmouthshire, there has been 4·6 per cent. unemployment consistently for the last two years. My people want to know why the area is not scheduled in the list contained in the circular from the Board of Trade.
692
We have gnawing in our hearts an anxious doubt and suspicion about the future of the mining industry. God be merciful to those valleys if anything calamitous happens to the mining industry. Not a single new light industry has been established in the area for years. The Distribution of Industry Act has almost lapsed into desuetude so far as that part of the Principality is in the question, and we are very concerned about it. I want a specific answer on this point from the Minister tonight.
Finally, I wish to refer to the question of school-leavers, to which many of my hon. Friends have already referred. The latest figures which I have ascertained for the Abertillery area alone show that 19 boys and 21 girls have so far not received employment of any kind since leaving school.
I want the Minister and the House as a whole to exercise imagination on this point. Let us put it to ourselves. I speak as a Member of Parliament; no better and no worse, I hope, than the ordinary Member of Parliament. I have had more inquiries about jobs for youngsters in the last two years than during the previous seven years in which I have been a Member of this House.
A boy leaves school at 15 and has no job open to him. I think that is one of the most terrible of all tragedies. I can think of nothing more soul-destroying, more frustrating, than for youngsters to leave school only to find that society has nothing to offer them. Then they form up in gangs and we have all the terrible things which we read about in the newspapers taking place. I am not saying that all these things are necessarily confined to youths who are unemployed—youths who are gainfully employed lapse, unfortunately, into those ways—but I am sure that nothing is more conducive to delinquency and to a general rottenness of attitude towards life than for youngsters to embark on the threshold of youth with nothing to look forward to, and with nothing to demand from them the qualities which I like to think are inherent in all of us. I beg the Minister particularly to take note of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty has in his constituency one of the finest industrial establishments in the country, the South Wales Switchgear Company. Mr. Nicholas is a man whose

693
name is to be spoken with real admiration for what he has done in the way of apprenticeship schemes. I should like that example to be followed. The Government could help a lot by giving inducements to similar-minded firms in the way of tax relief and preferential treatment in the placing of Government contracts. Nothing could be more constructive or creative than to give special concessions to a firm which is prepared to ensure the future not only of young boys, but of the country. I ask the Minister to think on those lines when he replies for the Government.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: I should like to return to the theme which has preoccupied a number of hon. Members and which has caused the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) to describe many of us as acting as Jeremiahs. What we have to find out is whether in fact the diversity of industry which is being claimed as now established in Wales has really taken place.
We are told by Lord Kilmuir that Wales in fact has emancipated itself from its bondage to its two main industries. I suggest that instead of indulging in criticism of one side of the House or the other about how far this process has gone, we should give some attention to the actual facts of the situation.
I should like to direct attention to the percentage distribution of the insured population which was in fact engaged in mining in East Glamorgan and Monmouthshire in 1948 and then consider the position in 1957. We must understand the trends in order to know whether in fact technical change will bring about a considerable blow to the coal industry of this country and, if so, how we are prepared to meet it. Has the diversity in industry that is claimed taken place?
In the area of East Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, in 1948, 24·2 per cent. of the insured population were engaged in mining. The last figure available for 1957 was 23·4 per cent. So it becomes quite apparent that the percentage of the insured population engaged in mining has in fact changed very little. In engineering, we find that in the areas of East Glamorgan and Monmouthshire the change has been from 9·2 per cent. in
694
1948 to 11·4 per cent. in 1957. If there had been dramatic changes in the location of our industries and the numbers of people employed in them, they would surely have been reflected in those figures.
Let me bring this a little nearer home by referring to the position of the valleys. We have only to select the Rhondda, Merthyr, Aberdare, Rhymney and the Monmouthshire valleys to see how little the percentage of the insured population has shifted away from mining to engineering, and whether it is a myth or a fact that real diversity of industry has been created in Wales.
Taking the years that I have mentioned, in the mining industry in 1948 we were in the position that 46·5 per cent. of the population were engaged in mining and in 1957 it was 41·3 per cent. On these figures and statistics then is the diversity taking place at the rate that has been claimed? I am not trying to utter jeremiads, but I have sensed from the speeches made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and the hon. Member for Conway and the attitude of Lord Kilmuir that an attempt is being made to build up the myth that diversity of industry in Wales has taken place. It has nowhere near taken place. In the face of the serious challenge of technical change, we clearly are not equipped and not ready to meet it.
If there is the same acceleration in technical changes during the next five years as there have been in the last five years, there could be serious tragedies throughout South Wales particularly in those areas which too many people are wrongly endeavouring to claim have now got diversity. If one is asked how we propose to achieve diversity, I would say that first we have to look at how we have succeeded in the past, and consider the dramatic contrast between what was done under the Labour Government and what has been done since. When the question is put by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North as to whether we believe in direction, we have to say, first, that of course we do not want direction if it can be avoided.
Let us look at the records. If we take the industrial analysis of buildings completed in South Wales we find, taking the years 1945–51 as one set of figures and

695
then the years up to 1957, that the average amount of buildings completed in the years 1945–51 was 1 million square feet each year above the average from 1951 on. These figures show that the challenge of technical change has not been met.
Again the expenditure by the Board of Trade under the Distribution of Industries Act for development in Wales and Monmouthshire in 1947–48 was more than £4 million, 1948–49 nearly £4 million, 1949–50 £2,300,000, 1950–51 £1½ million. These figures show how much was done. But in 1952–53 the figure was less than £1 million and in 1953–54 £690,000. The last available figure shows only just over £1 million has been spent in 1956–57. Therefore, we have a situation in which great technical changes take place and where there is need to be alert to meet the dramatic changes in industrial life; but unfortunately under Toryism we clearly have lagged considerably behind the proud record of the Labour Government.
We must understand also how the available statistics show that we are not attracting the type of industries which we want and which will give us prolonged and genuine diversity. The statement has been bandied about that 350 factories have been brought into Wales since 1945. The hon. Member for Conway, who tells us that he has little respect for percentages and statistics, was generous enough to add 50 and make the figure 400 but, taking the figure of 350 given by Lord Kilmuir, I would ask the Minister why he did not tell us how many of these factories are now closed.
Out of the 368 factories, as I make the figure, which have come into Wales since 1945 more than 100 have been closed. Figures available to me show that 108 have been closed, that is approximately 30 per cent. Instead of boasting and swaggering about the great diversity of industry and the manner in which industry has been attracted into Wales, we should ask ourselves how many have been casualties. We should examine the reasons for the casualty rate and then consider whether the industrial future of Wales is as sure as hon. Members opposite, in their complacency, have suggested today.
Examination of the casualties will show that the larger the factory the less
696
likely it is to be a casualty. Less than 10 per cent. have been casualties when, on coming to Wales, they have employed more than 500 people, whereas there have been 24 per cent. casualties among factories employing between 100 and 499 people. We must realise, therefore, that with this trend of casualties in industry it is vitally important to attract large industries and to stop messing around with tinpot ones which suffer so many casualties. It is not enough to say that we do not want branch factories, because it depends on the nature of the branch. If the branch factory is producing a component essential to its parent industry, that is the type of factory we want. If it is not, it may become marginal. If it produces merely a duplication of what the parent company can create, it is open to all the winds of misfortune that can blow upon it.
We must make quite sure, therefore, of the type of factory that we want to attract. We do not want those which make furniture and boxes, an industry which has proved to have a 65 per cent. casualty rate. We must attract those industries which will give us some confidence that there is some future for those who become employed in them, and we must make sure that when people learn their job they will not face the danger that once again they may be put on the unemployment market.
One never talks about Monmouthshire now without reference being made to Llanwern, as if it were the panacea and the answer to all Monmouth's problems. When so much enthusiasm is shown for Llanwern, let it not be forgotten that many of us have some sense of disappointment about the position. We want to know why Wales has been deprived of a fully integrated steel mill and why only a semi-continuous mill is to be established at Llanwern with a much smaller rate of operation and the probability of excessive capital cost per ton of production. There is a serious danger with a mill of that kind that the economic advantages of Newport in ore handling may be thrown away.
Why is there so much hedging about the timetable for the building up to full capacity at Llanwern? We inquire because we know that Richard Thomas and Baldwin is nationally owned, and we wonder whether the reluctance to spend

697
£150 million to £250 million on a fully integrated mill is due to the fact that the Government recognise that if such sums were expended there would be obvious difficulties in unscrambling something of that order.
Or is it due to the fact that the Tories, unlike us on this side of the House, have no real belief in the future expansion of Britain and are prepared to contemplate the possibility that there would be indivisible units at Llanwern which would not be likely to be employed to full capacity for years to come? Apparently, it is because somebody is dragging his feet that a fully integrated mill is not to be set up there. We know from experience of the steel industry in the past that there is never a desire on its part to meet future economic needs. When my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams) says that Monmouth shire has no reason to feel cock-a-hoop about the financial situation he is expressing the views of many of those who live there.
We are also aware of, and are deeply concerned about the problem of, the bulge in the teenage population, particularly in an area where diversity is lacking. It becomes abundantly clear, therefore, that we need more diversity, more opportunities for skilled employment, otherwise there will be an appalling waste of young men who could be used as skilled workers but who will have to drop down in the scale of employment and become at best unskilled labour. Or—and this is a horrible alternative—they will have to go away.
We were asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North whether we believed in direction. Some of us remember that hundreds of thousands of our people in Wales were directed by economic compulsion out of Wales, and therefore we are not inclined to be tender at the prospect that we might be inconveniencing a directorship or those in a managerial capacity by applying pressure to ensure that they bring work where the community needs it. We believe that if cajoling and coaxing industry is not effective, we must be prepared to consider alternative methods. Certainly we are not prepared complacently to allow a situation to continue where there is chronic unemployment in so many areas.
698
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was in a very ebullient condition while in Wales. This may have been due to the air of Celtic romanticism which surrounded him. At any rate he said that a time would come, apparently very soon, when he could see that we might become embarrassed by industrial development. Wales is waiting to be embarrassed. In my valley the women are fair indeed they are probably the fairest in Wales. With a percentage of unemployment in Pontypool of 8 per cent. among the women alone, I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he can go very far with our ladies without placing himself in any danger of being embarrassed.
I think there is a myth of diversification. I believe we have to press on and ensure that we have to have some regional grouping of factories particularly in these valleys. The people of Wales must cease to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water. In other words, we want to manufacture some of the end products. It is time we started thinking not only in terms of strip mills but of manufacturing the end products of the motor industry, like Birmingham and other areas. We believe that there is no future for Wales as long as we have a Government which is prevented through its own predilections from having the planned diversity which Wales needs.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am glad to see that the Minister for Welsh Affairs has resumed his seat. I fully recognise the assiduity with which the right hon. Gentleman has attended this debate all these hours, and in welcoming him back I am in no way reproaching him for his wholly necessary absence.
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) on what we all considered to be a most able and stimulating speech? He laid down a principle to which I believe all hon. Members of this House will subscribe, namely, that it is impossible to sustain and preserve a national community like Wales unless work for its people is secured for them in their own home land. That is what this debate has turned on since it began five hours ago.
My purpose in rising is to pinpoint the attention of the Minister and of the House

699
on two old-established industries which are of paramount importance to us in the province of Gwynedd, North-West Wales, namely, the slate and granite industries. They are also of immense social and cultural importance to our people, because they have supported communities of a peculiarly attractive and worthwhile character, Welsh in speech, sober, studious and steady.
We are gravely concerned, however, about the decline of both these industries, and I will give one or two figures. At the end of the century the slate quarrying industry in North Wales employed 14,000 or 15,000 men. Today it employs barely 3,000. The same is true of the granite quarries. The reasons for the decline of the slate industry are competition from cheaper but inferior roofing materials and the high working costs, especially the cost of clearing debris and over-burden and, of course, Government policy. House builders have been less ready to use slates, which are more expensive than tiles, when the price of money is so high. As a result we have 3,000 unemployed in the County of Caernarvon, and the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas), who painted such a bright picture of the prospects in Caernarvonshire, should remember that we have that large number of unemployed in his and my county.
What can be done to assist the slate industry? There is need for an inquiry into its organisation and into its marketing methods. There is also a strong case for Government grants towards the clearance of debris and over-burden. In this connection I want to ask the Minister a question. Does the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958, apply in the case of a slate quarry which wishes to apply for grant towards the cost of the clearance of overburden?
Thirdly, I am told that the award of only a small percentage of the new roofing of the United Kingdom to slate would put this Welsh industry on its feet. Is it possible to do that? I understand that some such arrangement has been effected in relation to the much smaller slate quarry industry in Scotland. Cannot it be done for the Welsh industry, which is of such importance to North-West Wales? I join with the hon. Member for Conway in urging that Government agencies should use slate as much as possible. Government buildings are deemed
700
to be made to last for a considerable time, although not every Government is expected to do so. In that connection it seems to us that the decision to use tiles—and foreign tiles at that—for work at Catterick Camp is indefensible. I have had representations from quarry owners in my constituency, as has the hon. Member for Conway, and I hope that the Minister will support the all-party plea to the War Office to reconsider that decision.
What I said about slate applies also to granite quarries. The decline of the granite industry proceeds at an accelerated pace. Whole villages are being desolated, and families dispersed to other parts of the country. I have in mind the village of Trefor, in Caernarvonshire, famous for the high quality of its cultural life. That village is dying. It is down to almost half its former population because the local industry on which it has depended for the past century has dwindled so much. Can we do something to help it? As other hon. Members have pointed out, if the Government would press forward with the implementation of the Agriculture Roads Act, 1955, that would help the granite industry. The whole House welcomed that Act, which provided £4 million for the rehabilitation of rural roads. That was four years ago, and to date only about £500,000 has been approved for expenditure on such roads. Furthermore, only £79,000 has been actually spent. I hope that everything that has been said about that Act this evening will spur the Minister and his colleague in the Ministry of Agriculture to carry out the provisions of that Act vigorously.
I am not satisfied that the possibility of using small granite in the tremendous amount of aggregate which will be necessary in the construction of the Trawsfynydd atomic power plant has been properly investigated. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter, and will consult the authorities responsible—C.E.G.B. and the Minister of Power—to see whether Trefor and Penmaenmawr could not make a contribution to that vast, new and exciting construction.
Having said that we need to support the old industries of slate and granite, I must make it clear that we also need new industries. When we speak of new industries, Government supporters refer to prospects on the horizon, including the

701
chemical works which has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite as possibly coming to the Caernarvon district. Can the Minister give us some information about that possibility tonight, and in particular whether he is now ready to give his decision on the public inquiry into the water scheme at Glynllifon which was held on 4th February. We are anxiously awaiting his decision on that point.
Further, about eighteen months ago we were told that the Central Electricity Authority had earmarked a site in Caernarvon, at Edeyrn, a site which, after exhaustive inquiry, was considered to be an excellent one for the Authority's purpose, that is, the erection of a nuclear energy generating station. Can the Minister tell us whether the intention to use this site for that purpose is still firm? We earnestly hope that the Government and the Authority have not been stampeded by self-appointed amenity societies who are more concerned to preserve a few score acres of scenery than to provide jobs for 550 local men, some of whom have been unemployed for months or even years. Who is to say how the land of Wales is to be disposed of—the Government of the day and their appointed agencies, or a handful of people some of whom live in Surbiton or Sheffield, and who regularly write in the English Press denouncing any attempt to use a corner of North Wales for the purpose of providing a livelihood for its people?
All these short-term measures need to be taken to strengthen our economy in the province of Gwynedd—an ancient province which has always been a reservoir of Welsh speech and thought. We will not solve the fundamental economic problem of that province unless we schedule the area, or appropriate parts of it, under the 1944 Act. All the conditions for scheduling parts of Caernarvonsh ire and North Merioneth and Anglesey are present—all the considerations posed in the Barlow Report and the legislation that followed it.
There is a decline in the traditional heavy industries in North Wales; there is a lack of diversification apparent in North Wales as in South Wales; there is a lack of opportunity for young people, and a decline in local services, because when there is chronic unemployment
702
rateable values and other values tend to go down. All the conditions for scheduling are present. Once more I appeal to the Minister to look again at the question of scheduling appropriate areas of the three counties in North-West Wales. Hon. Members of all parties. including that of the right hon. Gentleman, are agreed on that as being the true solution for our difficulties.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. D. J. Williams: Today, we have been debating the latest Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire. For a number of years we have received Reports covering a period of twelve months from July until the following June. The present Report covers a period of eighteen months, from July, 1957, until December, 1958. We are told that future Reports will cover the period of the calendar year which, I understand, is a matter of administrative convenience. I have no objection to this change of form. We are concerned about the content of the Report, and the present Report differs from the previous ones not only in form but in content.
This is probably the least encouraging Report we have had since these Reports were first issued about twelve years ago. It presents a very depressing picture of the economic situation in Wales. That is not due to any defect in the compilation of the Report. The Report is, indeed, factual, objective and accurate. But it covers a period when there was a serious deterioration in the economic situation in Wales. This affected our basic industries. It affected nearly all our other industries and the employment situation was severely affected. The Report brings out clearly the adverse changes which took place in Wales during the period under review.
First, there was a serious decline in the level of economic activity. Secondly, there was the closing down of the old sheet steel and tinplate works in West Wales. Thirdly, there was the decline in the demand for coal and the effect of this upon the South Wales mining industry. Fourthly, there was the overall rise in our unemployment figures and the existence of heavy pockets of local unemployment in many parts of Wales. These are the most important economic and social problems which now face us in Wales. They are not peculiarly

703
Welsh problems and there is no special Welsh solution for them. They are problems of the British economy and they are problems of Government policy. They did not emerge in isolation in Wales. They arose as a result of change in the British economy and because of the policies pursued by the present Government.
I want to say one word about the mining industry in South Wales and more especially in West Wales. I appreciate that this is not a debate on the mining industry, but it is impossible to talk about the economic and social problems of South Wales without making some reference to the mining industry. The industry there has severely contracted over the last thirty years in the number of pits, in production and the number of men employed in the pits. But it is still an important industry in South Wales and it is one of our biggest industries. Nearly 100,000 men are employed in the coal industry and many communities depend entirely on coal.
Over the last two years a dramatic change has come over the mining industry. Since the war there has been an insatiable and increasing demand for coal. There was a shortage of coal and a shortage of miners to produce it. That position existed in all the coalfields and that was the position in South Wales. But in 1957 the demand for coal fell and it is continuing to fall. Now there is a surplus of coal and restrictions have had to be imposed upon its production. At the beginning of last year the Coal Board stopped recruitment at many collieries in South Wales.
At the beginning of this year six collieries in South Wales were closed and one colliery was partially closed. Nearly 3,000 men became redundant although a large number of them were found employment at other collieries. Three of these closures, and the partial closure, took place in the anthracite coalfield in West South Wales. Nearly 1,400 miners became redundant. Very few of these men could be transferred to other collieries, because there were no expanding collieries in that area. They could not find jobs in other industries because there are no other industries in the area.
The result is that at present there are over 1,000 skilled miners unemployed.
704
They have no prospect of employment near their homes—and most of them own their own homes—and several mining villages have become derelict. This is the area where the old sheet steel and tinplate mills had closed down. This is the area which already had a heavy concentration of unemployment. On top of this came the closure of the coal mines. And because of the failure of the Government to bring in new industries, many of these old-established communities in West South Wales have become depressed areas once again.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Harold Finch: This debate on the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales has largely been concentrated on employment and industry, including agriculture. We recognise that the Report contains a great deal of valuable information, particularly in connection with the social services. It deals with the Health Service, education, road communications, and many other things that play an important part in the life of a community. Because of that we feel that all the social services should have special consideration, but they cannot be considered in the few hours which a Parliamentary day affords. I hope that the time is not far distant when a number of days will be allotted to discussing the serious problems which affect the Principality.
It is well known that the people of Wales are enthusiastic about improving education in the country generally. We should have been only too happy to have spent a little time in expressing our views on the need further to encourage the aspirations of the people of Wales. We should have liked to have said something about the lack of air and water services. They are very important social services, but overshadowing them all is the fact that nearly 44,000 of our fellow countrymen are unemployed. They are eking out an existence on unemployment benefit and National Assistance. Many whose standard of living was reasonably good in years gone by have been reduced to living on £4 or £5 a week.
In addition, the nation is losing the skill and productivity of men at a time when it is more than ever necessary to improve the economic position of the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, right that we have debated this Report today—and it has been an excellent debate

705
from both sides of the House—and devoted a considerable amount of our time to this very important subject.
The people of Wales are very much disturbed by the fact that 44,000 of their fellow-countrymen are unemployed. There is deep concern in the valleys and villages of Wales at that fact. I appreciate that the Minister for Welsh Affairs has been doing all he can to bring new industries to Wales. He has been using his influence with his colleagues, but we have to bear in mind, although it is unfortunate for him, that since he has been the Minister the unemployment figures have risen from 28,000 to 44,000. I suppose that he is a victim of Government policy, but he has supported that policy throughout.
Mr. James Callaghan: He can always resign.
Mr. Finch: He must share responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves. It is said that restrictions previously imposed by the Government have now been removed and that there is some reduction in taxation. We are hoping that that will result in some improvment of the position, but the fact remains that there is considerable uncertainty and anxiety as to whether it will bring any appreciable benefit to the people of this country.
With the coming on of the summer season, we can expect a reduction in unemployment to some extent. Nevertheless, the position is very grave. We have heard enough from my hon. Friends to show that. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) has spoken of 8 per cent. unemployment in the Rhondda Valley, and other hon. Friends of mine have spoken of 5 per cent. unemployed in Abertillery. In West Wales it is 8·6 per cent. These are serious figures which exist in spite of the expanding economy about which we hear so much at present.
In addition, there is the situation at Cardiff and Barry Docks. My hon Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) put a Question to the Minister of Labour the other day. The Answer showed that the unemployment figure for shipbuilding and ship-repairing workers is 18·8 per cent. In my constituency, two factories recently closed down. Not a large number of
706
people were put out of work, but there were more than 100 and these numbers go to swell the total.
Reference has been made to the position in North-West Wales. I do not want to labour the point, but the situation in North-West Wales as a whole remains as grave as ever. If there is a marginal decrease during the summer months that may be due to the tourist trade and to depopulation. We cannot expect the unemployed to be absorbed in Anglesey or Caernarvonshire, but we were glad to hear that an advance factory is to be built in Anglesey. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) is glad to hear that, too, because he has worked so untiringly to bring it about. I am convinced that the problem of North Wales can be resolved if there is sufficient imagination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) again today drew attention to the decline in the slate industry in Merioneth and Caernarvonshire. What have the Government done about that? The Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, Lord Brecon, has a thorough knowledge of the quarries and slate industry. In view of that intimate knowledge, we should expect that things would have been improved there, but they have deteriorated. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there should be a Government survey of the industry. There is clearly a need for speedier mechanisation and a better marketing organisation if the industry is to survive. Anglesey and the other counties cannot live on promises. Positive Government intervention is called for as a matter of urgency.
Would the Minister not agree that a large number of local authorities in areas in which unemployment exists in North-West Wales have not the necessary finance to provide basic services? He knows that the product of a 1d. rate in those areas is very small. Does he not agree that in those circumstances it is reasonable that the areas should be brought within the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act, which would allow those local authorities to call for assistance for basic services under Sections 3 and 5? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some hope in this direction. It would go a long way to assist those local authorities if they could have grants of assistance, under

707
Section 3 in particular. It would create employment and give confidence to the people there.
On the assets side, I quite agree we have reason to be pleased, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that the Pressed Steel Company is beginning operations in South-West Wales. We are pleased that the strip mill at Llanwern is now in the offing and will soon be under way. We view these assets with a great deal of optimism, but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, they will not touch the problem in the valleys of Wales, where unemployment is still serious. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) pointed out that we face a serious position in the mining industry.
It is becoming acute and communities in the mining valleys are asking what is to be their future. They see pits closing and coal being stocked. I know that the Minister for Welsh Affairs is not directly connected with the coal mining industry, but he should be fully aware that this is a question of planning and of taking every precaution to meet future emergencies. This was the theme of the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) and it has been the theme of the debate. In 1957 coal consumption fell by 7 million tons. There was a fall of 13 million tons in 1958. Consumption in the first 13 weeks of this year was 4,314,000 tons less than in the first 13 weeks of last year. If the present trends continue consumption will be down by 14 million tons at the end of the year.
When he visited Wales, the Parliamentary Secretary struck a note of optimism which we should have been delighted to share with him, but we all know the state of the industry. If we do not share his optimism surely we cannot be accused of scepticism. The right hon. Gentleman himself struck the same note of optimism when he opened the debate on 11th February, 1957, because he told us that the outlook in coal and steel was satisfactory. I do not know whether he could bring the closing of pits within his definition of "satisfactory", but, as he knows, in the last twelve months we have seen the closing of several pits and 2,370 men have been declared redundant. Indeed, 1,100 are still idle. Efforts are
708
being made by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers by which it is hoped to reduce the figure to 800. I dread to think what might have happened under private ownership.
But I warn the House, speaking from a Welsh point of view, that if we are to have a further closing of pits in South Wales, the Coal Board will be unable to reabsorb all the men declared redundant, however good the Board's intentions. We may be faced with this problem. We hope not, but here again we should be prepared for the future.
I hope that without delay the Minister will enter into consultations with the Minister of Power and the Coal Board to obtain an assessment of the situation. What are the plans? Is there a likelihood of certain pits being closed next year? If so, where? Where are these pits which are likely to be closed? What will be the local circumstances if they are closed? Is there a factory nearby? How many men can be reabsorbed into the Board's pits? Have the Government any programme to assist the men who cannot be reabsorbed into the mining industry? We do not expect the Government to place a factory in every small village, but if we are faced with serious unemployment we say that we should look at the situation and endeavour to attract industry into those areas in order to absorb the men who are declared redundant.
I should like to draw attention to the increased consumption of oil. It is evident that the Government are following a policy of cut-throat competition between the fuel industries. It is not a policy of supplementation between these industries, whereby they would work together, with so much allocated to coal, so much to oil and so much to gas, for example. It is a policy of competition. That is the policy which the Government are following at present.
I remind the House that if we cut back the demand for coal by 1 million tons it means a reduction in manpower of 4,000 men. The Government are sacrificing the mining industry. Indeed, it seems to me that they are gradually wiping it out. When hon. Members on this side speak of the problem of the mining industry they do not advocate that the consumption of oil should be stopped altogether. We say that there

709
should be limits to the consumption of oil. There should be some plan to deal with the situation. I warn the Ministry that unemployment, like oil, has its price, and that to create unemployment in this great industry by extending the use of oil will be a costly affair.
We have to look at the social problem. If pits are closed, what will it mean to the valleys of South Wales? I realise that the Minister for Welsh Affairs is not responsible to the House for the mining industry, but I beg him to enter into consultation with the Minister of Power to see what the position is likely to be. Perhaps he will be able to give us some information the next time we have an opportunity to discuss Welsh affairs. Forewarned is forearmed, and if there has not already been consultation between the Ministries, I hope that there will be consultation in the near future.
Recruitment of young people into the mining industry has almost ceased in the valleys of South Wales, and that has added to the problem, which has been referred to in the debate as the teenage problem. There is a lack of employment for young people. Our information is that 3,619 boys and girls under 18 are registering at employment exchanges in Wales. That figure is bad enough, but it is not the whole story. Bad as it sounds, the full story is far worse. I say that without any exaggeration.
When young people leave school at the age of 15 they register at the youth employment offices. There is no payment for them, and although they register perhaps for three or four periods, they then cease to register, and we lose sight of them because they are not on the books. They are without work, but no record is kept of them. For the moment, I am not saying that a record could be kept, but the fact is that there are many more unemployed than the 3,619 I mentioned.
In addition, we have to realise that many parents in Wales, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, recognising the serious unemployment situation, are keeping their children at school. In all the circumstances this is a wise policy, but it means that the problem is accumulating. At the beginning of the Summer Recess, many of them will be leaving school, and we shall enter that first substantial stage of the "bulge". Then we shall see how serious the position will be.
710
I would say to employers and to the trade unions that they should get together to try to see what further steps can be taken in this direction, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll Williams) has said, there is nothing worse for young people than frustration or boredom. We have enough evidence in the papers every day showing what frustration and boredom mean to our young people. I make this suggestion from a personal point of view. I feel that perhaps the trade unions and the industrialists might get together to reduce the apprenticeship term of five years. Five years is the generally accepted period for an apprenticeship, but, with training. the increase in technical education and the co-operation of the employers, if they could, as my hon. Friend suggested, do what was done by Mr. Nicholas, of Switchgear, they would get on with the job in a much better way.
However, at present it is a period of five years. Can it be reduced to four? I am sure that if the trade unions and the employers get together they might make some arrangement for the adjustment which would be required in wages, because the apprentice would become entitled to a man's wage at 20 instead of 21, and, therefore, alteration in wage rates would be required. Here is the opportunity. If it can be taken and the period reduced to four years, we could then bring in more young people.
The Industrial Development Association for Wales made a suggestion in this connection in a recent memorandum. It makes reference to problems of youth employment, and suggests that the Government should consider granting special concessions in favour of firms operating an apprenticeship training scheme, possibly by way of tax reliefs and assistance in the placing of Government contracts. The lack of employment is not confined to industrial districts, because there is a similar position in agricultural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, in opening the debate, referred to the disabled. There are now 5,000 disabled in Wales, and I do not see much prospect at the moment of reducing this figure unless some definite action is taken by the Government. I think that it would be wise to see what could be done by entering into negotiations with Remploy to see whether that

711
scheme could come to our assistance, but there is one aspect of this matter to which I would draw special attention.
Many of these young people are also disabled young people, who may have been attacked by poliomyelitis, or, from some natural cause, are not fully able to work, and who require suitable work. They register with the youth employment officer, but what hope have they got? When the youth employment officer applies to the employer, he finds that the employer has already taken his statutory 3 per cent. and is not able to take any more. Therefore, there is very little hope for them. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will discuss this matter with his colleagues in the other Government Departments.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham that so little has been said about youth employment in this Report. No hope is held out, no positive suggestions are put forward, but I am sure that the trade unions will be glad to help in this matter. I therefore hope that consideration will be given to that problem. I try to be practical in this matter. I am not unmindful of the difficulties facing the Government, but the trouble is that they have left this so late. They have had the Distribution of Industry Act in cold storage for the last four or five years, and now they must make amends. Time is not on their side. We are facing a problem of 44,000 unemployed, and if the Government had put the Distribution of Industry Act effectively into operation three or four years ago they would have found themselves in a much happier position than they are in today. Section 5 of the Act has been put into operation only recently. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly pointed out, it was withdrawn in 1953.
We have recently been told that the issue of industrial development certificates in the congested areas has been tightened up, but that should have been done long ago. I agree that in the last six months we have seen some evidence on the part of the Government to put some life into this scheme, but I accuse them tonight of the years of neglect—though I still hope that they can make up the arrears, for which they are equally responsible.
712
I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) had to say about agriculture. He drew attention to the plight of the rural areas, and to their continuing depopulation. The most important thing there is an efficient agricultural industry, with guaranteed prices and a guaranteed market. Labour legislation provided that in the upland areas, and accomplished a great deal of good for small farmers. What is now required is confidence in the future on the part of both the producer and the farm worker. I am glad, too, that my hon. Friend drew attention to basic services, particularly in the spheres of local amenities. If the local amenities are lacking, the young people will leave the villages and the land.
The theme of this debate has been planning and future preparedness for emergency. The Government have not done much in that direction in the past, but I hope that this debate will urge them on to do a lot in the future. We do not agree with one another on methods, perhaps, but I am sure that all hon. Members have at heart the one object of further reducing the unemployment figures, and so giving happiness and comfort to the people of Wales—those cultured men and women, many of whom are very worried today. They have contributed much to the country's economy, and to its culture, and I hope that as a result of the debate the Government will take the tip, and prepare.
There are still serious times ahead. If we have convinced the Government tonight of the need to tackle unemployment in Wales, this debate will have been well worth while.
9.19 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Government need no convincing, because we have long recognised that the greatest need of the Principality is to reduce unemployment. I wholly agreed with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) when, in his most interesting opening speech, he remarked that Wales is a national unity but not an economic unit. Wales is and must be integrated with Britain, and all of us have to recognise that.

713
We all know that in Wales there is at least a certain doubt whether she gets a fair crack of the whip from England, but at any rate we have managed to usurp St. George's Day to debate the affairs of the Principality of St. David. My one regret about this fascinating debate is that we have not had a contribution from the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). We shall always be pleased to see him in his place when Welsh affairs are under discussion.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture who said that there were a lot of Jeremiahs about. As the debate continued, I wondered whether we were moving from Jeremiah to Lamentations. The difference between most hon. Members opposite and the prophets of old is that the prophets of old invariably had something concrete and practical to say whereas I found that there was a lack of practical suggestions today. I grant at once that a number of speeches were addressed to what the hon. Member for Wrexham described as economic politics. I thought that others were addressed to politics without the economics.
One's mind cannot help going back to previous Welsh debates. The last one—and I except the special occasion in July—was in December, 1957, when the principal subject of debate was the appointment of Mr. Lewis, as he then was, now my noble Friend Lord Brecon. I think that it was the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who has not been able to speak today, who said that Wales had turned sour on the appointment of a Minister of State for Welsh Affairs. Wales has turned sweet on it ever after, because, if one spoke to Welshmen of any age of any part of Wales and of any political faith they would all say that the man who has given outstanding service to the Principality during the last 15 months has been my noble Friend.
Another subject on which we might have had a debate, but the Opposition did not ask for it, was when the Chairman of the Council for Wales resigned in November and the Prime Minister appointed me in his stead. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) referred to the Council for Wales and asked me to say something about it.
714
The Council has held three meetings under my chairmanship. I believe that any member of the Council would say that it was doing valuable and constructive work. In particular, one of its panels is addressing itself to a major Welsh question which, curiously enough, has been hardly mentioned today, namely, the tourist industry. I certainly do not claim that the attraction of holiday makers is a complete solution to the economic problems of any area, but it is a very important element. I should like to see the parts of Wales where holiday makers might go, providing first rate facilities and attractively served food. If that were achieved I think that there would be less need to lay stress on the romance of the mountains. But I emphasise that both those things are desirable if we are to bring to Wales all those who can come and spend money therein.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan asked me not to fail to make some reference to the constitutional arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) created the post of Minister for Welsh Affairs in 1951. A degree of coordination has now been attained among all the Government Departments in matters affecting the Principality which certainly never existed in previous years. I trust that in the two and a half years that I have held the office I have managed to strengthen and improve that collaboration. I keep in touch with all my right hon. and hon. Friends on these matters, and although it may not always appear in public, they invariably consult me about every Welsh matter which they handle.
What became clearly apparent to me was that the Minister for Welsh Affairs—it would apply equally to a Secretary of State for Wales—is bound, through being a Member of the Cabinet, to be tied largely to London, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is. That is why there was a powerful case for the appointment of a Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, a member of another place, who could be based in Wales and spend most of his time there.
Among the Government Departments in Cardiff and Aberystwyth we have achieved complete co-ordination. I take the chair every three or four months at a

715
meeting of the heads of Government Departments in Wales. When the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) criticises the Rural Wales Committee for not having reported that it had met Lord Brecon, I should like to mention that all the members of the Rural Wales Committee meet Lord Brecon frequently at the conferences which I have just indicated. In addition, as the House may know, Lord Brecon is holding fortnightly conferences of the senior civil servants who are concerned with unemployment in Wales so that he may watch and guide throughout all the anti-unemployment action which is being taken.
In addition, there has been steady devolution of administrative functions to Wales. We now have a Transport Commissioner for Wales, whereas formerly there was never a senior administrative officer of the Ministry of Transport in Wales.
Mr. Callaghan: Oh, yes, there was.
Mr. Brooke: Not administrative; technical. There has been a substantial shift of administrative work in the Ministry of Education from London to Cardiff, and I understand that further devolution of certain services in the case of the Welsh Board of Health will come shortly.
I was grateful to several hon. Members who referred to the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales as a valuable Report. Others attached different epithets to it. I trust the House agrees that it is better to have the Report on a calendar year basis, when we can get it published within eight or nine weeks of the end of the calendar year, than to run it to the end of June and not be able to publish it until November.
Mr. Callaghan: These constitutional and administrative changes which have been described have resulted only in a substantial increase in unemployment. I am reminded of the saying, if Mr. Speaker will excuse me, that I can see the bleeding harness but where is the bloody horse?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member perhaps knows more about bloody horses than others of us. If he thinks that action to devolve administrative work from
716
London to Cardiff causes unemployment in Wales, he should say that in his constituency.
One or two hon. Members suggested that there should be a greater service of statistics in the Report. We have hitherto published the statistics separately in the digest. I consider it better to try to make the Report a readable document than so to fill it up with figures that nobody will open it. If any hon. Member on either side has any suggestions to make for ways in which we could improve the content of the Report and make it more interesting and valuable, no one would be more happy than I to hear of them.
We have today, through the decision of the Welsh Parliamentary Party to concentrate on employment and agricultural questions, necessarily omitted much else that is going on. There has been a greater progress in educational building during the last seven years in Wales than ever before in Welsh history. Most important hospital projects are on foot and similarly over the whole field of the social services.
The Rev. Ll. Williams: The Minister was absent from the House when I made a suggestion, which I hope was conveyed to him, about the possibility of having two days for debate, one to discuss, as we have done today, industry and employment, and another to discuss the social services, which are set out in this fine Government Report.
Mr. Brooke: I am sorry that I missed some of the hon. Member's speech. As he knows, I do not arrange the business of the House, but I certainly shall be prepared to answer on Welsh affairs whenever Parliament desires to discuss Wales.
What I shall seek to do in the next half hour is to try to take a view all round the Principality, and in so doing to reply to as many of the questions asked by hon. Members as I can. If I miss any of them, I trust that they will forgive me. The view is one of contrast. Just as every morning in Wales there is the contrast between light and shade because Wales is a land of hills and in the morning and the evening the hills cast long shadows, so when we look round Wales today and at the economic life of Wales one is equally conscious of the light and the shade.

717
There is throughout a great part of Wales high prosperity and a very favourable level of employment, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) rightly said in his speech. There are also dark spots—spots where life is sad, where the homes are anxious, where difficulties seem to press on the family and no one knows for certain what the future will be. These spots appear darker just because they are seen against the rest. The fact that the great majority of people in Wales are better off than they ever were before renders the dark spots harsher by contrast than they would otherwise be.
I suppose that the earnings level in Wales in, say, Port Talbot or in many of the modern factories has never been equalled in Wales of old. Alongside that we have unemployment far higher than it should be among boys and girls. That I regard as the gravest social problem of the Principality at the present time.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) said that the trouble was largely structural unemployment, and structural unemployment could only be remedied in an atmosphere of expansion. The Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is designed first and foremost to bring about an atmosphere of expansion. I gather that his proposals to do that do not wholly commend themselves to the Opposition. Our policy as a Government is a policy of expansion and I doubt whether we should achieve the sort of expansion that the hon. Member for Ogmore wants by starting off by putting a tax on oil.
The figures of unemployment in Wales this winter have been serious. There was a hopeful reduction in March. I have no reason to doubt, although the full figures are not yet available to me, that that trend will be found to have continued in April.
The Government's approach to all these matters is threefold. First, to bring the right remedies to the dark spots. Secondly, to achieve success in stabilising the population in Mid-Wales, which is not a new problem but one which has been with us since the nineteenth century. Thirdly, to cast our minds ahead to see whether we can identify and isolate the economic problems of the future and take what action is open to us now to anticipate them
718
One can to some extent forecast what will happen. What is almost impossible for any Government to do is to forecast the date at which it will happen. That was the truth about the old hand tinplate mills. When I talked of casting our minds ahead, I was thinking of what the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) said when he was speaking of the future of the coal industry. I constantly have in mind the communities at the tops of the mining valleys, where often one finds the older and deeper pits where much of the coal has been worked out, and one wonders whether those communities created there, first by iron ore and then by coal, can have a continuous survival at anything like their present population over the next century.
The Rev. Ll. Williams: In view of that prognostication, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a very practical way for any Government would be to try to stimulate new industries in these areas which otherwise may be inevitably doomed in future?
Mr. Brooke: I was not making a prognostication but saying that we should cast our minds ahead to try to see what may well be the economic problems of the future as well as of the present day. I am sure that the hon. Member will recognise that some of these valleys are so narrow that it would be difficult to find places which would be attractive to industrialists, but I entirely agree with him that we must pay attention to these matters and see what steps we can take now to ease the transition which there may have to be.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government are taking to bring industries to the isolated communities where the mines have already closed—not prognostications about the future?
Mr. Brooke: I was just comin2 to the area which the hon. Lady represents. The largest of these difficult areas of Wales is undoubtedly the area of the old steel works and hand tinplate mills. There, as the hon. Lady so well knows, the problems have been accentuated by the closure of certain anthracite mines. Those closures of pits led to the redundancy of 2,680 miners, a very serious problem indeed. I am glad to say that out of

719
the 2,680 only 1,100 now are registering for employment, which shows that there is more resilience than perhaps some people would allow. I believe that more of these 1,100 will be required before long to meet wastage in other pits. This is one of the most intractable problems in the whole of Wales.
The Opposition must make up its mind whether it wants a planned economy or not, and, if it does, what it means by it. A number of the speeches by hon. Members opposite to which I have listened showed a distinct leaning towards the direction of industry, but then the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) got up and said that it was no part of Labour Party policy. If there is no direction of industry, I wonder whether the planned economy is nothing more than a catch-phrase, a kind of incantation. None of us will solve the problems of Wales by incantation.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I tried to indicate that, using the Distribution of Industry Act fully and using location certificates rigidly, we were able to produce between 1945 and 1951 a situation in Wales which has never been equalled. It is the Government's failure to use this same procedure that has produced the present criticism in Wales.
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman says that what his hon. and right hon. Friends accomplished has never been equalled. I should like to give figures of industrial buildings and extensions. Last year in Wales 2,800,000 sq. ft. of new or extended industrial buildings were completed. As the House knows, or ought to know, Wales contains 41 per cent. of the insured population of Great Britain, but the figure which I have quoted of 2,800,000 sq. ft. of new industrial building was not 4½ per cent. but 6½ per cent. of the total area completed in Great Britain. So Wales under this Government is getting its full share and more. In fact, we have been so successful in attracting private industry to the West South Wales area that there are now between 9,000 and 10,000 new jobs definitely in view.
Hon. Members may ask why was not this action taken sooner so that all this work would have been available immediately the hand mills closed? The answer is that less than three years ago
720
there was full employment in that area, and we could not attract new industry to an area where Italians were being brought in to work in the existing mills.
As I told the House the other day, we have approved extra public work of one kind or another, designed to relieve unemployment in Wales, to the value of £1¾ million. In fact, by now the figure is probably higher than that, but we are using to the full what I believe has always been accepted in theory as a proper remedy for an interim period of unemployment, that is the stimulation of valuable work that can be put in hand by the local authorities.
Those figures I have quoted of new industrial building were for completions. They do not include work which is being put in hand now, such as the new Pressed Steel factory which has been started this year. They do not include the new steel works and strip mill which is to go up near Newport. All that is coming along, and all that points to a bright future for the whole belt of industrial South Wales, from Llanelly in the west to Newport in the East.
On top of that, we have had formed, largely by the enterprise of my noble Friend Lord Brecon, but under the splendid leadership of Sir Miles Thomas, the Development Corporation for Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn), in his excellent speech, asked about its activities in America. The Corporation already has a representative appointed in New York. My hon. Friend also asked about the research it was doing into the absence of strikes in the Principality. That is going on, and I feel sure that the information will be made available as soon as possible.
We have the work of D.A.T.A.C. I should perhaps break off here to give the House the total figures for Wales. There have been thirty-four applications for D.A.T.A.C. facilities, of which six have been approved and nine have been rejected. There was evidence that there were numbers of firms in the D.A.T.A.C. areas which were not fully aware of the facilities available to them. Officials of the Board of Trade have visited no fewer than 180 firms in Wales in the recent past in order to make certain that every firm which could take advantage of D.A.T.A.C. is aware of what could be done.

721
Reference was made to factory rentals. A statement was made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about the policy that was being pursued by his Department in this matter. I cannot go into it in detail. I can only ask the House not to be led astray by one or two cases which have hit the headlines, but where I am sure from my own knowledge that certain individuals were hoping to be able to rent factory space at fantastically low figures. In fact, the Board of Trade is ready to make appropriate concessions in all cases where that will be necessary to attract industry. I do not believe that either side of the House would wish factory space to be made available for practically nothing just because an industrialist demanded an absurdly low figure.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Whilst not disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, will he not concede that in the top ends of the Valleys and in the culs-de-sac, where there are extra transport costs, and so on, and the area is naturally unattractive, there must be a preferential rate?
Mr. Brooke: I have satisfied myself that the Board of Trade takes that into account, and where there is a vacant factory in a place to which it would appear to be definitely difficult to attract any industrialist on normal terms, it is prepared to make substantial concessions in order to let the factories.
Linked up with this problem of unemployment in South Wales is the state of roads and communications. The Government have embarked upon the largest trunk road improvement programme that Wales has ever seen. The principal object of that is to establish road communications between South Wales, West South Wales and Birmingham and the Midlands, so that it is possible for anybody, and not only industrialists, to travel at high speed from one to the other. The Severn Bridge is to go ahead, there is to be a further road bridge over the Usk, at Newport, as soon as the line can be settled, and I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that it is fully intended to improve the road link between Newport and the Ross Spur—Heads of the Valley Road, in order that there may be quick transport to the ports as well as to the west.
722
The work at Port Talbot is going ahead. We all deplore the long delay that occurred through the difference of opinion whether the removal of the level crossing should be given priority over all else. The first stage of the work, which will be at the western end of the town, will be the first to be put in hand. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West, who is not able to be with us now, hoped that I would be in a position to give a definite forecast about coal employment in South Wales. I cannot do that, because it all depends upon the review now being undertaken by the National Coal Board. He said that unemployment had been at 10 per cent. in the Rhondda, and he thought that it might now be down to about 8 per cent. I can assure him that when the figures come out he is likely to see that it is nearer 6 per cent. than 8 per cent.
Linked with the matter of communications is the state of South Wales docks. They have faced the tremendous task of having to change over on the loss of the coal export trade. Newport has been most successful, and Cardiff has suffered worst. My noble Friend Lord Brecon is making this his special study at present. He has visited Cardiff and Barry Docks in the last few days and is intending to continue his visits and to go to Swansea, Port Talbot and Newport.
I was asked about freight charges. The British Transport Commission is introducing its new system of charging in the South Wales ports on 1st May. This is not a complete solution to the problem. It takes the freight up to the transit shed. There is then the further question of handling at the transit shed and loading on to the ship. I understand that in that matter the British Liner Committee is being pressed by the Industrial Association. It is a tradition of the port to arrange these matters in a way differently from other ports. It is never easy to change old traditions, but the House can be sure that Lord Brecon, the Minister of Transport and I will do all we can to effect improvements in all the South Wales docks, including Cardiff. First and foremost, however, it is a matter for the Transport Commission.
Civil aviation has been referred to. What would help civil aviation in Wales more than anything would be for more Welshmen to travel by air. Provided we

723
can get sufficient traffic the operators will be able to run these lines with confidence, but unless the traffic is there it is extremely dangerous to imagine that we can rely endlessly on running an air service at a loss. There must be more support from Wales if Wales is to get the civil aviation service which is worthy of it.
Mr. Farey-Jones: Since my right hon. Friend has so kindly referred to the development of civil aviation in Wales, can he say whether it would be possible to develop the whole of Wales—north, south and the middle—not by air line services but by helicopter services?
Mr. Brooke: That may come one day. When I had to travel recently from Swansea to Conway I envied those with helicopters.
Mr. P. Morris: Would the Minister say what he is prepared to do to get us Customs facilities so that we can induce industrialists to use the air service without having to drop down 45 miles away for the customs? Can he also be more specific in his reference to Port Talbot, and tell us when work is likely to commence?
Mr. Brooke: I cannot give a definite date for Port Talbot. As regards Swansea Airport, I had understood that the Customs authorities were willing to provide customs facilities on call, when aircraft landed there. I am sure that that undertaking has not been withdrawn.
There are many other parts of Wales with which I want to deal, and I only have ten minutes in which to do so. I want to move westwards, to Milford Haven. On both sides of the Haven unemployment has been falling. That area has been a black spot for very many years. There seems no reason why the great Esso refinery should not go full speed ahead, and there is the other work on the B.P. terminal and the iron ore terminal, and there may be more. Certainly, there is good reason to hope that Milford Haven, on both its sides, has a fairer prospect to look forward to.
Passing over the important county of Cardigan for a moment, I want to fly by helicopter to the North. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) knows that unemployment, which is far too high in Caernarvonshire, is falling. He appealed for the area to be scheduled
724
as a Development Area. That question has been discussed for ten years and more. When in power the Labour Government had it urged upon them, but they always said no. We, too, feel that that is not the real solution. I dearly hope that the Ashburton Chemical Works project at Glynllifon Park will go forward, and I hope to be able to give my decision on the water order within the next few days.
Mr. G. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the scheduling of this area was discussed when the Labour Government were in power. At that time the unemployment figure was under 2,000, today it is over 3,000.
Mr. Brooke: But even then it was something like 6 per cent.
The granite and stone industries in that county will benefit from the expansion of the public works programme of the Government. I think that the slate industry needs not more inquiries but more orders. There is no other solution for the problems of that industry, and I trust that it will go all out to get the orders. I believe that there are orders which could be obtained.
Atomic power has been pressed forward and the power station at Trawsfynydd will relieve unemployment in South Caernarvonshire and Merioneth. Regarding Edeyrn, it is for the Central Electricity Generating Board to decide where it wants to put a power station. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government have not been bringing pressure to bear on it to go to one place in North Wales rather than to another. It has not put in a planning application for any place and the Government can take no action until a planning application comes in.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there might be distribution of industry grants for the removal of overburden. Not distribution of industry grants, but it would be reasonable to put in a D.A.T.A.C. application. Whether it would qualify I cannot say, because it would depend on the merits of the case, but there would be nothing out of order in making an application for a D.A.T.A.C. grant if the purpose was to assist with employment.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) has not been able to speak in

725
this debate. In some ways Anglesey is the hardest county of all to help in the matter of unemployment because of the necessity for industrialists to cross the water, and every industrialist needs an extra bit of inducement to do that. I wish to tell the House that the Government, having decided to build a new factory in Wales and that Anglesey should be the place, and the people of Anglesey not being able to decide among themselves whether it should be at Llangefni or Amlwch or Holyhead, the Government, after consultation, came to the conclusion that the right place was Holyhead.
The hon. Member for Carnarvon and others spoke about the migration of youth. The hon. Member for Wrexham used the phrase "splintering the Welsh nation" which was a danger to the national life. I know that he and other hon. Members have the fear that the best blood of Wales may be drained off to England. However, there are exaggerated views about what is happening in this respect. Over the four years from 1954–57 in the county of Anglesey, more than 2,000 boys and girls obtained employment within their home county straight from school and only 86 were placed outside the county. The corresponding figures for Carnarvonshire are 4,296 within the county and only 200 outside. I hope that will belie the fear that there is never any work in these counties of Gwynedd for those leaving school.
Finally, I come to Mid-Wales. I heartily endorse the praise accorded to the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association and what it has said, as mentioned in paragraph 480 of the Report, about the need for realism among those seeking to attract industry to Mid-Wales. The Government are encouraging the provi-
726
sion of electricity and water to the farms and villages. When we came to power in 1951, 15 per cent. of the farms that might have been provided with electricity had had it, and now the figure is well over 50 per cent.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry, I would say that 1,213 farms were connected with the mains in North Wales last year. Similarly we are pressing forward constantly to bring water and sewerage facilities to these farms and villages. For the benefit of Welsh farming, the coming of water may be even more important than electricity.
The hon. Member for Wrexham quoted as a dig against the Government words from paragraph 479 of the Report that adverse economic climate caused the failure of a few small factories. He did not quote the following lines—
"… but a great many continued with success and some expanded even in a situation which, at first sight, would appear to be unfavourable."
That is a truer summing up of what is happening in Wales. The Government will support the forces working for employment with all the power we have.
The right hon. Member for Caerphilly said that the present position offers a great Challenge. The Government have taken up that challenge. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West asked where the Tory rainbow ended. The Tory rainbow ends for Wales, as it did in the fairy story, with a crock of gold.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for the period 1st July, 1957, to 31st December, 1958 (Command Paper No. 684).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LEICESTER
10.0 p.m.
Major Sir Roger Conant: I beg to move,
That the Leicester (Amendment of Local Enactments) Order, 1959, dated 18th March, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th March, be annulled.
I should like to apologise for detaining the House, and, in particular, for detaining my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has already done two days' work in the last twelve hours. This is the only method, and the only opportunity, by which this Order can be examined by the House. I feel that the method is quite unsuitable for this task, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will agree that the time is most inconvenient.
I want to say very little about the Order itself beyond asking my right hon. Friend for his assurance that it is what it purports to be, namely, an Order to amend the Leicester Acts over a long period, and that it contains no new impositions upon the citizens of Leicester. I would not be able to find this out for myself even if I spent a month among the archives of the City of Leicester. As the Order becomes effective next Monday, I will not start that operation.
Although the Order is laid in accordance with the law, some of us feel that it brings to light an issue of some constitutional importance. One must be careful not to exaggerate because the procedure under which the Order is laid has been in use for a long time. It began in 1945. It has been in greater use since 1949, and no one, so far as I am aware, has suffered injury.
Rather more than 100 years ago, with the development of local government and local social legislation, Parliament found it necessary to change the Private Bill procedure in certain instances. That was done not only in the interests of speed and economy, but in the interests of Parliamentary efficiency because Private Bills often contain diagrams and maps and are not suitable for detailed consideration on the Floor of the House.
728
Accordingly, the Provisional Order procedure was introduced in 1845 and it was extended to many other Acts by the Public Health Act, 1875. In this way a great deal of time and money was saved and Parliament, at the same time, was able to keep itself informed and ensure that its responsibilities for scrutinising legislation were carried out through its opposed and unopposed Private Bill Committees.
Over the years local legislation grew and the need for amendments to old local Acts became more frequent and urgent. In 1943 or 1944 the Coalition Government prepared a Bill which became law in 1945 as the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. This Order, the Leicester Order, was laid before the House under that Act.
Under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, the special procedure was only applied to Acts, with, I think, one exception, passed after 1945. By an Order in Council in 1949, under what I believe is called in legal language a substitution Order, it was extended to cover many Acts passed long before 1945. As a result of this Measure a great deal of time has undoubtedly been saved. We all thought at the time that Parliamentary power of scrutiny would be adequately preserved. There was one hon. Member, however, I see through perusing the debates, who expressed some doubt, my right hon. Friend the present Chairman of Ways and Means.
When we were discussing the substitution Order, my right hon. Friend said:
"I understand that there will now be no Committee procedure on these unopposed Bills."
That is, under the special procedure. And further, after an interrogatory intervention, he said:
"My point was … that the Unopposed Bill Committee could if it liked take action against them, as it has done, although that is very unusual."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1354–5.]
I feel that few hon. Members have been able to secure a reputation as a prophet, a major prophet, in so short a time as ten years.
Perhaps I may explain how this special procedure works. Under the 1945 Act, Orders are laid by my right hon. Friend and other right hon. Gentlemen on the Table of each House. Petitions can be presented within 14 days. The Chairman

729
of Committees in another place and the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House then report to the House the number of Petitions and whether the Petitions are Petitions of general objection or Petitions for Amendment. Then, if the Order is opposed, that is if there have been Petitions, it may be sent to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I imagine it is by that procedure that a great deal of time is saved.
At the time when this special procedure was adopted I believe we felt, as some hon. Members may feel now, that an opposed Bill which goes before the Joint Committee of both Houses receives sufficient Parliamentary scrutiny. I am not sure that that is so, because I am told that the Joint Committee can only amend a Measure if requested to do so by Petition. That does not seem adequate. It has no power to inform us if an Order contains completely new provisions, or, if Parliament is anxious to secure uniformity in some particular matter between the Acts of different boroughs, the Joint Committee has no power to inform us whether, in fact, its wishes are being regarded.
In the case of an unopposed Order, no one has power to scrutinise it on our behalf. Fourteen days after it has been laid, the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House and the Chairman of Committees in another place reports that no Petitions have been received, 14 days later the Order becomes effective unless some hon. Member by chance, puts down a Motion praying for its annulment. Fourteen days is not a very long time. I believe that under most Statutory Instruments the time for a Prayer is 40 days.
It so happens that as the business of the House has been arranged by the Government this week, this is the only night during the 14 days of this Prayer period—the Resolution period—on which a Prayer could be moved. If it had happened that we had been discussing exempted business tonight, this Order would have become effective without any hon. Member having the opportunity of finding what it was all about.
Finally, I do not want to imply in any way that I do not trust my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to say the same. I
730
am sure that he and his officials take the greatest trouble to see that no matter is included in an Order which he may lay under special Pariamentary procedure to which Parliament could possibly take exception. I am quite sure of that, but surely it is quite wrong that Parliament should in any sense delegate its responsibility to a Minister of the Crown. My reading of history leads me to think that the Parliamentarians of old would be horrified to think that we had taken any such course, although, of course, they had not quite so much legislation to deal with as we have.
I feel that it is necessary that the 1945 Special Procedure Act should be amended in such a way that either Committees or the Chairmen should be able to examine on our behalf not only Petitions, but all Orders which may be laid under special procedure. It does not seem that such a course would lead to any appreciable delay in private legislation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can appreciate the importance we attach to this issue and that he will be able to say it will be urgently and carefully examined.
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Do I understand that the point the hon. Member is raising is not directed to any particular provision in the Leicester Order as such, but against the Statute under which the Leicester Order is made? If that is so, does he not recognise that all he has been saying has nothing to do with this Order, but is entirely directed to the Statute?
Sir R. Conant: The point is that it is our responsibility to ensure that an Order like this does not inflict hardship on the constituents of the hon. and learned Member.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That is not suggested.
Sir R. Conant: We are not able to see that as the Statute stands. I have no knowledge of what the Order itself means, nor can I find out without considerable search. I trust my right hon. Friend the Minister and have little doubt but that the Order is perfectly all right.
Mr. F. Blackburn: I beg to second the Motion.
A few days ago I was interested to read in a recent publication called "Parliamentary Reform 1933–1958," published

731
by the Hansard Society, the following words:
"The Provisional Orders system which had, since the 19th century, been replacing the Private Bill system was itself largely replaced in 1945 by the introduction of the Special Procedure Orders; and this new system is so young as to be without critics".
I think that it has become a juvenile delinquent.
The position has been brought to a head by the fact that the Leicester Corporation has, under this Order, brought forward what is in essence a small Private Bill of 20 Clauses. I am not blaming the Leicester Corporation for taking advantage of the law as it stands, but I hope that it will not be taken as a precedent for other small Private Bills.
As hon. Members are aware, there are five kinds of private legislation—Private Bills; Bills for confirming Provisional Orders; Bills for confirming Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936; Special Orders; and the Special Procedure Order under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945; and the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) (Substitution) Order, 1949. Of all these, the least satisfactory from the point of view of Parliamentary control is the last—the Special Procedure Order. In fact, Parliamentary control is practically non-existent.
When he was moving the Second Reading of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill in another place the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, said, on 22nd November, 1945:
"I think that the true friend of Parliamentary proceedings is not the man who thinks they ought to remain absolutely unchanged, but the man who thinks we must move with the times so long as essential Parliamentary control is in all respects preserved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd November, 1945; Vol. 137, c. 1150.]
There is no real Parliamentary control. It has been handed over to a Government Department. Like the hon. Baronet the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant), I am not saying that the Government Department has not done its job carefully, conscientiously and correctly, but I think that all hon. Members will agree that it is the responsibility of Parliament to keep control over legislation and not the responsibility of a Government Department.
732
The position at present is that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees are brought in only if there is a petition against an Order, and surely it is more important that they should examine the actual orders to see that they are proper to be received than that they should examine a Petition. It is true that hon. Members can pray against an Order, as we are doing tonight, but in general it is everyone's job to keep an eye on this type of legislation, and I think that hon. Members will agree that when it is everyone's job it becomes no one's job.
This Order starts on the wrong foot. In spite of the expert legal advice which I have been given, I still consider that the italicised words at the heading of the Order are wrong. They read that the Order is
"laid before Parliament under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, s. 1."
But Section 1 of that Act reads:
"Where, by any Act passed after the passing of this Act, power to make or confirm orders is conferred on any authority, and provision is made requiring that any such order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to any Order so made or confirmed."
That is,
"any Act passed after the passing of this Act."
I understand that this Order is laid down under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) (Substitution) Order, 1949.
Next, we have the heading "Statutory Instruments." One might imagine that such an Order would be subject to inspection and examination by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, but that is not so. As the hon. Baronet said, unlike other Orders, this is laid before the House not for 40 days but for only 14 days. The only similarity which I can find between this and other Statutory Orders and Instruments is that it is not capable of amendment.
Another point is that no Standing Orders are applicable to these Orders, but the 1945 Act contains provisions for advertisement etcetera. The duty to see that it is carried out rests not on Parliament, but on a Government Department. I am certain that the Government Department has seen to it that this provision has been carried out, but the responsibility

733
ought to be that of Parliament and not of a Minister or Government Department.
When the Leader of the House moved the Second Reading of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill, in 1945, he described it as an experiment. While much could be said about the simplicity and the speed of the Special Procedure Order, the experiment has failed to provide the necessary safeguard of Parliamentary control. It is true that such Orders are noted in Votes and Proceedings, but, as I have said, it is no one's specific task to examine them. I venture to say that no hon. Member reading through this Leicester Order can say whether it is in order or not.
Hon. Members will be aware that prior to 1945 the procedure was by a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, which dealt fairly quickly with minor additions or rectifications but which was subject to the normal procedure of the House in dealing with Private Bills. All that we can do on this Order tonight is accept it or annul it. Let us have a look at the Order. There are 21 local Acts and one local Order which are being repealed, in whole or in part, starting with the Leicester Improvement Act, 1846. There are 16 references to an Act which was passed as recenty as 1956. Has the Ministry made certain that none of the amendments of the 1956 Act are matters which were rejected by the Committee on that Bill? I am sure that it has, but I should like to have confirmation. There are Amendments to the Leicester Order of 1953. Where can hon. Members find a copy of that Order to compare the new with the old?
Let us take Articles 12 and 13. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that a Committee of this House has been rejecting in Private Bills Clauses dealing with weights and measures because it feels that it is not a matter which should be dealt with piecemeal by Private Bills but by general legislation, and that it has made a special report to that effect to the House. I should like to know whether this Committee's decision can now be vitiated by means of Special Procedure Orders.
I do not wish to get out of order, but I hope I may be allowed to say, in passing, that much of the need for Private Bills and Orders of this kind could be dis-
734
pensed with if we could have a new Weights and Measures Bill, a new Health Bill, and a new Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Whatever the composition of the Government in the next Session, I hope that these Bills will be among the first to be brought forward.
I will not say more about the provisions of this Order, because other hon. Members wish to speak. I think that I have said enough to show the difficulties that hon. Members are in. If we do not vote against this Order tonight, I hope that other local authorities will not regard it as a precedent and think that they, too, can get through small Private Bills by means of a Special Procedure Order.
Finally, I think that the House will agree that there are serious deficiencies in the present procedure, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will assure us that amending legislation will be introduced so that in future it will be possible for there to be adequate Parliamentary control over these Orders.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. John Arbuthnot: First, I should like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant) for having put down this Prayer, and for the way in which he has expressed the views that are held by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about it.
This is a Prayer on a matter of principle. We feel that the procedure of Parliament for the scrutiny and, if necessary the amendment, of these Orders is inadequate or even non-existent and that there is a need for doing something about it. Nothing that I am going to say this evening reflects in any way on my right hon. Friend the Minister or on his Department. The only thing I should like to say about him is to commiserate with him on the length of time he has had to sit on the Front Bench to answer the various points put in debate right throughout the day. I hope that we shall not delay him much longer.
On both sides of the House Members feel that the Minister and his Department have, in the case of this Order, as is their normal custom, carried out their duties conscientiously and with care. Those of us who have been in the Chair on Private Bills would wish to pay them a special tribute, and I have no doubt

735
that the scrutiny which has taken place in the Department on this Order has been just as thorough as the scrutiny which we have been accustomed to the Minister and his Department exercising on Private Bills that come before us.
We all feel that this Leicester Order is, in fact, harmless, but that this Prayer is necessary in order to draw the attention of the House to the matter of principle involved. My right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means was not present to hear the eulogistic terms in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland described him, as a major prophet, and as being the one Member of the House who, when the Bill that enabled this new procedure to be followed was being discussed, warned the House that difficulties and dangers might be involved, and that the House might start losing control. May I repeat those congratulations now?
As my hon. Friend has said, this Order amounts to a 20-Clause Private Bill. But whereas a Private Bill would be scrutinised either in the Opposed Private Bill Committee or in an Unopposed Private Bill Committee and would be subject to amendment, an Order of this type receives no scrutiny by anyone and cannot be amended. Not only does it not come under examination, but no Officer or Committee of the House has the right—let alone the duty—to call for an explanation of any Clause. It is only by the grace of the Minister and his Department that we have had an explanation in this case. I would take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his Department for doing everything they could in this respect, and say how grateful we are to my right hon. Friend for his explanation of the various Articles of the Order.
The object of the Prayer, therefore, is to draw attention, first, to the undesirability of drafting an Order in such a complicated manner that it is difficult for any of us to ascertain its true nature. and, secondly, to the desirability of some Amendment of the 1945 Act, to enable Orders under that Act, and not only petitions against such Orders, to be examined.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has spoken of the difficulty experienced by any member
736
of the public who may be affected in finding out whether he is affected and, if so, in what way. These Orders are not bound in any volume that the public can consult, nor are they published in the bound volumes of the Statutory Instruments. Among other things, this Order amends the Leicester Order of 1953, and if any member of the public can find out what that contains he will be extremely clever. It may be—although it is not so in this case—that an Order being amended is out of print, not available in any public library and not purchasable from the Stationery Office. That would add to the difficulty facing a member of the public when trying to find out how he was affected.
A further point is that if this procedure is allowed to continue, any local authority can make errors in a Private Bill and then go to the Minister to have them rectified by this type of Order. That will lead to the slipshod drafting of Private Bills. Furthermore, if this is to be a precedent, local authorities which do not want to promote Private Bills can get round the Private Bill procedure by persuading the Minister to do the job for them by an Order like this.
Both my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde have referred to the time allowed for praying against the Order. Only 14 days are allowed and that includes weekends before the Order becomes law. Only 14 days can elapse from the time that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place lay certificates on the Table stating that there have been no Petitions against the Order. No Order can be prayed against on a day on which there is exempted business, or on which the 10 o'clock rule has been suspended. In this case, the only possible night on which the Order, which comes into force on Monday, could have been prayed against was tonight. Had there been exempted business today, it would not have been possible for any Member to have prayed against it.
Under the 1945 procedure, a public local inquiry may be held. In the Leicester case, one was not held. How can Parliament tell whether there were any objections to the Order and, if so, how they were met? When Petitions are

737
presented, they are usually presented against the findings of a local inquiry. When there is no local inquiry, is the public interest and the private rights of the people properly safeguarded? That is a question we ought to ask ourselves in this House, because we are the guardians of public freedom.
I come now to the provisions of the Order itself. I understand that as it was originally presented by Leicester to the Minister, the Order contained 14 additional Articles. Thirteen of them were not proceeded with by agreement with the Minister when it was found that they would not get past him. Another was deleted by him and a further Article was substantially modified. In other words, Leicester—I am not getting at Leicester in any way; it was a perfectly natural and proper thing to do—tried to obtain what amounted to a Private Bill of 44 Clauses. As I say, I do not blame Leicester in the least for trying to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will perhaps say of all the Articles of the Order that he has done, and will do, nothing that is contrary to anything decided by the House. I draw his attention, however, to Article 14, because it deals with the same subject as is dealt with by a model Clause dated July, 1958. Article 14 does not follow the model Clause. I wonder why not. The House has no explanation. If the Order were not prayed against, we would have no opportunity of obtaining an explanation. I have no doubt that there are good reasons why the model Clause is not followed in Article 14. but none of us knows what they are.
I feel particularly unhappy about the wording of Article 14, because it is difficult for anybody to find out what Act is being amended and how. I understand that Section 59 of the 1884 Act is the one that is being amended, but there is no way in which a member of the public would be able to discover this. Article 15 particularly intrigues me. I understand that it is a modernisation of Section 35 of the 1925 Act. It omits reference to "idiots" and "lunatics" but includes "employees of the Corporation." Is this a sign of the development of modern times?
The case which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford and by the hon.
738
Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will, I think, persuade the House that there is a case for reviewing the procedure. We feel that there is a strong case that the 1945 Act and the 1949 substitution Order should be re-examined so that a certain degree of Parliamentary control should be restored. The original Act of 1945 was described by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it as "experimental" and I believe that the time has come when we should review that experiment and see whether we cannot improve upon it as a result of the experience that we have obtained.
This Order was prayed against yesterday in another place and an assurance was given then that the matter would be reviewed. I believe that that assurance did not go far enough. I hope that my right hon. Friend will now be prepared to go further and give an undertaking not only that the procedure will be reviewed, but that until such a review has taken place he will not introduce another Order of this type, which amounts to a Private Bill by the back door.
10.35 p.m.
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: This has been an interesting debate, which has been completely out of order. I do not want to cross swords with hon. Members opposite, or with any of my hon. Friends on this matter, because the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Bowden) and myself is to see that this Order goes through, and the concern of hon. Members opposite, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), is, as I understand it, not to oppose the Order but to raise a matter of general principle which applies to all Orders made under the Act.
Now that I have it absolutely clearly that there is no opposition to the Order, I can deal with the point of order Which arises.
Mr. Blackburn: There is opposition to the Leicester Order. I can tell my hon. and learned Friend that. But we are afraid that we do not know sufficient about the details of the Order to be justified in voting against it.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: As a practical-minded man, that is good enough for me. The only points taken against the Order

739
refer to Articles 14 and 15, which, as the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) said, quite fairly, were replacing other Sections, with minor amendments, which is perfectly justified under the 1945 Statute and the 1949 Order. But we are not in the least concerned this evening with the whole of the procedure under the 1945 Act. That is where the point of order arises.
The position is stated quite clearly in Erskine May, at page 854, when it says:
"Debate on any Statutory Instrument, whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, is confined to the contents of the instrument, and discussion of alternative methods of achieving its objects is not in order. Nor is criticism of the parent Act permitted."
But, as my hon. Friend and I have not been in the least anxious to arouse any ire against the Leicester Order, and are primarily concerned with getting it through, and as the concern of hon. Members opposite and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is to oppose not the Order but the Act of Parliament under which the Order is made, we have not leapt to our feet to try to suffocate the rather interesting observations which hon. Members have made against the Act of Parliament, which were quite out of order. We have a mutual understanding. They are allowed their debate, provided that we are allowed our Order.
I have quoted from Erskine May. The matter was dealt with by Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Ray Mawby: On a point of order. As I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that hon. Members preceding him have been completely out of order. I thought that you were in the Chair at this time, and that you made decisions whether hon. Members were out of order or not.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that the hon. and learned Member is overstating the case, but it is true that on this Motion we are concerned with the Order and not with the amendment of the legislation under which the Order is made.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That is exactly the point I was making. As I understand,
740
you are in complete agreement with the submission I was making, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If the hon. Member wishes it to be put formally, in the form of a submission, then I will put it in the form of a submission, but I am not sure that he will be extremely well-advised to press me to do that. All I am suggesting is that it is a matter of public interest. Hon. Members opposite are concerned for the procedure of the House, and rightly so, and I was not anxious to intervene in their speeches.
It is a matter of general interest and importance, and, as hon. Members opposite, with their concern for procedure would be the first to agree, it is also a matter of general interest for the procedure of the House that points should not be taken against an Act if it is out of order to do so upon this Order. They would agree with that, and now we are in complete agreement, and we have to thank Erskine May.
I should like to quote one other authority on the subject. In 1951, in connection with the Transfer of Functions (Minister of Health and Minister of Local Government and Planning) (No. 1) Order, Mr. Speaker said:
"I am the servant of the House and I must see that the rules of the House are obeyed."
That is precisely the point taken by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) and the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant), who moved the Motion.
"A debate on a Statutory Instrument or a Motion, to annul it, commonly called a Prayer, is limited strictly to the contents of the Instrument. It is not permissible to suggest or to discuss alternative ways by which the objects of the Instrument might have been achieved. I know perfectly well that there has been some desire to discuss whether it was constitutional to change these functions by an order and not by an Act of Parliament, but that of course is, clearly, absolutely out of order on a Prayer, and I could not possibly allow discussion of that subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1537.]
That is completely in keeping with the quotation from Erskine May.
Mr. F. V. Corfield: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we confine ourselves entirely to this Order we find that we are in honour bound to vote against it?
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman is putting it the opposite way round. One hon. Gentleman is praying against the Order. He must satisfy the House that he has an adequate objection to support the Prayer. He is not doing so, because, as he says, he is in a state of ignorance. The hon. Member for Dover, in his own speech, provided the answers to his own objections.
It is clear that there is an objection to the contents of the Order, but the points which has been raised as a matter of principle against the Act are out of order, however interesting they may be for the consideration of the House. Those hon. Members who raise them as a point of order because they are concerned with the procedure of Parliament should realise that their concern should not allow them to raise that matter under this form of procedure.
10.43 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: I have heard the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) speak a sufficient number of times to know that he is proud of his profession of the law. I do not criticise him for that, but he would be the first to give to those hon. Members who support this Motion credit for their anxiety to preserve the procedure of Parliament, even though, in an effort to do so, we may have strayed outside the rules of order. That may merely demonstrate the truth of the old adage about the exception proving the rule.
This is a matter upon which Parliament must decide. Let us look at the Order itself. I see nothing to which exception might be taken about Articles 1 to 4, but I should find it difficult to decide for what we should be voting in favour in Article 5. It would mean an immense amount of research and we might have to go to Leicester for some of the references. I dare say that they are not all to be found even in the Library of the House.
As to cellars and basements, which are the subject of Article 6, the only point which disturbs me is the possibility that what is represented to us as a problem which is slightly different is a problem which must be similar in a great many
742
local authority areas. That is a comment which I would make of a great many of the Articles in this Order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) has mentioned the question of a model Clause of July, 1958, dealing with something which the Lord Chairman of Committees mentioned yesterday in another place, and this arises on Article 14 relating to the sending of interest warrants by post. This Article apparently varies from that model Clause. I would ask the same question which the Lord Chairman of Committees asked: why does it vary? I wonder whether the reason may be that the latest edition of model Clauses available to most people was issued in 1957. At any rate, that is the latest edition that I can find in the Library.
It may be that this Order is the outcome of various consultations going back over many months, and it may be that at the time of introducing this Order they were unaware of the existence of that model Clause, but we are certainly entitled to ask the Minister why there was this variation.
Then we come to Article 7 which refers to
"Parts of buildings used for storage of inflammable substances."
Is this Article consistent with what is done in similar circumstances in other parts of the country It ought to be, but I am not certain that it is. We are moving into an interesting phase in this respect. It may be that with the new forms of explosive which are being discovered, we shall have to amend all this. I do not know whether Leicester is pioneering the way, as so many other local authorities have tried to do in the past, through local legislation, to what may later become statute law applicable to all local authorities. This matter is dealt with also in Articles 8 and 9.
I do not think I would take exception to Article 10 dealing with public nuisances, or Article 11 relating to the burning of leather scraps.
The sale of briquettes by number, dealt with in Article 12, is a matter which is of considerable interest to many local authorities, and there is, I gather, quite a variation in the application of this type of provision throughout the country. It is becoming high time that a new

743
weights and measures legislation, applicable to the whole country, was brought before Parliament as soon as possible. In fact, it is true to say that there are many people who feel strongly that new licensing and public health legislation is much overdue, too. It is causing a great deal of concern to both Houses of Parliament, and particularly to the Officers of both Houses, and it is something which we must ask Ministers to produce as soon as possible.
One of the most serious aspects of Article 12 is paragraph (6). The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East ought to be interested in this, because he will be the first to agree that any criminal offence and any penalty for a criminal offence ought to be easily ascertainable and to be consistent throughout the country. Here we have a new offence and a new fine. Whether it is consistent with the fines levied for offences of this kind which are committed elsewhere, I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us, if there is a variation, why there is a variation.
Personally, I cannot believe that, be it under the special procedure or any other procedure of this House, an Order of this kind is the right way to start introducing Measures of this sort. I defy any hon. Member to rise now and say what Article 13 means. It contains so many cross-references and even references to byelaws that it is to ask hon. Members a lot to ask them to understand it.
In this matter we are taking a great deal on trust from the Minister's advisers. I have no doubt that he has asked them most searching questions on the matter, and I am not asking him to go into all the cross-references tonight, but I think that we are entitled to ask him for an assurance that the matter has been properly examined and he is satisfied that the drafting is correct and ought to be approved.
Interest warrants by post, the subject of Article 14, I have already referred to, and for that there is a model Clause which has not been applied in this case. I suppose that the same may apply to some extent to Article 15. Articles 16, 17 and 18 are not easy to understand, but I believe that their purport could
744
possibly be plain provided one had one thing, and that is a copy of the Order of 1953. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover asked, how do we get hold of one? For all we know, it may be out of print and unobtainable at the Stationery Office. It is not bound in the annual volume of Statutory Instrument for that year, if it was introduced under the special procedure, as, I take it, it was.
Though we may find ourselves in some difficulty in understanding what this means, how about the citizens of Leicester? Are they quite happy about this? Will they be able to get the necessary information to apprise themselves of how their local laws are being changed? I am doubtful if they can, and I commiserate with them.
Article 18 (3) creates an offence, I think. It says:
"Section 134 of the Act of 1956 (which imposes penalties for certain offences committed by weighing machine keepers and others) shall be amended by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (f) of that section: —
'(f) enter in any document intended for issue any particulars of the weight of any vehicle (with or without the loading thereof) which he has not personally ascertained'."
Is a new offence created or not? Is it ending an old offence? If so, is this sort of Order the right way to do that sort of thing? I am doubtful.
I have said enough, I hope, to make it clear that really this Order is one which will involve us, if we pass it, in an enormous amount of trust in the Minister and his advisers. While I have never for one moment doubted that Ministers are advised by their advisers for very good reasons—and that nearly always there is a good reason—I think it is only right to say that it is exceedingly doubtful whether this is the right way to proceed.
Even in a procedure where cross-examination takes place of expert witnesses, with examination in chief and re-examination, and there are questions by the Select Committee, and the Select Committee comes to a decision and recommends to the House that a view different from that recommended by the Minister before the Select Committee should be adopted by the House, the Minister may decide, because of the advice he is given, to go against the wishes not only of the Select Committee but also of one or both Houses of Parliament.

745
I understand that it is in the process of happening at this moment. On a recent grouping of Bills we sat for 36 days, spread over nine months, and came to a certain decision. It would be out of order to go into the details, but I understand now that the Minister will recommend in another place that that decision should be reversed. He surely has good reasons for doing so. I have no doubt that he has, but if he can do it under that procedure, what enormous scope he has under this procedure. I am not suggesting for a moment that the reasons would be unsound ones, but it is at least the duty of the House to hear what those reasons are. If it had not been for the Prayer tonight we should not have been able to ask the questions which have been asked about the Order. It was only by pure chance that this was brought to my attention. No one is obliged to draw attention to it.
I suggest that this matter could be put right by a simple Amendment to Section 9 (c) of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act. 1945, which reads:
"for regulating the proceedings of the Chairmen in connection with the examination of petitions under this Act"—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must not go behind the Order to the Act.
Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate the point, Mr. Speaker. I will not pursue it. We had already been disputing that matter before you returned to the Chair. I will merely say that this can easily be put right and that we can avoid a debate in the circumstances in which this debate has taken place. I look forward to that time and I would support my right hon. Friend the Minister if he tried to do something about it.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. F. H. Hayman: I should like to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) for setting out so clearly the reasons for this Prayer and the feelings of those who have put their names to it. I take the liberty of speaking because I was Chairman of the Committee on Opposed Bills which dealt with Leicester Corporation Act, 1956, Sections of which are amended or repealed by this Order.
746
The Committee spent days in the late summer of 1956 dealing with Clause points. I have the great fear that it is possible for a Ministry to over-ride the decisions of a Committee of this House on a Private Bill by later allowing the authority concerned to bring forward a statutory instrument of this kind. I shall vote against this or any Order of the kind brought forward unless provision is made in our Standing Orders for the Officers of the House to be able to check the instrument and not have to rely entirely on the Minister or on his officers.
This is delegated legislation of the first order. Although we are all convinced that delegated legislation is essential in a modern Parliament, I feel, as I think would most hon. Members, that our constituents and the general public should be protected against any encroachment by any Ministry or by the Executive itself. I feel very unhappy that in this Order decisions which were reached by my colleagues and myself after great consideration are now repealed.
I would remind the House that quite often the Committee on Opposed Bills finds it necessary either to amend or reject recommendations by the Minister to the Committee on various Clause points. I hope that the Minister will feel that he can take some action which will meet the points that are causing very great concern to those of us who have put our names to the Prayer.
11 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The general experience of a Minister of the Crown is to stand at this Box and endeavour to rebut criticisms made against him or his Department. On this occasion I have been in the peculiar and gratifying position of listening to tributes to my Department and hearing Parliament criticise itself. That, I think, is a fair account of the proceedings of the past hour. I feel that there should be no discordant note this evening and that it is a very good thing that we should have been doing this.
I say at once to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant), who moved this Motion, that I think there is a matter here which requires consideration. It is

747
right that Parliament should, as it were, draw its own attention to it. Before sitting down I want to indicate the manner in which I suggest we should endeavour to carry these discussions further. I trust that the House will this evening give its approval to the Leicester Order and not withhold it, because I think it would be extremely hard on the City of Leicester, which has been acting in perfectly good faith, just as I and my Department and everyone else has, if it were to lose the Order at this stage.
Perhaps the House would wish me to go over the historical background. The Order here in question—and I agree that the discussion is on the principle rather than on the detail of the Order, although I shall say a word about that—is made under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, as amended. That empowers the Minister of Housing and Local Government to repeal, alter or amend by order provisions in the authority's local Acts referring to the same subject matters as the Public Health Acts.
As has been said, originally the Orders made under these powers were Provisional Orders and did not come into force until they were included in a confirming Act. However, in 1949 an Order in Council was made. To prove my complete innocence may I say that I was not a Member of this House either when the 1945 Act was passed, or when the 1949 Order in Council was made. The 1949 Order in Council was made with Parliamentary approval. It applied to these Section 303 Orders and some other matters the Special Procedure legislation in the 1945 Act.
I want to tell the House all the facts. Since then there has been a small but steady trickle of these Orders, five or six a year. Most of them have been quite short. What distinguishes this Leicester Order is that it is unusually long, although it is not the only long Order. I have been inquiring into that and find that there was a New Sarum Order in 1955 which was about the same length. It contained a greater number of Articles and was principally devoted to amending and modernising an Act of 1785, so it went even further back than this Leicester Order.
748
The length of the Leicester Order is the only way in which it is exceptional. I assure the House of that. It is long, I think, because Leicester has a long list of local Acts dating back for more than 100 years. The Order is designed to simplify that complicated mass of local legislation which Leicester enjoys, and it does so by repealing a number of obsolete provisions, by re-enacting some provisions in more modern form, by making minor amendments based on precedents that have been approved by Parliament in recent local Acts and by making minor amendments to others which have been found in practice to be defective.
I can assure the House that all this has had most careful scrutiny by my Department and that the Order before us now contains no new legislation whatever so far as I or my Department can ascertain. Leicester brought forward its proposals in good faith and complied with the procedure which has been approved by Parliament. My Department, too, has acted strictly within that procedure, and I stress that we have been careful to take into account views which Parliament has expressed in considering other Private legislation.
The hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. F. Blackburn) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) were concerned lest this Order might in some way undo the work which had been carefully done by the Committee in connection with the 1956 Act. I assure both hon. Members that in the Department we have been especially careful not to approve any amendment which might even be considered to run counter to views which were expressed by the Committee on the 1956 Act. Indeed, Leicester had no desire to bring forward any such amendment.
Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), 14 of the proposals originally brought forward by Leicester were turned down and have not been included in the Order. Let me hasten to say that Leicester was not trying to get through by Order a Private Bill of 44 Clauses, because this is not new legislation; this is simply a tidying up process, although on a major scale. Under this Order there is an obligation on the local authority to advertise these

749
proposals locally. Leicester did that, and as a result of the advertisement only two objections were received. Those objections were attended to. As a result of them, one proposal was deleted from the draft Order and another was amended.
I should like to refer to some of the detailed points which have been raised although, as I have only 22 minutes in which to reply, I may not be able to deal with them all at length. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover commented on Article 14. Attention was called to its departure in small respects from the model Clause. The explanation is that what appears as Article 14 was advertised before the 1958 model Clause was promulgated, and that being so, and the differences being very small, it did not seem essential in those circumstances subsequently to bring the Article into absolutely identical form.
Reference has been made to Article 13 and Article 18 (3). There has been a feeling that new offences might be created by those Articles, and that it would be extremely difficult to discover precisely what those offences are. The effect of both those Articles is, in fact, favourable to the subject. The effect of Article 13 is favourable to the person charged and the effect of Article 18 (3) is favourable to the subject who, but for the Article, might be charged with an offence which he could hardly be said, in truth, to have committed.
Article 12 deals with the sale of briquettes by number. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Maj. Legge-Bourke) asked whether we were imposing an unusual fine or creating an offence. We are doing nothing except to correct what I agree was an error in the Act, which, as it stands on the Statute Book, does not permit the sale of briquettes by number. The Article corrects that. It makes the necessary provision, but it does not include any provisions as to fines or offences which in any other way differ from what is laid down in the Act. The only difference is that it makes it posible to seel briquettes by number, which had been inadvertently estopped by the Act—
Major Legge-Bourke: Is it virtually identical with what is being done by other local authorities?
Mr. Brooke: I think that the question was asked in another place as to why this could be done by Order when another corporation was having to proceed by Bill. The answer is that the other Bill—and I think that some hon. Members have in mind the Bootle Bill—is for the first time attracting the Weights and Measures Acts to various fields and, in doing so, makes an exception of the selling of briquettes by number, while this Order deals with provisions in the Leicester Order of 1956 which already attracts the Weights and Measures Acts, erroneously, to the briquettes. That is why I stress that there is no new legislation involved, but solely the correction of an error.
I will gladly do my best to answer any further detailed question that is raised on the Order, but I think that the House would wish to know what advice the Government give as to where we go from here. It has been amply demonstrated this evening that the House of Commons feels that it has genuine cause for concern over the fact that the existing procedure really allows of no opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny. Of course, a Petition may be received, and that will attract Parlimentary attention, but where no Petition is received the only way in which any point can be raised on such an Order as this is by such a Motion as this for the annulment of the Order.
The procedure has been working for ten years without having attracted any attention, without giving cause for complaint, and, I hope, without serious consequence, but the Government would certainly not adduce that as a reason for dismissing the considerations raised tonight. Because it has gone on for ten years unnoticed does not mean that there is no need now to review the procedure. The Government readily accept that this procedure deserves to be re-examined and an inquiry will at once be set in train to consider whether changes should be made in the procedure, and, if so, what is the best way of acting.
When I say "changes", I am not prejudging anything. We will have a thorough inquiry, and I for one would not attempt now to prejudge what might come out of that examination. It is a complicated matter which will require a good deal of attention. It will involve the 1945 Act as well as the 1949 Order. It will concern many Ministers other

751
than myself, and it will also involve the House authorities. I therefore trust that the House will forgive me if I cannot make detailed proposals tonight.
The Government will certainly pursue, in consultation with the House authorities, the question of principle that has been raised. I am quite sure that that is important—
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: What form of inquiry?
Mr. Brooke: I think that it must be for the Government, in the first instance. Frankly, this has been raised at very short notice, and I have hardly had time to consult my colleagues. I only say that we must go into this. I recognise that this is a matter not solely for the Government, but for the House as a whole, but, clearly, the obligation rests upon the Government to initiate examination. The Government will initiate that examination, and will call the House authorities into consultation.
No doubt a statement will be made later, either by myself or by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—because although I and my Department are concerned with this Order, I am sure that the House will recognise that the issues raised go far beyond any one Department. I am quite sure that it would also be the wish of the Government to achieve a solution which would be universally acceptable to all parties; or, at least, as acceptable as it possibly could be. After all this is a House of Commons matter; it is a matter for Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover has asked if I could refrain from bringing forward any further Orders until this examination is completed. I cannot go so far as that. For instance, there is one Order in the "pipeline", if I may use that expression, at this moment. It has been advertised, and the Corporation concerned has been told that we are prepared to grant the Order. Therefore, it would not be right suddenly and without further notice to reverse that information which has been given.
What I propose is this. I should like forthwith to arrange that if ever I am proposing to make an Order, under Section 303 of the 1875 Act, to send a copy of the Order in draft to the Lord Chair-
752
man of Committees and to the Chairman of Ways and Means, with an explanatory note; and that, I think, would be appreciated. I am not putting that forward as a permanent solution, but it is the one action which I can take by administrative action of my own. I would hope that that might go some little way at least towards stilling the anxieties that, even tomorrow, Parliament might be letting this through.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): What action can the Chairman of Ways and Means take?
Mr. Brooke: That is precisely why I say that I am not offering this as a final solution. It might be suggested that the procedure might need some alteration. There is no formal provision for ensuring that any comments which the Lord Chairman of Committees or the Chairman of Ways and Means might have will be attended to; but I would pay attention to anything which was said.
The point here is that this 1945 procedure also refers to other Orders which can repeal or amend other legislation that is the responsibility of other Ministers. I cannot speak for them, but I will bring this matter to their attention.
Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This surely raises the question of the existing Act; and in Section 9 we have this:
"Without prejudice to any other powers exercisable in that behalf by the House of Lords and the House of Commons respectively, Standing Orders may be made for any purpose connected with the provisions of this Act, and in particular—
(a) for regulating the manner in which petitions against an order to which this Act applies shall be framed and presented…"
But only Petitions. Are we not asking the Chairman of Ways and Means to do something which the Statute does not empower him to do?
Mr. Speaker: I gather that the Minister is proposing a more extended review of the circumstances than merely some amendment of the Act. Therefore, I do not think that that point of order, although valid, need hold up the Minister from continuing his discourse.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. All I can do is to make sure that each of these draft Orders is in the hands of the Lord Chairman

753
of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means. I can do no more than that and I hope that what I have said is an indication of the Government's sympathy towards the point of view of those hon. Members who have raised this matter tonight; and I am ready to do what is in my power to do forthwith. I hope that I have given an indication that the whole question will be thoroughly examined.
11.20 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Minister said that Parliament had shown great interest in the procedure of which the Order is an instance. I must point out to him that those of us who had considered the matter thought that the debate this evening would be confined to the contents of the Order and that for that reason we have been in no position to discuss the propositions that the right hon. Gentleman has now been making, rather at the end of a debate which was conducted largely, but not entirely, from one side of the House.
Sir R. Conant: Oh, no.
Mr. Mitchison: I said "largely, but not entirely".
I want to make two points. The first is that I earnestly hope that people who are concerned with the possible dangers of this type of procedure, whoever they are, will bear in mind that it has limited but useful purposes which I do not believe afford a real opportunity for any encroachment on the rights of Parliament and, if they are kept limited, will save local authorities a great deal of expenditure. The reason for the introduction of this procedure was the cost of private Bills.
My second point is this. I sat some time ago on a Committee about Private Bill legislation in 1955. Another such Committee is sitting now and it is a Joint Select Committee. It is considering questions relating to Private Bill legislation. It is a difficult subject. It becomes more difficult if parts of it are dealt with separately, because I believe that the
754
common object of the House is to let local authorities get their proposals through with satisfactory checks, but as cheaply as possible. It sounds sordid, perhaps, to talk about the expense, but it comes back on the rates and it is a very considerable sum, particularly for the smaller authorities, and the cost of even a small Bill on these lines would have been far greater than what is being put forward now.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when he is considering what should be done about this matter, will not rule out the possibility that it might be referred to the Joint Select Committee which is now sitting.
Major Legge-Bourke indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchison: I see the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who is also a member of the Joint Select Committee, nodding his assent. It seems rather odd to consider a matter of this sort, which is so closely related to what that Committee is considering, without at least taking that possibility into account.
I need hardly say to the Minister that this is an agreed House of Commons matter, but it is also something which is of vital interest to the local authorities and to the associations which represent them.
Major Legge-Bourke: And to another place.
Mr. Mitchison: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, I add "and to another place," since that is concerned, as we are, under present procedure, with these Bills.
Sir R. Conant: I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for all the trouble he has taken and for his sympathetic reply. I feel quite satisfied with the assurance which he has given about an immediate inquiry, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSING. WALSALL (RENTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
11.25 p.m.
Mr. William Wells: The issue which I wish to raise very briefly has been before the House as recently as 3rd March last. On that day I put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, asking why he had refused to grant a dispensation to members of the Walsall Borough Council who are tenants of council houses to vote on the proposed new rent scheme. In parenthesis, I may say that there is a proposal to supersede an assisted rents scheme, which has been in force for some time, by a standard rents scheme together with a rent relief scheme to be financed out of the rates. The relative merits of the various schemes are not relevant at the present moment, and are not matters which I wish to raise tonight.
In reply to my Question the right hon. Gentleman said:
"Members of a local authority are debarred by law from speaking or voting on matters in which they have a pecuniary interest, unless I give a dispensation under my statutory powers. The power relevant to this case requires me to be satisfied that dispensation is in the interests of the inhabitants of the area.
I am prepared, in the exercise of this power, to consider sympathetically any application for a dispensation allowing councillors to vote on a particular issue when their inability to do so might lead to the adoption of a policy contrary to that of the party group which had been given a majority by the local electorate.
At the last election in Walsall, an equal number of councillors was returned in each of the two groups, and, in these circumstances, I was not satisfied that the councillors who applied for a dispensation had discharged the onus of showing that the interests of the inhabitants required the setting aside of the normal rule that members with a pecuniary interest should not vote."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 3rd March, 1959: Vol. 600, c. 191.]
The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and to some extent the right hon. Gentleman himself—since I imagine he would not dispute that he has not cancelled in any way the intimation he then gave to local authorities—bound himself in 1956, by a circular which he issued, to observe certain rules in rela-
756
tion to the granting of a dispensation under Section 71 of the Local Government Act, 1933. I quote from Circular 30/56:
"The Minister is empowered by the statute to remove a disability in any case in which

(i) the number of members of a local authority or the committee so disabled at any one time would be so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of business; or

(ii) in any other case in which it appears to him that it is in the interests of the inhabitants of the area that the disability should be removed.

5. The Minister believes that local authorities generally recognise that, where it can reasonably be avoided, it is undesirable that councillors should vote on a matter in which they have a pecuniary interest."
I would pause there only to say that there is a very clear distinction between the normal case of a pecuniary interest, where a member is interested in a contract, and the present case, where a relatively few members of the council are part of a great class of inhabitants of an area who are tenants of council houses, and where the interest of the councillors is just the same as the interest of the other tenants. Paragraph 6 says:
"In cases where this issue does arise, the Minister will continue the existing practice of removing the disability on voting where half, or more than half, the members of a council or a committee would otherwise be disabled."
Paragraph 7 states:
"However, circumstances may be such that the inability of even a small proportion of members to vote might possibly lead to the adoption of a policy to which the majority of a council were opposed. Where such a situation is anticipated the Minister would be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to an application for the removal of a disability to vote on issues affecting rent policy, provided that such application is supported by a resolution of the council and accompanied by a note explaining the circumstances."
In this case there were eleven members of the council affected by the refusal of the Minister to grant a dispensation to vote. A Ministry official informed the deputy leader of the Labour group on the council that a dispensation was normally granted in circumstances such as prevailed in Walsall if there was a resolution to support the application. Such a resolution was passed on 19th January by 21 votes to 18. The question therefore arises, what are the circumstances which have impelled the Minister to depart from his usual practice of granting a dispensation if there was a resolution to support the application?

757
What the Minister regards as the unusual circumstances was disclosed in a letter from the Ministry to the Town Clerk of Walsall on 31st January in which it was stated that having received letters from two independent members of the council, Councillors H. Smith and A. D. Townsend, the Minister understood that the two groups on the council were equally divided and that it would not appear that the electorate expressed a clear preference for either group at the last election. It is true that the Labour majority on the council was obtained by the exercise by the Labour group of its undoubted right, having a majority at that time, of selecting aldermen.
In the latter part of his answer to my Question on 3rd March, the Minister was saying that he had not to have regard to the composition of the council as a whole on the one hand or the votes cast in the council elections on the other, because if he adopted either of those criteria he would be bound, in accordance with the formulae set out in the circular, to grant dispensation. I submit that once the Minister adopts any other criteria than the composition of the council in accordance with the law, he begins to act not as an administrator, but as a party politician.
The Minister is a party politician like myself, but he has other duties to perform, and I suggest that his paramount duty in this case is to abide by the terms of the circular which his predecessor promulgated and which he has not contradicted. He must have regard, not to the elected council but to the composition of the council, provided that it has been composed in accordance with the law. Once he departs from that position he is no longer on the firm ground of making an administrative decision in accordance with the law. He comes into the arena of party politics in Walsall. If he brings himself into that arena he is placing himself in a very false and unsound position.
One of the independent members of the council suggested that the situation could be remedied by those members of the council who are living in council houses going to live in other houses. Those members of the council include three widows who have no other means than their widows pension. What hope have they of getting other accommoda-
758
tion than that which they already enjoy? The decision that the Minister has reached in this case bears in Walsall the imprint of a political decision and, more than that, of a class decision, and as such tends to shake the faith of the public in the impartiality of his Department.
At this late hour, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who I know cannot reverse the decision which the Minister has taken, at least to bear in mind the considerations which I have put before the House and to do what he can to have this very unjust and arbitrary decision reversed.
11.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) and, indeed, all hon. Members present will recognise that these applications for dispensations are not always easy to deal with, but one thing I should like to say straightaway as clearly as I possibly can is that my right hon. Friend certainly always tries to interpret the terms of the Circular, which in part relates to the granting of dispensations, with absolute impartiality and certainly not as a party politician. I have known my right hon. Friend sufficiently long to know that no man is better able to view these matters impartially than is he.
I should like to add that I know from my limited experience that very often the decisions of my right hon. Friend give just as much offence and lead to just as much criticism from our supporters as they do from the supporters of the party opposite.
The background to this matter is long and complicated and I shall obviously have to compress what I have to say into a few sentences. The position here is that Section 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933, prohibits members of local authorities from either speaking or voting on matters in which they have a pecuniary interest. That is right. Both sides of the House, I am sure, recognise that it is right as a principle. There are certain exemptions to this in the statute and there is a dispensing power given to the Minister, which I will come to in a moment.

759
In this case, which involves local authority members who are also tenants of council houses in a matter affecting their rents, there is no question at all but that the disability imposed by the Section applies. The question which the hon. and learned Member has raised tonight is simply whether my right hon. Friend should have exercised his power of giving a dispensation.
It is quite true that the situation can arise where a party gains a majority on the council but that majority depends on the votes of members who are tenants of council houses—it happens quite frequently nowadays—and that council would be unable to carry out its policy in regard to council house rents, no matter what that policy might be, if those members were debarred from voting. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence recognised that in 1956, and decided that in those circumstances he should accept it as in the interests of the local inhabitants to remove the disability entirely. That decision was, I think, welcomed by the House, and was set out, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, in a Circular which was issued to local authorities in 1956. I will not read out the terms of the Circular because the hon. and learned Gentleman has already done so.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about the facts of the Walsall case. At the end of last year, as I understand it, my right hon. Friend received an application from 11 members of the Walsall County Borough Council who were tenants of council houses for his dispensation to enable them to vote on a resolution in support of an application for dispensation to vote on rents. This dispensation—that is to say, to vote on the preliminary resolution in support of an application for dispensation on the main issue of rents—was given, as it ought to have been given. I do not think there is any question about that.
About the same time several members of the Walsall Council represented to my right hon. Friend—and there is nothing at all wrong with this—that there were certain facts which on the second and substantive application, for ability to vote on the actual issue of rents policy, should be taken into account. It was
760
represented to my right hon. Friend that the 40 members of the council were divided into 21 members of the Labour Party and 19 members of other parties or of no party, but that this Labour majority of two on the council was not a majority which had been secured at the recent elections. Indeed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, at the previous local elections the two sides had gained exactly the same number of seats, 15 apiece. When, shortly after the local elections, the council came to elect new aldermen this equality had been upset by the death of an anti-Socialist member, and the Labour councillors used this somewhat fortuitous advantage to take all the vacant aldermanic seats and so to secure an overall majority on the council.
I am not complaining about that or making any comment at all on the propriety of it, because, of course, we know the practice of political parties varies enormously, on both sides, up and down the country. However, these events took place. It was clear that the circumstances here were very special ones, and perhaps I should say that the formal application which was made to my right hon. Friend did not bring those circumstances to his attention.
When the second and substantive application came before the Minister he had to consider it in the light of the facts which were put before him and in the light of the policy underlying the circular which has already been referred to. That underlying reason, as was subsequently explained in a letter which gave our decision to the council, is that it is proper that the will of the local electorate should prevail without regard to the Minister's own views on the particular issue at stake. That is the simple test which has to be satisfied on an application such as this, and, quite clearly, the onus is upon those who think that the dispensation to vote should be given to make out their case.
Here, it seemed to my right hon. Friend, the case had not been made out. That seemed to him to be the position because the majority on the council did not result from any victory at the polls. It resulted from the quite fortuitous advantage to one party at the aldermanic elections. In those circumstances the Minister could not regard the situation as being covered by the paragraph of the

761
circular which the hon. and learned Member quoted, and certainly not covered by the intention of the circular. It may well be asked what yardstick my right hon. Friend uses to decide these matters. The answer quite simply is that the dispensation should be given to enable the democratic will of the electorate to prevail, and in the society in which we live the only way in which that can be measured is broadly on the basis of election results, that is to say, not on the number of electors who will vote one way or the other but on the number of elected representatives, of one party or the other, who are returned.
The Minister decided, for that reason, to give the dispensation to the eleven councillor tenants to enable them to speak, but not to vote on the issue. This decision, in the special circumstances of this case, does not represent any departure from the policy which underlies the circular. That policy is still followed very strictly by my right hon. Friend. Dispensations in consequence of the circular are regularly and frequently given to councillor tenants, most of whom are of a political complexion different from that of my right hon. Friend. That is immaterial. In doing so, my right hon. Friend may well make possible, as indeed is inevitable, policies which are repugnant to him or disliked by some of our supporters on this side of the House.
My right hon. Friend believes in acting impartially. He has the general support of the House, although these decisions often come in for criticism. The reason for that general support and the answer to criticism is that if parties have been successful at general elections they ought not to be frustrated, by the in-
762
ability of some of their members to vote, from carrying out policies, for which they have been returned.
I am convinced that any impartial assessment of my right hon. Friend's action here would lead to the conclusion that this decision was right. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North and perhaps some of his hon. Friends feel that this case was perhaps very near the line. I do not conceal for a moment, in view of the figures which I have quoted, that it was near the line, but the underlying factor in the circular, which my right hon. Friend is bound to look at, is the expressed will of the people in the locality. Here it was quite patent at preceding elections that the balance, as reflected in the numbers of councillors on one side and the other, was very even. It was, therefore, apparent to my right hon. Friend that the case put to him had not been substantiated.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I add one thing. The test in the circular is the majority on a council. A council includes aldermen. If the hon. Gentleman wants to abolish aldermen, he had better do so. He will find himself unpopular. If he does not do that, he had better reword his circular. I end by breaking for a moment into poetry:
"There once was a man on a syndicate
Who rose his position to vindicate,
He was heard to deny that his words could imply
What their sense might be taken to indicate."
For "syndicate" read "Government."
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bracken (Eradication)
  Bracken (Eradication)
  Foodstuffs (Consumption)
  Foodstuffs (Consumption)
EDUCATION
  School Meals (Teachers' Duties)
  School Meals (Teachers' Duties)
  University Students (Travel Grants)
  University Students (Travel Grants)
  Independent Schools (Registration)
  Independent Schools (Registration)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  United Kingdom Industry (U.S. Capital)
  United Kingdom Industry (U.S. Capital)
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Income Tax and Surtax
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Scottish Firms (Trading Practices)
  Scottish Firms (Trading Practices)
  Factory Space, Fife
  Factory Space, Fife
  Anglo-Spanish Trade
  Anglo-Spanish Trade
  Weights and Measures (Retailers' Views)
  Weights and Measures (Retailers' Views)
  Foreign Footwear (Imports)
  Foreign Footwear (Imports)
  Minister's Visit to Scotland
  Minister's Visit to Scotland
  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  New Industries, North-East Suffolk
  New Industries, North-East Suffolk
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Newspapers)
  Prisoners (Newspapers)
  Police (Protection of Children)
  Police (Protection of Children)
  Traffic Signs, Park Royal
  Traffic Signs, Park Royal
  Isle of Man (Constitutional Changes)
  Isle of Man (Constitutional Changes)
  Children (Murders)
  Children (Murders)
  Ice Cream Vendors, London
  Ice Cream Vendors, London
SCOTLAND
  Litter Act (Prosecutions)
  Litter Act (Prosecutions)
KENYA
  Banned Publication
  Banned Publication
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  African Voters
  African Voters
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  I.L.O. Convention
  I.L.O. Convention
GERMANY
  Ex-Nazis (Official Appointments)
  Ex-Nazis (Official Appointments)
  Berlin Air Corridor
  Berlin Air Corridor
  BRITISH EXHIBITION, MOSCOW
  BRITISH EXHIBITION, MOSCOW
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Brucellosis Melitensis
  Brucellosis Melitensis
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
HOSPITALS
  South-Western Region (Waiting Lists)
  South-Western Region (Waiting Lists)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Old-Age Pensioners
  Old-Age Pensioners
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Subscription Television
  Subscription Television

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth

ROYAL WANSTEAD SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ALL SAINTS CHELSEA BILL
Read 3a and passed.

BRITISH MARKINGS ON JAPANESE WOOLLEN GOODS
3.8 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made to the Japanese Government in respect of exports of Japanese manufactured woollen piece goods incorporating stamped and woven selvages in the English language to deceive buyers and customers that they are purchasing United Kingdom cloth.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo made representations to the Japanese Government on this matter in 1956. As a result, the Japanese Government informed Her Majesty's Government that they had taken steps to ensure that Japanese wool textile manufacturers affiliated to the International Wool Textile Organisation complied with the provisions of the Code of Fair Trading of the Organisation. I understand that the Japanese Government is at present discussing with the Japanese industry complaints about the practices of certain Japanese firms which are not affiliated to the International Wool Textile Organisation. Our Ambassador in Tokyo is being asked to keep in touch with the Japanese Government about this.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lards, may I thank the noble Earl for his Answer? I think he will agree that this is another example of the flagrant attitude of Japanese manufacturers and exporters to what is regarded as international fair trade. I think the noble Earl will also agree that woollen piece goods, or any article, may be exported by a country using English characters, but on all occasions must stipulate the country of origin.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes; that is the provision which is binding on firms which are affiliated to the International Wool Textile Organisation, but not on others.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government trying to insist that it should be binding on all, whether they are affiliated to this organisation or not?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly, my Lords. Our position is a little delicate, because United Kingdom manufacturers are not obliged by United Kingdom legislation to conform to the requirements of the Code, and there is thus some difficulty about our asking other Governments to enforce it by law. But we are certainly willing to do everything we can, through our Embassy in Tokio, to further the interests of the United Kingdom industry, and also, of course, the principle of honesty in the marking of goods.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Will Her Majesty's Government initiate legislation here in order that they may be in a firm position to carry out the negotiations?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the noble Viscount must put down another Question about new legislation.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask the noble Earl whether it is not a fact that one of the greatest assistances in the selling of British woollen goods is the fact that the selvages have on them the wards "Made in England"?
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether this difficult position has arisen in respect of other goods, and in other countries; and whether we have co-operated with those other countries to get the matter rectified?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I cannot say, without notice, to what extent the position has arisen with regard to other goods,

925
but we are certainly doing our best to co-operate with other countries to get agreement on this matter.

REORGANISATION OF THE COTTON INDUSTRY
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what date the President of the Board of Trade received proposals from the Cotton Board for the reorganisation of the cotton industry; and whether they can now make a statement on the Government's proposals to place the industry on a sound and competitive basis.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to make a statement on the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of the cotton industry at about half past three, so that it may be synchronised with an identical statement which will be made in another place by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, with reference to the question of putting the cotton industry on a competitive basis, have the Government taken note of the suggested alternative put forward in last Wednesday's debate by "my noble friend" Lord Amwell?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should be grateful if your Lordships would be good enough to await the statement which I ask your Lordships' leave to make. I do not want to anticipate in time what is said in another place.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I thank the noble Earl for his Answer?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.13 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. 35 and 41 be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence on Tuesday next to the second reading of the Income Tax (Repayment of Post-War Credits) Bill over the other Orders of the Day and for taking the said Bill through its remaining stages.—(The Earl of Home.)
VISCOUNT STANSCATE: My Lords, I just wanted to say that inasmuch as the Parliament Act has made all the formal stages of certified Bills quite meaningless, would it not be a good idea to embody in the Standing Orders of this House something like the words of this Resolution, so that your Lordships' House should recognise its position of complete impotence in finance matters?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I shall be very willing to consider any constructive suggestion the noble Viscount puts forward.
VISCOUNT STANSGATF: My Lords, I could not make a more constructive suggestion than that the noble Earl's own words should be embodied in the Standing Orders of the House.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I say, I am very willing to consider any constructive suggestion, and perhaps this one is worth following up.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether it is not the case that, if the noble Viscount will examine the situation narrowly and carefully, he will find that he is wrongly instructed in the matter?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, that is a general statement I will examine with great pleasure, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord would give me some particulars late on.
LORD SALTOUN: Certainly.
On Question. Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

STREET OFFENCES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
3.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before we approve this Motion, as I promise the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor we will do, I hope that I may have the indulgence of the House to say a few words on the course of business that we shall follow on this long and complex Bill. As your Lordships will have seen, there are something approaching 200 Amendments, of varying degrees of importance. I cannot pretend that more than a fraction of them will require lengthy consideration, but at best it is likely to he a lengthy procedure. This is a very technical Bill. I am not complaining of that, but it is given to few of us to be able to concentrate for more than limited periods on a technical measure of this kind. I know that there are honourable exceptions. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount is one whose capacity for unlimited absorption in a subject—or perhaps I should say unrestricted absorption —is well known. But others find that after one or two hours of concentration on a measure of this kind their usefulness is exhausted for the time being. Therefore, I would suggest that we do not sit to discuss this measure for more than a limited period at a time.
That would, I appreciate, mean a number of sittings. I should not like to forecast, but I can assure the noble Earl, who is looking at me apprehensively, that there is no intention of deliberately prolonging the proceedings. On the contrary. I think that everybody would like to get this Bill through with the least possible delay. But if we could agree to have sittings of two to two and a half hours at a time on convenient days, my guess would be that we should probably get through in three or four sittings. I would put that suggestion forward for serious consideration. That leaves the question of the Business for to-day. The noble Earl said yesterday that we might sit until seven to seven-thirty. To me it is
928
a horrible thought to have to concentrate for over four hours on this question, and I would suggest that we might try to rise at about six o'clock to-day. If the noble Earl can find any other Business he can squeeze in, we shall be happy to co-operate.
Finally, may I say to the noble and learned Viscount (I hope he will take this in a friendly spirit) that there are a large number of Amendments of a drafting character, and I should be prepared to take it from him that an Amendment is drafting and to accept that without any explanation at all, if that course commends itself to your Lordships. Even so, there will be some which may require further explanation and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will be only too ready to give it; but, by and large, I suggest that it would be a saving of time if we could accept drafting and technical Amendments as such. We have only to take two minutes on each one and we have taken three to four hours on what many of us might regard as unnecessary explanation. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will accept this suggestion.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord's rather unconventional suggestion. There is one point he made that I would elaborate. If we are able to concentrate on this measure with fresh minds at short intervals, it may be that the whole time taken on the Bill will be shortened, rather than if the Bill were dealt with by jaded Peers.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because my absorptive capacity on a Bill of this kind is almost nil; and therefore I approach this matter with a desire to help him if we possibly can. So far as to-day is concerned, there is to be a statement soon after half-past three, and that, together with the supplementary questions, will probably take twenty minutes. We shall not really get down to the Bill much before ten to four, and I think perhaps the noble Lord could last out until half-past six. If that is agreeable to the noble Lord, then we can consider. through the usual channels, how best to handle this Committee stage and the sort of length of session at which we should aim. I agree with him that if not many people are expert on these matters and only a few have to concentrate

929
on them, it is difficult. But I would ask him to accept, as he knows to be true, that at this time of year we have a difficult time with a large number of important Bills arriving from the other place which it is the duty of the Government to get through this House. I hope that we shall be able to arrange a programme satisfactory to the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I can assure him that we shall not seek to hamper this measure in any way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
General provisions as to measure of compensation
(2)This section applies to every compulsory acquisition of an interest in land in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (2), to omit "in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the twenty-ninth" and to substitute:
"when the compensation has not been agreed between the acquiring authority and the owner or (in default of agreement) determined by the Lands Tribunal before the thirtieth".
The noble Lord said: I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said on the Second reading of the Bill about the undesirability of alter-in; the date mentioned in Clause 1 (2) of the Bill. However, the matter is one of pressing importance, and I hope the Government may be good enough to look at it again. Passing from the general to the particular, I have made a number of inquiries in Dover, Kent. As your Lordships know, Dover, which has a population of about 30,000 people, was badly bombed and shelled during the war, and considerable redevelopment has taken place and is still going on there. My informant, who is a leading auctioneer and surveyor in the district, tells me that numerous owners have already suffered through what is almost confiscation of their property. There are forty or fifty such cases, where owners are likely to receive only about one-third of what they would be entitled to if the notice to treat had been
930
served after October 29, 1958. These cases range between small acquisitions involving less than £100 to substantial acquisitions in which claims amount to £1,000 or more. I can only say that if Dover is an example of what has happened in other parts of the country, and if the statement I have made is approximately correct, then there is indeed some thing at which the Government might care to look a second time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out from ("land") to ("day") in line 11 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Meston.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned, I dealt with this point at some length in my answer to his speech during the debate on Second Reading, and I do not want to repeat myself. As he will also appreciate, I cannot be briefed at one moment with regard to the special position in Dover, but I will look into that point. Perhaps I might summarise the difficulties that we found in the way of accepting an Amendment which would provide that the market value basis should apply retrospectively to all unsettled transactions. As I told your Lordships, my right honourable friend the Minister had a full inquiry made into all the compulsory purchase negotiations within his purview which were in hand on October 29, and, as shortly as I can, I would remind your Lordships of the result of that. In some 1,500 compulsory purchase orders investigated, 22,000 cases had been settled and 9,000 cases were still unsettled. In some 6,500 of the unsettled cases the new basis would make little difference in the compensation. In over 2,000 cases it would mean an increase, and in between 300 and 400 cases it would mean a decrease.
The position in which that leaves us is that there are still considerable difficulties. The first is the importance of the date of the notice to treat. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is well aware. the reply to a notice to treat is a notice to claim which sets out the particulars of the ownership of the person claiming and the amount of his claim. That can be only in respect of the circumstances at the date of a notice to treat. Therefore a notice to treat is not a formal document

931
but represents a necessary stage in the negotiations. The second point which I urged was that there had been a large number of settlements during the relevant period, and a considerable number more have been negotiated since Captain Corfield's Bill in another place which raised this issue in a legislative form. There will be a great sense of injustice among those people who have settled if they find that those of whom Lord Meston is speaking have gained, although they were dispossessed by the same compulsory purchase order as dispossessed the people who have made settlements.
The noble Lord will also appreciate that it would put in a difficult position the professional advisers of those people, in many walks of life. There is the further point, which follows from the figures I have mentioned, that in a proportion of cases adoption of the new basis would provide less compensation than the old basis. The change suggested by the Amendment would not therefore be acceptable to all owners. I think the Committee will find difficulty in appreciating the logic that the new basis should apply only where it means more money in the pockets of the owners. That is the difficulty. I have considered this matter carefully. As every noble Lord will appreciate, and as every legislative body appreciates, when you draw a dividing line you are bound to get hard cases and anomalies close to the line, on one side or the other. I believe that if one were to make this alteration it would lead to greater anomalies which could not be justified on the grounds of principle and reason.
Therefore, may I leave it in this way? I ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment to-day, but in the meantime I will ask those who will advise me to look into the particular case which he has drawn to my attention and have it examined. I promise him that, but I must be quite frank with the Committee. Unless that shows a bouleversement which I certainly do not anticipate, I doubt whether I shall be able to help the noble Lord on this point. But I will certainly look into his particular case and see whether that makes any difference.
LORD SILKIN: I do not have much sympathy with the reply of the noble and learned Viscount, because my natural
932
reactions are in favour of drawing a line somewhere, and I think that, on the whole, a line can be drawn. With regard to the two arguments he used, one was about reopening a transaction which has been concluded. That is certainly what the Government are doing under Clause 17 of the Bill. I do not want to discuss Clause 17 now, but I feel very strongly that it does mean giving a vendor, in certain circumstances, the opportunity of reopening within five years a transaction that has been settled. Therefore, I should not have thought that that presents itself as a real difficulty in the minds of Her Majesty's Government.
The other argument is that they object to a person having it both ways. That again is exactly what they are doing under Clause 17. Under that clause, where a person would benefit as a result of a new planning permission, he is enabled within five years to claim more money. But where he would suffer as a result of a new planning permission he is not expected to refund any part of the money he has received. I do not think either of those is good argument for refusing this Amendment. Furthermore, I think there was a strong view expressed in another place that the vendor should have the option of claiming either under the old conditions or under the new. I think that would commend itself to a great many people if the Government were prepared to give way in principle. I would not myself see the same objection. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that there are cases where people would suffer greatly as a result of being put on this basis rather than on the existing basis. Therefore, on balance, while I do not accept the argument of the noble and learned Viscount, I think he is right in not holding out much hope that this Amendment can be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his legal experience, will agree with me that it is not the first time that the case is strong and the advocate is bad.
LORD MESTON: May I respectfully point out that there are two cases where existing use value, plus unexpended development charge, is greater than the new market value basis? In those cases, the owner whose land has been compulsorily acquired should have the option of which type of compensation he will

933
accept. There are only a few such cases. I would point out that the Amendment is a very mild one. It refers only to those cases where the compensation has not been agreed or determined by the Lands Tribunal before October 29, 1958. In all those thousands of cases where there has been agreement there will be no grounds for disturbing it. I feel that I cannot pursue the matter much further, and if the noble and learned Viscount will tell all the local authorities of the country to take a sympathetic view of the matter, and to assess the compensation on the new basis where agreement has not yet been arrived at, I will withdraw this Amendment, without prejudice to my right to revive it on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move that this House do now resume for the purpose of hearing the statement on cotton to which I referred in reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

THE COTTON INDUSTRY
3.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will now give the House a statement on the Government's proposals on the cotton industry: it is an identical statement to that which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade.
In recent years the cotton industry has been exposed to formidable and increasing competition from textile industries established inside its traditional export markets. Moreover, Commonwealth countries have emerged as large exporters to the United Kingdom itself where they meet no tariff barrier. These changes have brought distress and anxiety to Lancashire. The result is a situation complicated and worsened by the existence of a large volume of surplus and obsolete equipment. The outlook, however, is by no means all black. The growing purchasing power in industrialised economies opens up excellent prospects
934
for the better fabrics and made-up goods. Special measures are therefore called for to make the industry compact, up-to-date and efficient.
Following the Hong Kong undertaking to limit exports, the industry has been working out plans to adapt itself to changed conditions and to reorganise and re-equip its capacity. Leaders of the different sections have been discussing with my right honourable friend a contribution from the Government which they feel to be essential to the success of their plans.
The Government have no doubt that the circumstances of the cotton industry which I have just described justify the exceptional course of direct financial assistance from public funds. Accordingly we shall seek powers from Parliament to meet the industry's request for help.
The first step must be to remove surplus capacity. The Government are ready to contribute from public funds two-thirds of the cost of bringing this about under schemes to be approved by the Board of Trade. The balance will be met by the industry by statutory levy. A severe time limit will be set for qualifying for assistance and, in order to start without delay, arrangements will be made whereby, subject to the fulfilment of the necessary conditions, a firm which scraps machinery after to-day can qualify for assistance.
The Government have agreed to bear a high proportion of the cost of eliminating surplus capacity, on the clearly understood condition that the industry itself will compensate operatives faced with loss of employment as a result of the schemes. This is a matter for the employers to settle directly with the trade unions concerned. The Government will, of course, do everything in their power to assist those displaced by the reorganisation schemes to obtain alternative work.
After the elimination of surplus capacity, the next step is to encourage re-equipment. Provided the Board of Trade is satisfied that enough surplus capacity in the industry will be eliminated, the Government will be prepared to pay a grant of one-quarter of the cost of modernising existing and providing new machinery. Orders for machinery placed after to-day will he eligible for this grant, subject to the fulfilment of the condition

935
to which I have referred, and to the granting of powers by Parliament. Re-equipment and modernisation completed during the next five years will rank for this assistance.
My Lords, it is not possible to estimate at the present moment how much the total charge on public funds will be. This depends on the extent to which the industry takes advantage of the assistance now offered, and on such factors as the terms which are settled for eliminating surplus capacity. I can only say that, given a favourable response from the industry, the cost to the Exchequer might well be of the order of £30 million over five years.
These arrangements will require detailed administration. For this purpose the Bill which we propose to introduce will contain provisions for setting up a special agency under the Cotton Board to carry out the schemes in accordance with directions from the Board of Trade.
The House will see that this set of proposals forms a comprehensive whole. We shall meet with problems that we cannot see in advance. But with good will from both sides of industry they can be solved. I know that the employers will bring the trade unions into the fullest possible consultation at all stages. The Government will follow closely the reorganisation schemes, and will do all they can to maintain the impetus to carry them through speedily and effectively. These joint endeavours will reshape the cotton industry and equip it to compete in the expanding markets of the world with the types of cloth that are wanted where-ever living standards are high.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for giving us the statement made in another place by the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The subject matter of the statement is so important that it obviously requires a great deal of study, and my only concern at the moment is whether I could get a little guidance now, or perhaps very soon, privately, as to exactly what is meant by "reorganisation"—because the statement does not really indicate it.
Perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me if I say that I have always been
936
interested in the structure of the cotton industry, not because I have technical knowledge, but because a Committee set up in 1929 had as Chairman my late friend William Graham; but he could hardly take the chair, and I substituted for him for eighteen months in the chair, and we examined the subject at great length. What struck us was the extraordinary gaps between the sections of the organised industry: spinning in one place. weaving in another, dyeing in another, printing in another, even packing, in some instances, in another. We do not get any indication here, except the question of wiping out inefficient machinery and perhaps helping to get new or improved machines; and many matters here require great study. I should like to get some early information to see whether we could save the time of your Lordships' Houseby not having to ask for a day—because I think it might be necessary to ask for a day—to discuss this subject before the Bill in final draft is ready for submission to Parliament.
The other thing I would say with regard to this statement is that the Cotton Board are apparently to have under them, and from the way it is worded I suppose they will have the appointment of. the body to be set up to administer the scheme. I believe that the trade unions are represented on the Cotton Board. But what will be the position of the Government in this special administration of what is going to cost a vast sum, and will it be certain to include not only representatives of experienced industrialists in the cotton industry but of trade unions upon the actual administering body that is contemplated? If we could get some guidance in advance on this subject, and avoid having a special day, and work out the detailed discussion, it might save time. If not, I think we ought to ask for a special day.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I have some very long interest in this trade, and, indeed, looking back over the last thirty years, the Government have often been called upon to come in to do something for the Lancashire cotton trade. I am glad to know that the present Government are prepared to spend this very considerable amount of money. But I am quite certain that there is much more involved than spending money and the destruction of machinery. The issue

937
is one of such importance to Lancashire that I find myself in agreement with the noble Viscount opposite. I hope the Government can give us a little more information than the statement which the noble Earl has already put before us, so that before we discuss the problem in all the seriousness that it demands we may know a little more about what the Government propose and what the manufacturers' organisations propose, before we are committed to the expenditure of this large amount of money. I am in favour of the expenditure of the money if it is going to be of value. I wonder whether we might not ask the President of the Board of Trade if he does not think it is worth while producing a White Paper, giving us some detailed information before we come to discuss it.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, may we know at this stage what is meant by the Government's expression "traditional markets", and do the Government think that in this time of changing economy it is conceivable that we shall go back to the old 100 per cent. supremacy of our cotton industry as against that of the rest of the world? In other words, is it not necessary to go rather more fundamentally into the whole economy from the world point of view?
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Government were anxious to give your Lordships and the other place all the information they could at this early stage, and I am sorry that to-day I cannot go much beyond the generalities contained in my right honourable friend's statement which I read to your Lordships. We have been given by the various sections of the industry a general idea of the kind of target at which they are aiming and of the probable cost involved, but at this stage no detailed plans have yet been prepared. It is hoped that as much of the preparatory work as possible will be done before the Bill becomes law. I will certainly consider what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said in regard to supplying your Lordships as soon as possible with more information, and also the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Woolton that the issue of a White Paper might be considered.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I think suggested that the issue of more detailed information as soon
938
as possible might make it unnecessary for a debate to be held. I cannot say anything about that. Perhaps when it is discussed through the usual channels noble Lords opposite may feel that it would be a good thing to have a debate before the Bill is brought in, and of course that suggestion will naturally be considered sympathetically by the Government. I cannot make any statement now about the possibilities of the issue of a White Paper, but I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, and the noble Viscount opposite have said, and will report their natural anxiety for more detailed information about this matter as soon as possible.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, I would say that I think that the phrase "traditional markets" means very largely the Asiatic markets, where we used to send cotton manufactured goods from Lancashire, but which have now not only established their own industries but are competing with us here. As the statement that I read out implied, our hopes for the future of the industry are rather directed to the possibility that it will regain its supremacy in the higher class, more finished, type of cotton goods, which are increasingly in demand in those countries where purchasing power is rapidly growing and where the standard of living is rising.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I do not want to press the noble Earl to-day on this subject, but, as someone who is interested in the industry, I should like to echo what has been said. We have been told very little so far. If the Government envisages spending £30 million it must have some idea of how many spindles arc going to be scrapped and how much new machinery is going to qualify for grant, otherwise the £30 million is based on nothing. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will let us have much more detail about this subject, because we cannot possibly appreciate the programme by what has been said to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his answer and his promise to try to convey to Parliament the meaning of this scheme, we hope through a White Paper, because it is something that Parliament really has the right to expect. If the Government are

939
from to-day, this very day, being committed to some of the operations under this scheme, and committed to some of the finance, surely it is something that Parliament should have information upon at once. If, of course, a Bill and the Money Resolution are already prepared and are going to be printed within, say, twenty-four or forty-eight hours, that is different. Even then, either the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill should be very detailed or a White Paper should accompany it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am not in a position to give your Lordships the date on which the Bill will be introduced, except to say that it will not be until after Whitsun, which is only a few weeks ahead. It could not be before Whitsun anyhow, and I do not at this moment know whether or not the publication of the Bill will be soon enough to make a White Paper superfluous. But I will most willingly convey what the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, have said, to the President of the Board of Trade, and will represent to him that if the Bill is not going to be published for some time your Lordships have expressed the view from both sides of the House that a White Paper would be most helpful to you.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for the observations he has just made. I hope that he will assure the President of the Board of Trade that, if one may venture to speak for people in Lancashire, those people will be very glad to know of the Government's interest, and I hope that he will not think that my intervention in the discussion was intended to be by way of disagreement with what he has said. Obviously, the Government have to make a statement at the earliest possible moment. I only hope that they will let those of us who are Members of this House help in the solution of what indeed is a most difficult problem.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we shall indeed be most anxious to have the help of all of your Lordships from all parts of the country, and particularly those who have such a great experience of the industry as the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I just say that the answer given to the last question
940
but one makes me feel that it is important to press for the White Paper now? If we are not in fact going to have the Bill itself, with the Money Resolution which is necessary, before Whitsuntide, and if people in the industry are already expected to start making some of the changes in respect of which Parliament has not yet given its approval, then a very dangerous situation is being created. I think that we ought to have a White Paper before Parliament almost immediately.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Viscount has said. I know that the Bill cannot be introduced until after Whitsun, but I do not know whether or not it will be published, as distinct from being introduced, before the Whitsun Recess. For that reason, I was reluctant to say anything more definite about the possibility of a White Paper. But, as I have said, I will most certainly convey your Lordships' expressions of opinion on this matter to the President.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I am so sorry to prolong this point, but an important week-end newspaper said that it had been accepted by the Government that there was to be a substantial contraction in the cotton industry. Can the Minister say anything about that?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have, I think, dealt fully in the statement with the question of eliminating surplus capacity. We cannot give any estimate—or at least not an estimate which would be detailed or scientific enough to satisfy your Lordships—of the precise amount of estimated surplus capacity for which provision is being made.
LORD REA: My Lords, this is not the occasion upon which to go into detail, but when the noble Earl is referring this matter to his right honourable friend I would ask him to remember the interest of Hong Kong in this matter. When Lancashire was in trouble. for some reason which was never fully clear to me we looked around the Empire until we found somebody who was sufficiently prosperous, so to speak, to fleece, and Hong Kong was asked voluntarily to give up some of their profit to support the sad conditions which were obtaining in Lancashire. This they did. Whether or not there was any quid pro quo I have

941
never understood. May I ask whether, if this reorganisation scheme comes into being and is successful, as we hope it will be, Hong Kong may be relieved of the arrangement which was come to on a rather one-sided basis?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord will bear in mind that under the Ottawa Agreements all members of the British Commonwealth have a favoured position in our markets, and that we have tried to get a voluntary agreement on the subject of cotton since it was clear that it was in the general interest of the Commonwealth that the whole economy of Lancashire should not be undermined by these cheap imports. The noble Lord may be aware that similar agreements with India and Pakistan were to be conditional on an agreement first being made with Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Agreement came into force on February 1, and it is hoped that, in consequence, similar agreements may shortly be confirmed with India and Pakistan.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
House again in Committee.
4.1 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Payment by Minister to acquiring authority
". Where the compensation payable in accordance with subsection (1) of section one of this Act by an acquiring authority, not being a Government Department, exceeds the amount of compensation which would have been payable immediately prior to the passing of this Act as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said subsection (1) of section one of this Act, then, subject to such conditions as the Treasury may determine, the Minister of Housing and Local Government may, if he thinks fit, pay to the acquiring authority a sum equal to the difference between such values."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. It seeks to provide that where a local authority are required to pay by way of compensation, through compulsory acquisition under this Bill, more than they would have paid under the previous procedure, the Treasury should have the right—but not be obliged—to make a contribution towards
942
the excess. The case for the Amendment is that most local authorities will have planned ahead for the redevelopment of their areas and for compulsory acquisition arising therefrom, and will have based their finances on the assumption that the cost of acquisition would be on the basis of the 1954 Act.
From the figures which the noble and learned Viscount gave us in replying on the first Amendment there is no doubt that in the large majority of cases this Bill will involve greater expenditure by local authorities than was required before. It is natural that that should be so, and it is the intention of this legislation that owners should get more for their land than they were getting before, because it is alleged—and there is some justification for the allegation—that the previous compensation was anomalous in the sense that there were two standards of compensation, one for private sales and one for public acquisition. So land is going to cost local authorities considerably more. I recognise that in a number of cases local authorities will be getting a grant from the Exchequer in the case of open spaces, roads and se on, and the Exchequer will, therefore, be sharing in the increased cost. Nevertheless, local authorities will he left with a substantial burden to meet themselves, and I want to make it optional on the part of the Treasury, under such conditions as they may desire to make, to give grants to local authorities in special cases.
This would be a matter for the Treasury to determine, but the kind of cases I have in mind are those where the local authority are not in a strong position financially and where, in the nature of the area, there is a large amount of redevelopment to be carried out. Let us take a place such as Glasgow—though I have no brief from Glasgow in this matter; but take a city like that, or some of the Northern towns, where an immense amount of redevelopment is necessary. This Bill will impose on them a very great and unexpected burden—even if it is justifiable—and a burden considerably in excess of what they could have foreseen. Even after allowing for the grant, they will get a burden which is an unknown quantity.
I would say that in those conditions (and these places are not the wealthier areas) the Treasury should have power to make a contribution. I do not want

943
to be invidious, although one always talks of places such as Brighton or Bournemouth as wealthier boroughs; I have no desire to make a case against them, but it is a fact that their redevelopment problem is very slight and that there would be no particular hardship on them in carrying out the terms of this Bill. I visualise that the Treasury would exercise discretion in such a way as not necessarily to provide additional assistance to areas of that kind. I have in mind places such as Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and smaller areas where there is a very big redevelopment problem which must be dealt with in the next twenty or thirty years and where the burden will be great.
I cannot help making this point—and I do not want to make it as a debating point: the House will remember that the compensation payable under the 1954 Act was justified up to the hilt. I do not know whether it was the noble and learned Viscount himself who justified that compensation against the advice of a great many of us in this House, but I remember the occasion very well, because he dealt with that in his maiden speech in this House, and I had the privilege of following him and congratulating him as I have done on many of his subsequent speeches. The noble and learned Viscount certainly made a strong point of the fact that compensation payable at that time under the 1954 Act was justifiable and equitable so far as local authorities were concerned. So the position is that local authorities are to-day paying compensation which, on the admission of Her Majesty's Government and the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is to-day the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, was right. The Prime Minister held very strongly the view that the compensation under the 1954 Act was right—and no doubt it is—as an obligation on local authorities. That seems to me an additional reason for Her Majesty's Government to make up the deficiency in special cases.
It is already recognised that redevelopment is a national obligation, not merely a local one, so I am not asking for anything which is not already accepted in principle, I am asking that the Exchequer should pay an additional grant in respect
944
of the additional compensation paid. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be sympathetic to this Amendment and will find some way of meeting the poorer local authorities who are affected. Although I do not put this forward as necessarily commending this Amendment, may I conclude by saying that it was one which was sponsored by the Royal Institute of British Architects, so that it does come of fairly respectable parentage, and will, I hope, be adopted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about compensation in 1954 and to-day, I would point out that I dealt in my speeches on the Second Reading with the differences between the two situations; therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not think I am discourteous if I do not repeat that argument to-day, because his main point is one of considerable importance which I should like to deal with as well as I can. There was only one point which is relatively minor, as indeed he indicated in his speech on Second Reading: that the grandfather of this Amendment was the Royal Institute of British Architects. I have had the chance of considering what they said. The Institute did not submit to the Minister any comments on the Bill until after the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and there has been no opportunity to explain to the Institute the many fallacies in the arguments which they advance. I yield to no one in my admiration and respect for the Institute or its members; but, with the greatest respect to them, I suggest that they are hardly the body qualified to make recommendations on the division of financial responsibility between the Exchequer and local authorities. It is one of the fields of human knowledge in which I should much prefer to hear the inherent views of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite.
I should just like to pause for one moment to indicate why I think that their basis was fallacious, because it was referred to not only by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but, I think, also by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in dealing

945
with the general situation. The point which I should like the Committee to consider(especially the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his great experience in this field) is the statement made, which forms the basis of their argument, about the effect of the Bill on the preparation of development plans. The Committee know that development plans indicate proposals for future public development and they also allocate or zone areas for private development. In indicating future public development the plans, I would say, depress values rather than enhance them. That is why, for example, the "blight" clauses are necessary.
Zoning areas for private development plans will enhance values only in so far as they create scarcity by zoning less land than will meet the demands of the market. In neither case, therefore, will the Bill induce authorities, as the Institute think, to show less land for either public or private development than is needed on an objective view. What it will do, through the "blight" Clauses, is to make authorities chary of including vague proposals for public development which do not need to be safeguarded and may never happen; this, in my view, is all to the good.
I now come to the actual form of the Amendment for a moment. I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is a satisfactory form of grant when it is bound to be arbitrary in its incidence and wellnigh impossible to administer as time goes on. The noble Lord mentioned a point on Second Reading, and again to-day, which certainly inspires and requires all our interest; and that is as to whether the new provisions will work particularly hardly on the poorer local authorities who have responsibility for carrying out development. I should suggest to him that this is not necessarily so. Increased cost due to the Bill is likely to be relatively small when land which is already developed is being acquired; and I think he would agree with me that the major differences between the present basis of compensation and market value arise with undeveloped land on the fringes of expanding towns. I ask the Committee to consider additional expenditure in its true context. It is unlikely, on average, to involve much more than 1 or 2 per cent. of total local authority expenditure; and I reassert that some of this will be assisted by grants.
946
The first point in that regard is that any additional expenditure arising from the Bill which increases the cost of a grant-aided service will rank for Exchequer grant on the same basis as any other expenditure on the service. For example (I think this is a relevant example), the cost of acquiring land for the comprehensive redevelopment of an area of extensive war damage is an element in the grants payable under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—the noble Lord's own Act, if I may put it that way. Any increased cost arising from the Bill in acquiring land for this purpose would be taken into account in assessing that grant. Another example of a service aided by a specific grant is one with which I am extremely familiar, and that is the police service, where the 50 per cent. grant will apply to increased expenditure in land purchase as it applies to the other costs of running the service.
If the Committee will allow me, I should like to say a little more about the general grant as that is a more recent innovation, and how that will apply. In fixing the amount of general grant for any period, the Minister is required to take into consideration the rate of expenditure on the education, health, fire, child care and other services concerned, and increases in costs which can be foreseen. The Committee will remember, again probably with sorrow, how often they heard me explaining that point during the passage of the Local Government Bi11, because I was very rightly questioned about it extremely carefully from all parts of the House. To the extent that the cost of these services is increased by the Bill, the Minister will be obliged to take that into consideration in fixing the grant. In fixing the grant for the period 1959 to 1961 consideration was given to the full amount estimated as the extra burden to he added to the estimate of expenditure submitted by the local authorities to cover the increased cost in the form of increased loan charges due to the Bill in those years I mention that because I think it was my noble friend Lord Hylton who asked me particularly at the time whether it would be possible to include contingent increases in considering the grant for 1959 to 1961. Noble Lords who are interested will find that dealt with in paragraph 10 of the Minister's report on the General Grant Order which he has issued. That is the second stage and the second category.

947
The third category is rate-deficiency grant, and there again it has to be remembered that the rate-deficiency grant paid to local authorities whose rate resources are below the national average varies with local expenditure, and the poorer authorities will get increased grant from this source towards any additional expenditure resulting from the Bill. I hope that, in dealing with these three categories, I have shown that in the three fields the local authorities will benefit from the grant in a fair way.
In view of that, I find it difficult to see why there is a case for making any greater Exchequer contribution to local authorities on expenditure incurred in paying the market price of acquiring land than on expenditure in paying the market price for any other commodity. or in paying fair wages. In other words, increased expenditure on land acquisition for specific grant-aided services, or for services assisted through the general grant, and additionally, in the case of local authorities receiving rate-deficiency grant, for all services, will affect the level of Exchequer grants in just the same way as increased expenditure on those services from other causes. I submit that this is a perfectly fair arrangement for the Exchequer and for local authorities alike. If it were the case that it covered a high proportion of expenditure, then I could see more in the argument; but when we are dealing, as I said, with 1 or 2 per cent. of the total expenditure, and that is grant-aided. I cannot myself see the logic of differentiating between this and, as I have said, paying the market price for acquiring any other commodity.
I must say to your Lordships. therefore, that the arguments have not convinced me. As always—and I should like the noble Lord to realise this—I have studied the Amendment. I have not had the advantage of studying the noble Lord's speech, but I have listened to it carefully. I shall go through it very carefully with those who are advising me from the Department, and I shall look into it: but I must say that at the moment I am not convinced. If I may give a lighter touch for a moment—and I am sorry my noble friend Lord Saltoun is not in the House—there is a favourite song in Scotland written by Robert Burns:
"How happy could I be teething a heckle."
948
which, translated into English, means: "Putting new teeth in a comb". I can assure the noble Lord that not only myself but those advising me will see that there are new teeth in the comb—it is a very small toothcomb with which we shall go through his speech—and that we will consider it carefully. However, I cannot accept the Amendment.
4.23 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: I have not seen the communication addressed by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and I do not necessarily adopt their argument. In so far as it is stated by them that the carrying out of development plans will, under the Bill, cost more, I would say that to me it seems to be incapable of confutation. It is the case, as shown by the financial memorandum which was issued with the Bill originally, that the provisions of this Bill will cast upon the local authorities an additional expenditure per annum of some £8 million. In addition to that, according to the financial memorandum, there will be an additional £4½ million cast upon the Government or upon other public undertakings; and to that extent the additional expenditure falling upon local authorities will inescapably curtail their activities in the carrying out of development plans. To what extent the financial obligations have been increased as a result of the Amendments to the Bill made in another place, and the consequent extension of the provisions of the Bill, I cannot say, but it is quite certain that the expenditure will not be less—and it is very likely that it will be more—than the figures given in the financial memorandum.
If I may say so with infinite respect, I think that the reference by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to 1 or 2 per cent. of the total expenditure of local authorities was a little equivocal. The point here really is: how much more is the land going to cost the local authorities, or how much more must the local authorities pay for carrying out the planning and the development projects which they have in mind? Since the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has himself raised the question of grant, I must point out that, as regards town planning, whilst a percentage grant was formerly given in respect of certain expenditures for open spaces, that is not

949
now the case, as the grant is now covered by the block grant: and to that extent, of course, the local authorities are so much the worse off. I do not think that it can be questioned that the additional expenditure which will be thrown upon local authorities by the provisions of this Bill is such as will hold up and frustrate proper planning and the carrying out of the developments—and, even more so, the revision of the development plans which, of course, has periodically to be done. In the Barlow Report, in the Scott Report and in the Uthwatt Report, it was stated with almost accumulating energy and definitiveness that the main factor which prevented planning in this country was finance: the cost of their acquiring the land and the compensation which had to be paid and the absence of any provision to enable the community to recover betterment which the community had itself created.
The noble and learned Viscount will remember, I am sure, a White Paper issued by the Coalition Government called, The Control of Land Use, published in June, 1944 (Command 6537), in which the Coalition Government adopted, by and large, the principles of the Uthwatt Report—though, I agree, with certain modifications. At page 4 of that White Paper, after having dealt with the procedural matters of town planning, in connection with which a Bill was at that time before Parliament, it says—and I quote from paragraph 5:
"But there will still remain to be corrected what is generally agreed to be the defect which most of all prevented or distorted good planning before the war—namely, the state of the law regarding the payment of compensation to landowners affected by planning schemes and the collection of betterment from those who would benefit therefrom."
I think it is incontestable that one of the results of the provisions of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be faster planning. Planning authorities will once again be looking over their shoulders. With all the pressure on local government expenditure arising from the accepted need for expanding and developing educational services, which it is estimated will cost within a few years no less than £1,000 million a year, and from the other obligations which local government quite properly has to face, this additional payment for compensation, largely a payment by local authorities for the very values they themselves have created, cannot fail, in my submission, to hamper and frustrate good planning.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: As one who has had a long association with local government, I am nearly always in favour of any project for transferring funds from the Exchequer to local councils, but on this occasion I must confess that I think that the noble and learned Viscount was absolutely right in considering the additional cost likely to arise from this Bill as one of the factors which were taken into account in the calculation of the general rate. Unless entirely new money is put by the Exchequer into the whole fabric of local government, I am afraid that the net result of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wants to do would be simply to create an addition to the general grant which would have to be paid for by other local authorities. That is why, on this occasion, I cannot support this transfer of money to local authorities.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents.19; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Mathers, L.

Stansgate, V.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams, L.

Granville-West, L.

Shackleton, L.

Winster, L.

Greenhill, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, Baroness.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Chesham, L.

Airedale, L.

Blackford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Brecon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Baden-Powell, L.

Broughshane, L.

Colyton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Devonport, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Jeffreys, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Dundee, E.

Jessel, L.

Salisbury, M.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Killearn, L.

Saltoun, L.

Gage, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Saye and Sele, L.

Goschen, V.

Long, V.

Sinha, L.

Grenfell, L.

Luke, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Soulbury, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Hastings, L.

Meston, L.

Swansea, L.

Hawke, L.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Hayter, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Home, E.

Perth, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Hylton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wemyss, E.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to according.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
4.40 p.m.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Assumptions in respect of compensation for dwelling-houses on basis of site value
"Where in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act, 1957, compensation in respect of the dwelling-houses in a clearance area falls to be determined on the basis of site value thereof and the site of any of the said dwelling-houses has on account of the dimensions thereof a value which is less than the value which such site would have on the assumption that it formed part of a larger site which would be capable of redevelopment it shall be assumed in determining the amount of the compensation that such site forms a part proportionate to its area of such larger site"
The noble Lord said: It will be within the recollection of the Committee that on Second Reading attention, not confined to noble Lords on this side but from all sides of the House, was drawn to the position of cases of land compulsorily acquired under the Housing Acts, compensation for which was assessed at site value and at purely nominal amounts. This, of course, applies to houses unfit for human habitation under the Housing Act. Often these sums of compensation have been not more than £1 for the site of the house, because district valuers have maintained that individual sites were of insufficient size to permit the erection of a house which would comply with existing by-laws. Yet the aggregation of such sites, taking a number of small sites together, frequently results in a site worth far more than the aggregate compensation paid to the owners.
This matter was gone into at great length in another place, and on recommittal of the Bill the Minister sought to put what he described as a kind of floor in the amount of compensation for every owner of an unfit house acquired
952
by a local authority, the floor being the gross annual value of the house for rating purposes. That is the figure now proposed in the Bill. I am given to understand that this sum normally would be within the range of £10 to £15. On Second Reading considerable dissent was expressed that such a small sum should be paid as compensation. Not only has this matter been ventilated to a great degree in another place, but it has also given rise to correspondence in the Press, and I would quote from one letter which appeared as recently as April 13. The writer, speaking of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, said that he hoped your Lordships
"will stand back from the trees of legal intricacies and take a broad view of the woods of policy in which this legislation is to be rooted."
That appears to refer to the fact that some or your Lordships are described as backwoodsmen; we are all expected to appear from the backwoods and it is hoped that we shall take a broad view of such woods.
Be that as it may, I feel that there is a case to be answered. On to-day's prices I do not think anybody can really say that one year's gross value of a house is suitable compensation for a site which, though small in itself, may when aggregated with one, two or three other small sites provide for the acquiring authority a site of considerable value, worth, in fact, much more than £10 or £15 multiplied by four, six, ten or any other numeral which your Lordships may care to use.
I feel that what your Lordships would wish to do is to find a fair sum in these cases. It is true to say that the authority acquiring a small site for housing redevelopment would possibly have to spend a large amount of money on putting in new services, building new houses and so on; but the site itself, when acquired

953
in toto, is a valuable asset and must be more valuable than the total gross rateable value of the houses. I have explained, so far as I am able, the basis of this Amendment. I am sure we are all anxious to avoid the injustices which occur in these acquisitions of small properties, and it is with that intention in view that I have put down the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hylton.)
4.50 p.m.
LORD MESTON: I think this is a most important Amendment, and I hope that something definite can be done about this matter. I have always taken the view that the site basis of value of compensation for houses is not only unfair but positively ridiculous. You take an old house and knock it down and you say that the bricks and mortar are worth nothing. You then go on to say that the site value is worth £1 or £2. You then have second thoughts on the subject and say, "Well, we must give the poor fellow who is the owner of this site a little more." With those amiable intentions in mind you then concoct a number of artificial formulæ. Quite frankly, this is one of the artificial formulæ, and it is one of which I am in favour.
The fact of the matter is that in a Bill dealing with town and country planning it is impossible satisfactorily to alter the basis of compensation as laid down in a Housing Act. Another Housing Act is needed to achieve that purpose. Therefore all we can do in the present Bill is to modify and improve this artificial method of compensation which is based upon site value. Suppose, for example, that the frontage of an old, destroyed house is only 12 feet. At the present moment the district valuer might give £1 or £2 for that frontage. On the other hand, if that frontage were taken in conjunction with the adjoining houses, so as, notionally speaking, to create an area capable of reasonable development, then one might say that each foot frontage was worth £8. Multiply 12 by £8 and the answer is £96, which is obviously a great improvement upon the present situation. But I admit that it is quite artificial. because the house which was knocked
954
down might have been old and quite unsuitable for further habitation of any description. On the other hand, it might have been, technically speaking, unfit for human habitation within Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957, and yet capable of standing up well for another ten or fifteen years. So, whatever is done on this basis must be artificial. It cannot be helped. It is not our fault, but the fault of the Housing Act. I think this is a most important Amendment, and I hope that, after years and years of talk on this subject, something can be done along these lines or along other lines.
LORD HAWKE: This is an extremely technical Bill, but this is one of the points in which I believe a layman can intervene without singeing his hair too much. It seems to me that these sites have three different types of value. There is the site value to the developing local authority; there is the value of the existing structure to a landlord if it is a let structure, and there is the value of the home to the individual. They will all he completely different. The site value to the local authority may be determined by the cost of clearing, and so on. The value to a landlord will in many cases, theoretically at any rate, be nil, because his outgoings should exceed his ingoings if he keeps the property in repair. But the home value to the individual may be very great. The individual may have no intention whatever of clearing out, but if the house which the owns and for which he pays no rent, and in which he might well expect to live for five, ten or fifteen years is taken from him, what is he likely to get in exchange?—a small money compensation. If we really did him justice, the only thing would be to give him in exchange something of equal value; but since a similar house is not available, that is impossible. The alternative is to give him a money value, which I am afraid, on the best construction, is bound to be considerably below the home value to him. But, at any rate, in so far as it is an improvement on the existing position, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able either to accept this Amendment or give some promise to my noble friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With your Lordships' forbearance, I should like to put the various aspects of this problem,

955
so that those of your Lordships who are interested can perhaps do me the honour of studying them. I note that the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, has an Amendment later on in slightly different terms, and with the general approval of the Committee and the noble Lord in the Chair we could perhaps resume our discussion of that at a later stage in the Bill. I think this is a difficult problem, and there are many matters which we need to bear in mind.
I should like first of all to deal with the difficulties which are peculiar to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Hylton. The basis of his suggestion is that the site of a dwelling-house should be valued as a proportional part of a larger area. The first difficulty with regard to that solution is that such a provision is open to the objection that it might be of no benefit at all to just that class of owner whom it is desired to assist—the owner of a very small site in a clearance area which is unattractive to developers. Moreover, my noble friend's provision is open to the further objection that it is, in my view, too wide in its effect, since it provides that the compensation for any site, including, for example, sites which may already have a high commercial value, must be increased over and above the market value if enhanced compensation would result from aggregation with other sites. Not only would owners get more, under this provision, than market value, but this kind of aggregation would rig the market against the acquiring authority by introducing an artificial duplication of values into the compensation payable for individual sites. These are, as I say. difficulties which are peculiar to this solution. I know your Lordships will not be content if I stop it there, and I should not dream of doing it. I want to consider the general problem, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I occupy a certain amount of time in doing it.
I think there are certain negative matters that, in fairness to the local authorities, one ought to clear out of the way, because at some moments in the Second Reading debate the impression was created that for the expenditure of perhaps £1,000 on the acquisition of 100 slum dwellings, a local authority may become the owner of land worth £10,000 and thereby make a profit of £9,000. I
956
hope that I am not wasting time in demolishing that impression, but I think it is fair to local authorities that one should state the matter. Because, as noble Lords are well aware, apart from the acquisition of land the local authorities have not only to rehouse the occupants of all the dwellings but, also to demolish the houses, clear and level the area, close rights of way and divert services. I am told, and I think noble Lords would agree, that it is very rare for a local authority to show any return from this operation.
The next point I would put to your Lordships is that it is misleading to imply that the purchase of slum sites at nominal sums is common. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, rather implied that by his speech, and therefore again I should like to put the considerations to him; and, of course, at this or any stage I shall be pleased to answer his points. The criticisms which have been made of the slum clearance compensation are mainly criticisms of the amounts paid to owner occupiers: they are the criticisms that we have heard today. When slum clearance was restarted a few years ago it was found that great hardship was likely to be suffered by those owners who during the years of housing scarcity and high prices had bought worn-out houses to provide a home for their families. I think we all agree with that view. That matter was dealt with by the Slum Clearance Compensation Act, 1956, which provided that owner-occupiers of slum houses who had bought between the outbreak of war, September 1, 1939, and December 13, 1955, should receive the full market value of the house.
As soon as that Act became law the many complaints which had been reaching the Ministry of Housing and Local Government dwindled to nothing. Owner-occupiers who receive only site value compensation to-day must therefore have bought before the war or after 1955. In any event, in only a small proportion of cases has the compensation payable on the present basis been nominal. Of 2,000 acquisitions of single sites in the first half of 1958, 10 per cent. received less than £5; that is 200 were in the category which we have been discussing to-day. Those cases in which only a nominal figure was paid included all those where the small payment was due to the existence of some form of rent

957
charge or to the fact that the lease had only a very short time unexpired, so that in any event the house would soon have been lost to the owner. One cannot blame the local authority for either of those conditions. I am trying to make this completely objective. If there is a rent charge, or if you have only the fag end of a lease and there is a very small period to go, then you are in small sums anyway. We tried to consider that, and it is estimated that, apart from the provision for paying as the minimum the gross value, which we have put in the Bill, the Bill will more than halve the number of those cases. That is, it will reduce my figure of 200 to 100.
There is another provision which noble Lords will remember when I recall it to their minds; that if the house has been properly looked after, and an owner-occupier has every incentive to do this, there is an addition to the site value of a "well-maintained" payment equal to nine times the rateable value. It can thus be stated categorically that the problem of nominal compensation for slum houses arises only in a small proportion of cases—where houses were bought before the war or since the Act of 1955, and have not been well maintained. Those who bought before the war will have paid a low price for the house and will have had at least twenty years' life from the house. If a man bought before the war at a low price, and has had twenty years' life, then he is getting—I know noble Lords could argue that it should be twenty-five years—near having had his money's worth. With the amount of publicity given to slum clearance programmes, no prudent person buying since the Act of 1955 should have paid a substantial price for a slum house. The scope for genuine hardship is thus very limited, and once the market value provisions of the Bill have taken effect it should be even further reduced. Finally, the provision for a minimum payment of the gross value of the property will ensure that in future no owner-occupier, however small his interest, if he has even the "faggest of fag-ends" of his lease, will receive only a nominal sum.
For those reasons I do ask your Lordships to consider this matter, and I would suggest that there is no justification for introducing elaborate and quite artificial systems of valuation unrelated to market value; and, of course, to do so might
958
well create further difficulties, since the effect would be to stimulate the market for slum houses and so increase the possibility of hardship to unsuspecting persons. I think it is very important that we should see this problem as a whole. Your Lordships will then analyse your own views of the value of the various points I am making.
I want just to say a word, from the historical point of view, about slum clearance. This, in a sense, is the answer to the very human and moving approach, if he will allow me to say so, of my noble friend Lord Hawke. It is, I repeat, essentially a public health operation. That is one of the fields where, in the general interest, one must consider the importance to the community; and it is a long-standing principle that the owners of house property, whether for their own occupation or as landlords. are responsible for keeping the houses in good repair and for pulling them down when they are no longer fit to live in.
An outworn house is no different, in essence, from any other outworn article which may become a source of danger to its owners. Your Lordships will remember the many powerful speeches which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made in regard to outworn motor cars on the roadway. When a house is no longer fit for human habitation, and has been found to be in that state, it must be demolished, whether it is bought by the local authority or left in the hands of the owner; and it is because of this obligation that an unfit house must be demolished that a local authority, when buying an unfit house for the purpose of demolition, has never been required to pay for the bricks and mortar but only for the value of the site.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested on Second Reading that a house is bought at site value if it infringes some very wide definition of unfitness. He implied—or at least gave me the impression that he thought—that that decision is a mere technicality. That is not so. A house is not acquired at site value unless the Minister has confirmed that it is unfit. Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957, lists the matters to which regard is to be had, but a house is deemed to be unfit only if it is so far defective in one or more of those matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. The Minister sees to

959
it that every house is thoroughly inspected before a decision is taken, and great care is taken to ensure that houses are not classed as unfit which are, in fact, really obsolescent. I am sure that that is a policy which Ministers follow quite irrespective of who occupies the Ministerial chair.
As I have already indicated, it does happen that on the present basis of compensation, but only in a small proportion of cases, the compulsory purchase value of a bare site is nominal. The value of these sites has been restricted to the sum of their existing housing uses and their development value as at August 1, 1948. At that time the development value of an outworn house, probably subject to a statutory tenancy, was at the best low, and often non-existent. In addition. many of these small sites are in unattractive areas and often they are burdened with rent charges. For the present artificial method of valuation, we have substituted in this Bill the price which the cleared site would fetch in the open market with planning permission for the future use to be expected if the local authority had not made a compulsory purchase order. Where the future use of the land is industrial or commercial there may well be a considerable increase in the compensation payable. As I indicated earlier, where the future use is housing, that will depend on the attractiveness of the area for housing purposes.
However much the principle of site value may command general acceptance, it is inevitable that when the time comes to clear outworn houses there will be complaints of hardship. That is why I went through with your Lordships the whole collection of legislation, in order to show how that had been done. I do not think that when your Lordships have considered it—if your Lordships will do me the honour of considering what I have said—you will find that these cases are more than a few in number. As the result of the Bill and of the special provisions for owner-occupiers who bought during and immediately after the war, the number of cases where only nominal payments are to be made in future for slum houses is likely to be very small indeed. These cases will arise mainly where the property is subject to rent charges or is so sited that there is no demand at all for housing. The Government recognises that this is a
960
problem because, although owners of such property will be receiving market value, it is very difficult to justify paying to the owner-occupier of a house, who is dispossessed of his home, no more than a nominal sum. It is for this small number of people who are in that position, where there is either, on the one hand, a rent charge, or, on the other hand, no real open housing development, that we have said that rather than leave them to the nominal value, they should be given the gross rateable value for the year. That is how we have arrived at the position.
Again, of course, I should willingly consider what anyone has to say; and if anyone has any doubt about the construction of my argument or thinks that my premises are wrong, I should be delighted to reconsider the matter. This is the best that I can do, having carefully examined the information given to me. That is the reason why I could not accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Hylton, because it has the difficulties which I mentioned at the outset of my speech. Therefore I ask him not to press it. What I would suggest to your Lordships—because this is an important point and I am anxious to hear everything your Lordships have to say—is that if you agree with me that Lord Hylton's solution is not acceptable, perhaps your Lordships would look at what I say in Hansard and return to the charge on Lord Silkin's Amendment on the Second Schedule.
LORD HYLTON: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for taking immense pains to answer some of the queries that were put to him. If he will allow me to say so, he has produced so many trees that it is almost impossible to see the wood. What I think I should like to do—perhaps other noble Lords feel the same—is to look at the noble and learned Viscount's speech in Hansard and consider the arguments that he has put before your Lordships' Committee. It has not escaped my attention that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has an Amendment on the Second Schedule, the wording of the second part of which is, I think, somewhat similar to the Amendment standing in my name.
I should just like to make one further comment. The noble and learned Viscount referred to a "well-maintained" allowance. As I understand it, that sum

961
is an additional payment made to the owner of a slum-condemned house when the property is demolished. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will look into this matter once again, because I am informed that in another place the Minister's Amendment was so framed as to take the place of the "well-maintained" allowances. If that is so, then there is some slight discrepancy between that and what we have heard this afternoon. This, like so many other questions on this Bill, is full of abstruse technical difficulties. If the Committee agrees, I should like to have an opportunity of reading in Hansard the full reply which has been given before carrying this point any further.
In conclusion I would just draw your Lordships' attention to this: in the course of his reply the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that he thought that only a few cases of hardship, injustice or whatever we may care to call it, would remain after the others had been assisted by various forms of additional compensation, and so on. Such miracles of draftsmanship have been already performed in producing this Bill that I do not believe it is beyond the powers of existing draftsmen to find a form of words so that the very few cases referred to will be entirely eliminated. That I am sure, is the wish on all sides of the Committee, because there is suspicion and very genuine criticism from the general public that all is not entirely well in this matter; and until that doubt is put at rest I feel that we ought to continue our efforts in this House to put the matter right.
LORD SILKIN: It might be convenient if I were to say a word on this Amendment rather than on my own Amendment later. I have promised the Committee that I will not speak twice, but perhaps it would be convenient if we had one bite at the cherry rather than two and if the noble and learned Viscount will himself take into consideration, as we will, what has been said and will be said on this matter. First, I would say at once that I am sure no one will complain of the length and detail at which the noble and learned Viscount has dealt with this very important subject. It is an important one and it is as well that we should be reminded of what has gone before.
962
I was for many years chairman of a housing committee and was instrumental, in my time, in declaring a great many areas as slums; therefore I have had some experience of this matter. In the days before the war when we were dealing with slum clearance we were dealing with a slum landlord and, frankly, one had very little sympathy with him. To be fair to him, he never asked for sympathy. He had made a good thing out of his property while the going was good, and when the time came for demolition he did not expect to get more than the site value. The owner-occupier of a slum house was then a most rare phenomenon. I would say he is almost entirely a postwar phenomenon, brought about by the shortage of housing and by the fact that people have a little more money in their pockets and are able to afford, or to acquire the small amount of money that is required for the acquisition of, a house of this kind. To that extent I would qualify what the noble and learned Viscount has said on this subject—but only to that extent, because I believe he has put forward a very fair, accurate and correct statement of the position. In this Amendment we are dealing with someone quite different from the normal kind of slum landlord.
As I said in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, this is the case of the small man who, generally speaking, finding no other means of acquiring a roof over his head, has been compelled to buy a slum house, because it was cheap. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that to a considerable extent that man's case has been met by the legislation passed, I believe, in 1956, whereby he gets the market value, but I am not sure how this has worked out in practice; for what is the market value of a house which has been accepted as unfit for habitation and is to be demolished? I suppose the market value is what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller. But where is this willing buyer who would pay any kind of price for a house condemned as unfit for habitation and about to be demolished? I do not know, therefore, the extent to which the owner of a slum house has benefited from that provision. But, be that as it may, there still remains a number of cases dealt with in this Bill which are recognised as needing to be dealt with, as they are referred to in the Second Schedule.

963
I feel, therefore, that we ought to concentrate our minds on this particular person who is not going to get the market value—if there be such a value, and I would submit there is no market—but who is to be paid the site value. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that there are very few such cases, but I would submit that if they are few it makes them all the easier to deal with. The normal slum house of that kind, whose site value is nil, would be on a site so small that no other building could be put on it—perhaps a house with a frontage of 10 or 12 feet with a return of perhaps 20 feet, a site of some 200 square feet altogether, which is of no use whatever for building. Nevertheless, where such a site is joined with a number of other similar sites, there may be something of value, and the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment and mine, although they are differently worded, is to provide that the payment should be made on the assumption that this small site was part of a larger site and should get a proportion of the value.
Possibly the noble Lord's Amendment and my own are inadequately phrased, for we have not the services of Parliamentary draftsmen—not that their services are all that good when nearly 200 Amendments to the Bill are needed after coming from another place—so we have to make do with what we can draft ourselves, inadequate as that may be. The proposal to pay a proportion of the total site value seems to me to be fair and reasonable. I submit, in the alternative, that the figure should be three times the annual value. What would be the annual value of a site such as I have described? It would not be more than £10 and I doubt whether it would be that. If the figure were £10 then three times the annual value would be £30. I feel that £10 as compensation is derisory. If that is supposed to be an act of generosity on the part of Her Majesty's Government then I am really at a loss to find a way of describing it.
What I would suggest in my Amendment is that the figure should be three times the annual value, although that is quite arbitrary and it might be four or five times the value. I considered what figure I should put down, but any figure, being arbitrary, would be subject to criticism. I propose three times the annual value of the site or a figure calculated in that way in which the noble
964
Lord or myself would have it calculated—whichever is the greater. It cannot amount to very much, in any case, for if my calculation is right a site of 200 square feet is about one two-hundred-and-fortieth of an acre—a very tiny site; and if the land is worth even £2,000 or £3,000 per acre it will not amount to very much. In that case the other side of my Amendment—that is, three times the annual value of the site—would be the greater. But it could conceivably be a part of a very valuable site which might be used for industrial purposes; and, I suppose, the worse the area, the more likely it is to be used hereafter for industrial purposes, and in that case the site can become very valuable. Even a small proportion of a valuable site might itself be of some considerable value. I am not moving the Amendment, because we have not reached it, but I am in part supporting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
I submit that something more should be done for these unfortunate individuals, the owners of slum houses, than is provided in the Bill. Because there are so few of them it will not break the local authority. It cannot amount to very much, under either form of Amendment. I would suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that he might consider what has been said, just as we will consider what he has said, and perhaps before the next stage those of us who are interested may have an opportunity of talking the matter over.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask a question of the noble and learned Viscount arising out of his explanation? One feels when one comes to slum clearance—and it is obviously going to increase in speed—that when an area is considered to be a slum area the temptation will be to treat every house in the whole area alike, not-withstanding the fact that some houses may be perfectly fit, when they are obviously all required for redevelopment. The local authority are, presumably, the judge of whether a house is a slum or not a slum; and the noble and learned Viscount has told us that they will use great care in giving judgment on the matter. But are they judge and advocate in their own court? Because the amount they pay will depend on their judgment of whether the property is a slum or not a slum. Is there a right of appeal? this is a matter of considerable principle. That is what I wanted to ask, because

965
It is the old story of the individual against the Executive, and it is a sphere in which tile individual can, and will, feel himself aggrieved. Therefore, everything that the Governrnent can do to make it clear that the individual is being properly protected in this matter will, I think, redound to their own advantage and, of course, to the justice of the citizen.
LORD LATHAM: We are in danger, I think, of getting into the realm of housing and slum clearance, and it is as well that we should clearly understand what is the position of the local authority in regard to condemning houses as unfit for human habitation and deciding whether a house is to form part of a clearance area or not. The local authority are not the judge in their own court. The procedure is that the medical officer, who in this respect enjoys a quite definite and valuable independence, inspects the houses and, through his staff, prepares what is known popularly as "a reference book". He makes the recommendation or the declaration to the local authority that the house or the housing is unfit for human habitation. But before anything can be done by way of demolition or otherwise, as the noble and learned Viscount said earlier, the Minister must approve; and so the interests of the public as well as the interests of the individual are considered in regard to slum clearance.
LORD HAWKE: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation exposing my ignorance in the matter. But has the individual the right of appeal against the choice of his particular house as being unfit?
LORD LATHAM: Indeed he has. I should have thought that the procedure was as protective of the interests of all concerned as might well be the case. As the noble and learned Viscount said, slum clearance is a social health problem. It is because the slums of this country were very substantially reduced that that fell disease known as tuberculosis has almost disappeared. The breeding grounds for tuberculosis were slums, and they have largely gone. There still remain more than we should like to admit, perhaps, but a very large proportion of them has gone.
May I now, however, return to the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, seemed concerned that a site
966
should be valued by reference to other sites in an area which he did not define. The assumption seems to be that it is frequently the case that we have a small site surrounded by other buildings—factory buildings, shop buildings, warehouse buildings. That is sometimes the case, but in the majority of cases all the sites within the area have houses on them which are unfit for human habitation, and the mere aggregation of a number of those houses would not increase the value of any single one of them, because they are all unfit for human habitation and they are all only of a site value to the local authority. The next point and the final point I should like to make is this: that it would be, I think, very unfortunate if out of (as I believe) unreasonable and perhaps slightly excessive concern for a very small number of people this Bill were amended so that the cost of acquisition of these sites in a slum clearance area were, as it could well be, substantially increased.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord explain? If there is a very small number of people to be given higher value, how can the cost of acquisition be substantially increased?
LORD LATHAM: I was coming to that. I doubt whether one could in social justice distinguish any more than has been done between the owners of these small sites having houses unfit for habitation. What I wanted to stress was this: at present the cost to local authorities of slum clearance is very high indeed. It is not only, as the noble and learned Viscount said, that the local authority have to re-house; the experience is that they have to provide, by and large, three times as many dwellings to house the population which is displaced as the number of houses in which the occupiers lived before they were displaced; and that itself amounts to a very considerable financial liability, apart from the fact that the houses to which they go, built by local authorities, are all under subsidy and very few of them are let at anything approaching an economic rent. I do not want to disagree with my noble friend Lord Silkin; nor do I wish to imply that I have had a larger experience of housing matters than he; but he and I were associated closely together at County Hall and I thought it might be of some value to indicate the procedure followed as regards clearance areas.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has answered the point raised by my noble friend, Lord Hawke.
LORD HAWKE: Yes.
LORD HYLTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his remarks; and we shall be coming to his Amendment on the Second Schedule—not, I think, to-day. I am also grateful to the noble Lords who have supported this Amendment. If I look at Hansard and try to follow the pattern put before us, I shall be in a slightly clearer frame of mind when we come to the Second Schedule; and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Extension of ss. 5 and 6 to special cases]:
5.42 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is a technical Amendment consequential to Amendments to Clause 5 moved in another place. This Amendment deals with special cases in Scotland, and I do not imagine that your Lordships will wish me to say further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
("(5) An application for a certificate made by virtue of subsection (1) or subsection (3) of this section shall specify the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of the said section five, and shall be accompanied by a statement specifying the date on which a copy of the application has been or will be served on each of the parties directly concerned; and, in relation to such an application, subsection (4) of the said section five shall have effect with the substitution, for the reference to the date specified in the statement accompanying the application in accordance with paragraph (b) of the said subsection (3), of a reference to the date specified in the statement accompanying the application in accordance with this subsection, or, where more than one date is so specified, the later of those dates.")
—(Earl Bathurst.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Modification of rules for assessment of compensation]:
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (6) to insert:
"( ) Where there is attached to the relevant land an unexpended balance of established development value the amount thereof shall be taken into account in determining market value in accordance with Rule 2 of section two of the Act of 1919."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment concerns rather an intricate question of valuation with which, in some respects, I do not feel entirely qualified to deal. It arises from circumstances which have already been mentioned by Lord Silkin, I think; that in certain cases the value of what is known as the Part VI claim will be greater than the assessed market value. Your Lordships will remember that the Part VI claim was the assessment of value to which the owner was entitled in the event of refusal of permission to develop, and, of course, in the large majority of cases, the market value will be higher than what I may call the formal value—the existing use value plus claim.
I am concerned to see that nobody will be worse off as a result of this Bill, and particularly that two people in identical circumstances shall not be treated unequally. Therefore, in formally moving this Amendment, I should like to put this question to my noble and learned friend. Suppose two men owned identical plots of land and had identical Part VI claims attaching to them, the only difference between them being that one had "cashed in" on his Part VI claim and the other had not; and suppose those two plats were acquired compulsorily. Would both those owners get, in total, exactly the same amount of money? I ask this question because the matter seems a little intricate. If there is to be equality of treatment, it seems to me that, unless the Government are prepared to make the owner who has already got his Part VI claim disgorge part of it, then they must, to put the two on a parity, pay the other man the Part VI claim plus market value. If I can be satisfied on that point, although I have heard it stated by valuers that the absence of any specific reference to it in the Bill is likely to mislead certain valuers, I do not think I should wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD MESTON: I should like, in a few words, to support this Amendment, which is a very amiable one. I understand that Government spokesmen have already said that the unexpended balance of development value is, in fact, taken into account when the land is sold in the open market, and will similarly be taken into account when the land is valued for compulsory purchase purposes. Nevertheless, because there is some doubt whether all district valuers will in fact take these balances into account it is considered that an Amendment in these terms should be inserted in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before I deal with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, may I deal specifically with the question put to me by my noble friend Lord Gage? This Amendment provides that, in determining market value in accordance with Rule 2 of Section 2 of the 1919 Act—that is, arriving at the price which a willing seller could expect to receive in the open market—the amount of any unexpended balance of development value attached to the relevant land shall be taken into account. This Amendment would be a direction to the valuers to take into account something which they would normally do automatically, without the direction. In my view, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary. I will come back to that point when I deal with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but may I give an example which I hope will satisfy my noble friend Lord Gage?
Imagine two adjoining plots of land in a green belt, with no prospects of development, both of which had an unexpended balance, but in one case the owner has had planning permission refused and the unexpended balance has been paid to him. These two plots are now acquired compulsorily. The owner of the plot which is now without an unexpended balance, because it has been paid to him, will receive as market value the existing use value. In the open market a purchaser of the other plot would know that, in addition to the existing use value, he was buying the right to cash the unexpended balance merely by applying for planning permission and getting a refusal. He would have to pay for that right. The market value thus takes account of the unexpended balance,
970
and so, therefore, would the compulsory purchase compensation under the Bill. The result of that is, as I hope I have demonstrated, that both would be in the same position.
May I say one word to the noble Lord, Lord Meston? That being the effect of the position as it is to-day, in the circumstances which my noble friend, Lord Gage, predicated, I do not think it is a good thing to put in the Bill Amendments asking people to take account of something of which they would, in fact, take account without the Amendments, because it immediately raises doubts as to other matters which they would take into account automatically—and I need not quote the Latin tag which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, knows much better than I do. For that reason. I would ask him not to press the matter, provided that my noble friend Lord Gage is satisfied, as I think he is. After all, what I have said to-day can be quoted, and I hope will have some effect in soothing doubts that exist.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I agree that the assurance he has given would appear to be quite sufficient for the purpose I had in mind. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Other special cases]:
EARL BATHURST: With your Lordships' permission, I will take this Amendment with Nos.7 and 8, which deal with Scotland. This Amendment preserves the special basis of compensation which is available for statutory undertakers under the Eleventh Schedule of the 1947 Act; and, as I have said, the two following Amendments apply it to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 40, at end insert—
("(3) In relation to compulsory acquisitions of interests in land which has been acquired by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of section forty-five of the Act of 1947 (which makes special provision as to the compensation payable in respect of certain acquisitions of land so acquired).")—(Earl Bathurst.)
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 42, after "sections" insert "forty-five".
Page 16, line 46, after "sections" insert "forty-two".—(Earl Bathurst.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Power to pay allowances to persons displaced
13.—(1) In connection with any compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies, and in connection with any sale of an interest in land by agreement in circumstances corresponding to such an acquisition, the acquiring authority—

(a)may pay to any person displaced from a house or other building on that land such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards his expenses in removing therefrom; and

(b)may pay to any person carrying on any trade or business in any such house or other building such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards the loss which, in their opinion, he will sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade or business consequent upon his having to quit the house or building.

(2)In estimating loss, for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, the authority shall have regard to the period for which the premises occupied by the person in question might reasonably have been expected to be available for the purpose of his trade or business, and to the availability of other premises suitable for that purpose.
5.52 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "may" and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: This and the next three Amendments cover the same point and, if I may, I will deal with them together. Amendment No. 8E covers a slightly different point, which I will develop separately, if I may. I am not at all familiar—perhaps not so familiar as I ought to be—with the highly technical and complex body of legislation of which this Bill is the latest excrescence. It may be that I come to it with a fresh mind—or perhaps I should say, an untutored mind—and I find the word "may" difficult to understand in this connection.
It seems to me that if a person who is displaced by compulsory purchase from his house or building is entitled to compensation for his displacement, then that ought to be given as a matter of right, and not
972
left to the discretion of the acquiring authority. If this discretion is left to the authority, there must be a certain amount of variation from one part of the country to another in treatment and in the degree of justice which is accorded to the dispossessed person. It seems to me that it would be much fairer, and more in line with what I understand to be the intention of the noble and learned Viscount, that there should be a direction to the acquiring authority to pay a reasonable allowance in these cases. If the noble and learned Viscount should accept this Amendment, then presumably he would accept the following Amendments which would define what those expenses are, and again not leave it to the discretion of the authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Coleraine.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is rather more difficulty in this Amendment than my noble friend Lord Coleraine has appreciated, and I should like to develop it. As he said, the intention of his Amendments is to convert the discretion given by Clause 13 to an acquiring authority to pay reasonable allowances towards removal expenses, or towards loss due to disturbance of trade, into an obligation to pay the actual expenses incurred in the removal and the actual loss sustained. The position is that when the occupier of a house or of business premises has an interest of a year or more, he is entitled to the service of notice to treat, in which case compensation is payable for the value of his interest and will include compensation for disturbance. Compensation for disturbance will include removal expenses and any losses directly attributable to the disturbance by the compulsory purchase. This is a provision which has existed for many years; there is a specific reference to compensation for disturbance in Rule 6 of Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and the items which are properly included have been established by the Courts over those years.
It sometimes happens, however, that the occupants of houses or of business premises have no sufficient legal interest to entitle them to a notice to treat. In some parts of the country small shops may often be held on no more than a

973
weekly tenancy. In such cases the occupants have no security of tenure, apart from any protection under the Rent Acts or under the Landlord and Tenant Acts. Normally, in such cases, local authorities do not acquire the interest, but merely serve notice to quit, as landlords, at the end of the period of the tenancy. This is the class of case with which the clause is intended to deal. I hope that I take my noble friend with me when I say that to place a statutory obligation upon local authorities to pay compensation for removal expenses and for loss of business would be making an arbitrary distinction between private landlords, who can serve notice to quit without any such obligation, and local authorities acting as landlords. I do not see how we can justify such a distinction. In any case, the obligation could probably be avoided by the local authority's arranging for the landlord to give notice to quit before they buy out the landlord's interest—which, however, would not be a very technical way of dealing with the matter.
There is a further difficulty about making provisions in this clause mandatory: that the amount of loss actually sustained, by disturbance of business cannot be determined with any precision. I do not wish to develop that point. The other point which I think my noble friend ought to consider is that discretionary powers similar to those in Clause 13 of the Bill already exist in the Housing and Town and County Planning Acts, and have operated now for many years. All this clause does is to extend similar discretionary provisions so that they are available when property is bought under powers other than those Acts. So that this is not a case where we are changing the law against the tenant of small properties: we are merely projecting into this Bill the existing law. For these two reasons—the differentiation between local authority and private landlord, and the fact that we are only putting into operation the existing statutory code—I would ask my noble friend not to press his Amendment.
LORD COLERAINE: In the light of the explanation given by my noble and learned friend, for which I thank him, I do not feel that I can press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COLERAINE: Here again I think it will be convenient if I discuss the Amendment at page 17, line 17, and the following Amendment together, and though I shall speak to the first, the argument will in fact be related to the second. The point here is that a number of small traders carry on their business in premises which they have under agreements covering a quarter, a month or even a week; in many cases they have carried on these businesses with these short-term agreements for many years, and, indeed, in some cases for generations. It would seem that, in order to be fair, in a case where a man has an agreement which is technically limited in terms of time but which in practice has proved to be virtually unlimited and which he and everybody else regards as being indefinite, the authority should have regard to those facts when they are estimating the loss which any displaced tenant may be incurring. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 17, leave out ("and").(Lord Coleraine.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that it had not occurred to me that these Amendments really fell into a different position from the rest of the block, because I understood from my noble friend that he was taking the case where there was an interest in the premises of less than one year.
LORD COLERAINE: Where there is a technical interest of less than one year.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I said before, the practice is to give notice to treat where there is an interest of one year or more. This procedure has been going on for forty years, since 1919, and it would be difficult to alter it. Frankly, I cannot see how it could be done. Therefore all I can say to my noble friend is that the question of altering interest has never entered my mind till now, and I do not think it has entered anyone else's. In that position, all I can do is to say that I will read his speech and consider it, but I cannot hold out any hope of altering a procedure which has stood for forty years and really with little variation since 1845.
LORD SILKIN: Perhaps I might give some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I can assure him that, in practice, a case such as he has in mind, of

975
possession of premises undisturbed for thirty years, even though the person may have only a weekly tenancy, is a factor which every decent local authority—which I imagine most of them are—would take into account. They have discretion; there is a good deal of elasticity in the amount of compensation they pay, and I have no doubt that they would err on the side of generosity in the case of a tenant such as the noble Lord has in mind, as against the person who has been there for only a short time.
LORD COLERAINE:I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the assurance which he has given, which does give me some degree of comfort. However, I should be obliged if my noble and learned friend would look into this matter. As I understand the position under the Bill as it stands, the authority shall have regard to the period, and what I am asking is that, if possible, they should have regard to what are the realities of the case and not only to the apparent facts. I appreciate that this may not be possible, but I should be grateful if it could be looked into. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Long-standing notices to treat
14.—(1) This section applies to every notice to treat served before the sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, by a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, being a notice in respect of which the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say,—
6.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGEmoved in subsection (1), to leave out "sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven" and insert "first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five". The noble Viscount said: This is another somewhat complicated valuation point which, to some extent, is coupled with the last Amendment I moved. Your Lordships will remember that we were then told by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the unexpended Part VI claims are always taken into account in the calculation of market value. But perhaps your Lordships remember that
976
under the 1947 Act, unless claims were registered by a certain date it was assumed that the applicant had lost his opportunity and had no claim. Then came the celebrated Pilgrim case, and it was then provided that the Minister should have a discretion in the case of hardship to make this Part VI claim payment.
When this matter was raised in another place the Minister seemed to take the line that that discretion has now become more or less a formality and it is always assumed that the Pilgrim clause would apply, notwithstanding that the registration of a claim might not have been made in the first instance. As the Minister thought that this Amendment had certain undesirable features, he resisted it. I have no desire to run counter to the wishes of the Minister, but to a layman it seems a little odd that quite an important principle of valuation should be settled, as it were, not by any legal sanction but by a sort of administrative convention that could possibly be altered at will. I would ask my noble and learned friend whether he does not think that some rather more formal action ought to be taken. It is in the hope of getting some explanation that I move this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 25, leave out from ("the") to ("by") in line 40 and insert ("first clay of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five").—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may trouble your Lordships by dealing with the history of this matter, I think it would help on the point. The Amendment would apply the special provisions of Clauses 14 and 15 to notices to treat served between August 7, 1947 and January 1, 1955. If the acquiring authority wished to proceed under these notices to treat it would have to serve first a notice of intention to proceed and it would then be open to owners to elect to have compensation assessed as though a notice to treat had been served on January 1, 1958. I have emphasised that because it raises a difficulty on the present Amendment, which I will come to in a moment.
But to deal with the point on which my noble friend Lord Gage asked me a question: as he said, when a similar Amendment was put down in another place it was intended to give to such owners the benefits of Section 35 of the Town and

977
Country Planning Act, 1951—the Pilgrim Clause which I had the honour to introduce in your Lordships' House in 1954—that is, to enable owners to receive a payment for loss of development value existing in 1947 where the owners have failed to make a claim under Part VI under the 1947 Act. Such payments are already being made by local authorities on an ex gratia basis under arrangements made by the Minister during the passage of the 1954 Act. Actually, it was a result of a statement made in consideration of Lords Amendments which your Lordships will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place of November 22, 1954, in column 898. By that time my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had been replaced by Mr. Duncan Sandys, who said:
"In the case where a transaction for a purchase has not been completed when the Bill comes into force, if local authorities wish to make an ex gratia payment, as the Romford Borough Council has done to Mrs. Pilgrim, we are ready to support them. Where appropriate, these ex gratia payments will rank for Exchequer grant in the same way as if they had been made under the clause."
On that statement these payments have in fact been made ever since that date, and there is no reason to believe that local authorities will fail to make such payments in any of the cases which would be affected by the Amendment. I reinforce to-day what my right honourable friend said on November 22, 1954.
I know that in a perfect world it would always be better to have everything in the Statute, but I think that, from the point of view of practical effect, when a statement has been made by the Minister, it has been acted upon for five years and is underwritten by the Lord Chancellor in your Lordships' House, the people concerned are reasonably safe. Of course, there is a difficulty when you rightly strive towards perfection, as my noble friend Lord Gage has done on this occasion—and I entirely sympathise with his view; I think it is a right and proper one. This Amendment would have the effect that the amount of compensation paid for the existing use value of property which is acquired under these notices to treat would be assessed in terms of the value at January 1, 1958, instead of the value at the date of notice to treat. This would cause serious anomalies between the compensation received by persons
978
served with notice to treat before July 1, 1955, and those served with notice to treat between January 1, 1955, and January 1, 1958. It just shows—although I could not agree more with my noble friend—that although it is desirable, it is very difficult; and I hope for the moment he will rest with my assurance. But I will certainly personally convey to Mr. Brooke what the noble Viscount has said, and I hope he will not press the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE): Before the noble Viscount rises, I would point out that there is a slight misprint in the Marshalled List, because in line 40 there is no word "by". Does the noble Lord mean the word "by" in line 26, or the one in line 39?
VISCOUNT GAGE: This is rather a quick piece of concentration for which the noble Lord Chairman is asking. What I meant to do was to bring the clause within the range of the Pilgrim Clause. I wonder whether the Lord Chairman could help me on this matter?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Viscount mean to alter the date, August 6, 1946, to January 1, 1955?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Yes.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Then I suggest that it is the word "by " in line 26. I do not know whether I am right.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think it is a slightly academic point, because I was about to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. In doing so, I should like to say this. I am grateful for the reply which has been given. Of course, if the Lord Chancellor, speaking in his official capacity, says that he thinks it is pedantic to want any legal sanction for what has been administrative practice, who am I to say that that is not right? Occasionally, in town planning matters a case is taken to court, and we get a sharp reminder about difficulties of loose drafting, as happened quite recently in connection with the case about caravans. But I cannot imagine anybody taking a case of this sort to the courts, and if the noble

979
and learned Viscount is satisfied, I am perfectly satisfied also. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:
Outstanding right to compensation for refusal, conditional grant, revocation or modification of planning permission
"(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to a compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies where—

(a) before the service of the notice to treat a planning decision or order has been made in such circumstances as to give rise to a claim for compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land, being land which consists of or includes the whole or part of the relevant land;

(b) whether such a claim has been made or not, no notice stating that compensation has become payable for depreciation of the value of that interest in consequence of that planning decision or order has been registered before the date of service of the notice to treat; but

(c)such a notice is registered on or after that date.

(2)Where the preceding subsection applies, the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition shall be assessed as if the notice referred to in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection had been registered before the date of service of the notice to treat and had remained on the register of local land charges on that date.
(3)For the purposes of this section a planning decision or order shall be taken to give rise to a claim for compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land if (subject to the making and determination of a claim in accordance with the relevant provisions, and to the effect of any direction of the Minister under section twenty-three or section forty-five of the Act of 1954) a person is entitled to compensation for depreciation of the value of that interest in consequence of that decision or order.
(4)In this section any reference to compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land is a reference to compensation payable either—

(a) under Part II or Part V of the Act of 1954 in respect of depreciation of the value of that interest, or

(b) under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the Act of 1947 in respect of loss or damage consisting of depreciation of the value of that interest;

980
any reference to registration is a reference to registration in the register of local land charges under subsection (5) of section twenty-eight of the Act of 1954, or under the provisions of that subsection as applied by section thirty-nine or section forty-six of that Act; and 'the relevant provisions', in relation to compensation under Part II of Part V of the Act of 1954, means the provisions of the said Part II, or those provisions as applied by the said Part V, and, in relation to compensation under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the Act of 1947, means the provisions of regulations made under the Act of 1947 with respect to claims for compensation under that subsection.
(5)In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a)for references to the Act of 1947 and section twenty-two of that Act there shall be substituted references respectively to the Scottish Act of 1947 and section twenty of that Act;

(b)for references to the Act of 1954 and to the following provisions of that Act, that is to say, subsection (5) of section twenty-eight, the provisions of that subsection as applied by section thirty-nine, section forty-five and the provisions of the said subsection (5) as applied by section forty-six there shall be substituted respectively references to the Scottish Act of 1954 and the following provisions of that Act, that is to say, subsection (1) of section twenty-nine, section forty-one, section forty-seven and the provisions of the said subsection (1) as applied by section forty-eight;

(c)for any reference to the registration of a notice in the register of local land charges there shall be substituted a reference to the recording of a notice in the appropriate register of sasines; and

(d)in subsection (2), the words from 'and had remained' to the end of the subsection shall be omitted."

The noble and learned Viscount said: The refusal of permission or the grant of permission subject to conditions may lead to the payment of compensation under Part II or Part V of the 1954 Act. Likewise, the confirmation of an order revoking or modifying a planning decision may lead to compensation under Section 22 of the 1947 Act, as qualified by Part IV of the 1954 Act. When this happens, the amount paid is registered as a charge on the land. Unless some part is remitted by the Minister, the amount charged on the land has to be repaid before any future development of the land is commenced. If such land is bought in the open market for development the price paid will be reduced because of the liability to repay the charge, and similarly the compensation on compulsory purchase with the benefit of assumed planning permissions will be reduced. This may not work properly, however, if

981
notice to treat is served after the planning decision or the confirmation of the order, but before registration of the payment of compensation. This new clause therefore provides that in such circumstances the payment will be deemed to have been registered before the service of notice to treat.
Your Lordships will see that subsection (1) defines the circumstances in which the clause applies; subsection (2) provides that the notice shall be deemed to have been registered before the date of service of notice to treat; subsection (3) defines what is meant by a planning decision or order which gives rise to a claim for compensation, and subsection (4) defines what is meant by compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest. Subsection (5) contains the Scottish application of the clause. This clause is only clearing up a technical matter, and therefore I have taken it rather shortly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I think I follow the noble and learned Viscount in his explanation of what is intended to be done. May I just ask which clause provides for the payment that he referred to be taken into account? This is merely a technical addition, I take it, where there has been an omission to register a payment; it puts that right, and so it should do. Could the noble and learned Viscount refer me to the particular clause which this Amendment seeks to enlarge? It is not Clause 16. If it is not, is this really the right place for the new clause? Should it not follow immediately the clause which it is intended to enlarge?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Actually, the payment of compensation arises under Parts II and V of the 1954 Act, and the confirmation of the order revoking or modifying the condition may lead to compensation under the old Section 22 of the 1947 Act, as qualified by Part IV. When this happens, the amount paid is registered as a charge on the land, and unless some part is remitted by the Minister the amount charged on the land has to be paid before any future development of the land is commenced. If the land is bought for development the price will be reduced because of the liability to pay the charge. Frankly, I thought that
982
all followed from the old Acts; that was my impression when I read this. May I just look into it and be certain; and if there is any point I will write to the noble Lord. I was trusting my memory; I thought that that was an old provision. I should like to check it.
LORD SILKIN: I think the noble and learned Viscount is quite right, and I put my question down to my stupidity after three and a quarter hours of concentration.
Clause 17 [Additional compensation for new planning permission in respect of land acquired]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think these Amendments should cause any trouble; they are all consequential Amendments. I think that all the Amendments to Clause 17 are within the category of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Therefore, I might move them en bloc. I beg to move Amendments 11 to 21.
Page 21, line 7, after first ("the") insert ("principal").
Page 21, line 10, after first ("the") insert ("principal").
Page 21, line 30, leave out from ("plan") to ("as") in line 33.
Page 22, line 11. after ("other") insert ("act or").
Page 22, line 12, after ("that") insert ("act or").
Page 22, line 16, after ("that") insert ("act or").
Page 22, line 28, at end insert ("and any reference to an area defined in a development plan is a reference to an area defined in such a plan in the form in which (whether as originally approved or made by the Minister or as subsequently amended) that plan was in force on the relevant date").
Page 22, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.
Page 22, line 41, at end insert ("the following, that is to say").
Page 23. line 27, leave out from ("if") to ("and") in line 31 and insert ("for paragraph (d) thereof there were substituted the following paragraph, that is to say—
(d) to land acquired by a local authority, whether compulsorily or by agreement, where on the relevant date the land consisted or formed part of an area to which a town development scheme under Part II of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, related").
Page 24, line 29, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) if in accordance with the last preceding paragraph a person would be entitled

983
to additional consideration in respect of an acquisition or sale, but before the planning decision in question that person has died, or any other act or event has occurred whereby the right to the additional consideration, if vested in him immediately before that act or event, would thereupon have vested in some other person, the right to the additional consideration shall be treated as having devolved as if that right had been vested in him immediately before his death or immediately before that act or event, as the
984
case may be, and the additional consideration shall be payable to the persons claiming under him accordingly.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock.