Sitting of 2 December 1959

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

MEMBER SWORN
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:—
Right honourable William David Ormsby-Gore, for Oswestry.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    H.M.S. "Bulwark"
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement about the commissioning of H.M.S. "Bulwark" as a commando carrier; and when a second aircraft carrier will be allocated for a similar rôle.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C Ian Orr-Ewing): H.M.S. "Bulwark" will commission on 19th January, 1960. She should be worked up and fully operational in her new role of commando carrier in the late spring. I am confident that her presence in the Fleet will give a welcome increase to the mobility of our defence forces.
    The provision of a second commando carrier is under consideration, but a final decision has not yet been taken.
    Mr. Wall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the light fleet carriers now on the disposal list could be allocated for this rôle? Would he also undertake to look into the question of support for the commando carrier, either by the provision of another carrier with strike aircraft or by the provision of an assault ship carrying armour?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would say that our plans have allowed for one of our ships to be adapted
    1152
    for the second commando carrier. I would like to have notice of the second part. It is a far more complicated and intricate matter.

    Trawlers (Protection)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what naval units are now engaged on protecting trawlers off Iceland; what instructions have been given to the commanding officers concerned; and for how long it is proposed to continue to use Her Majesty's warships for this purpose.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Two of Her Majesty's ships are at present protecting British trawlers off Iceland; their instructions are to protect British fishing vessels which, under international law, are fishing on the high seas.
    I cannot forecast how long it may be necessary to use Her Majesty's ships for this purpose. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government have on a number of occasions made suggestions for the negotiation of a temporary settlement of this dispute pending the results of the next United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, due to start in March next year.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Civil Lord agree that the two ships at present engaged do not give an entirely accurate picture of the extent of this naval commitment? Would he further agree that, in view of the damage being done to British merchant interests as well as to British relations with many other countries, including our allies in N.A.T.O., it is very desirable that some method other than gunboat diplomacy should be tried to solve our differences with what is a traditionally very pro-British and loyal allied country?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have had two or three ships there. It is true that large numbers, in their turn, have served in this important undertaking, but I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that naturally we would like to have a settlement. We do not wish to see disputes, particularly between allied N.A.T.O. nations, and the sooner we can come to an amicable settlement the better.
    Mr. Awbery: Can the Civil Lord say how many nations have now agreed to

    1153
    the 12-mile limit which is the cause of the dispute and of the need for our ships to be in the area?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a question which should be put down to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and not to the Civil Lord.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Civil Lord aware that, whilst our ships are unable to put into Icelandic ports for assistance when required, the Navy performs an invaluable task in giving help to our fishermen who are grateful for the assistance they get?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am glad to have the endorsement of the hon. Gentleman and of the House in general in respect of the wonderful work which our fishery protection vessels have done in this task.

    Admirals
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many rear-admirals, vice-admirals, admirals, and admirals of the fleet are now on the active list of the Royal Navy; how many of them are commanding ships; and how many commanding shore establishments; and if he will give a breakdown of duties performed by the others.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Fifty-seven rear-admirals, 19 vice-admirals and 10 admirals. Admirals of the Fleet are always on the active list but at present only one is on full-time service.
    In the second and third parts of his Question I assume that the hon. Member is referring to flag officers having sea-going ships under their command and those in overall command of shore establishments respectively. There are 12 of the former and 18 of the latter.
    The break-down referred to in the last part of the Question contains a number of figures and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hynd: As it appears from those figures that there are 86 admirals, apart from admirals of the fleet, and that only 30 are in active commands, does not the Civil Lord think that, in view of the small size of the Royal Navy as compared with previous times, it is rather top-heavy with admirals?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think it is the experience of all three Services—and
    1154
    incidentally, of business—that it is not possible to have an efficient organisation if one tries to skimp on the top management.
    Following is the information:

    FLAG OFFICERS OTHER THAN THOSE HAVING SEAGOING SHIPS UNDER THEIR COMMAND OR IN OVERALL COMMAND OF SHORE ESTABLISHMENTS.

    Members of Board of Admiralty

    6

    Holding appointments in Admiralty below Board level

    23

    Holding appointments in other Government Departments

    3

    International appointments

    4

    Holding appointments on staffs of Commanders-in-Chief

    10

    Holding "professional" appointments in H.M. Dockyards

    2

    Admiralty Interview Board

    1

    Imperial Defence College

    1

    On leave or waiting to take up appointments

    7

    57

    Court Sentence, South Africa
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on what charge a rating from H.M.S. "Leopard" was sentenced to a whipping by a Capetown court on 29th September, 1959; what other punishment was imposed; and what representations he has made to the Government of South Africa in regard to this case.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The rating concerned was charged with contravening the Immorality Act of South Africa with a coloured woman on 17th September, 1959. No punishment other than six strokes of the cane was imposed, and this was suspended for two years. No representations have been made to the Government of South Africa in regard to this case.
    Mr. Reynolds: As there is some concern at the fact that naval ratings in South Africa should be sentenced to whipping for matters which are not considered crimes in this country, will the Civil Lord make representations to the South African Government about this case, or ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to mention the question when he later visits Africa?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that I can add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday about his visit. Perhaps I could commend to the hon. Member the

    1155
    third leader of The Times. If he reads that he may have less questions of this sort to ask.

    Discharge by Purchase
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many serving men, and how many in the electrical mechanic category, respectively, applied for discharge by purchase at the last two reviews; and how many were successful.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: One thousand and ten applications were considered at the last two reviews, including 113 from electrical mechanics. Seven hundred and seventy-two applicants were successful, including 37 electrical mechanics.
    Mr. Chapman: In view of the very small numbers involved, compared with the Admiralty's total complement, would not it be a good thing to be a little more generous, particularly with the latter category, in allowing these men to be released when they and their families are willing to pay such considerable sums of money to enable them to get out of the Navy? Is it not a fact that the Navy would probably do best to allow them to go, because they are no longer serving willingly?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The category to which the hon. Member has just referred is in short supply in the Navy. We have trained these ratings to a considerable degree and the Navy is exceptional in that it allows even a small percentage of those in scarce categories to be released in this way. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Member that the rating about whom he has written to me, who engaged for 12 years, has served for only 4½ years to date, and we have never released a rating who has more than 6¼ years still to serve. This rating has still 7½ years to serve, and I think that it would be wrong to allow him to jump the queue in this manner.

    Promotion from Lower Deck
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the percentage of commissioned officers now serving in the Royal Navy who have won promotion from the lower deck is appreciably lower than the percentage of serving officers who have won promotion from the ranks in the other two Services.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence indicated in his reply to the hon. Member on 25th November, the percentages he gave included officers who had been sent to officer cadet schools very soon after joining; the Royal Navy figure included virtually no one in that category. My right hon. Friend undertook to look further into the figures, and this is being done.
    So far as the Navy is concerned I can give an assurance that no rating who appears to have the qualities needed for commissioned rank will fail to be most carefully considered for such promotion.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is not the Minister aware that, however one looks at the figures, the percentage of promotions from the lower deck in the Royal Navy is very much lower than in the other Services, and that it is discouraging for people who join the Navy and find that their opportunities of getting to the head of their profession are so limited?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: When like is compared with like, I think that the figures will not show as much difference as they appeared to show from my right hon. Friend's Answer last week. I would also mention that one-third is not a bad percentage for officers coming from the lower deck. We are very proud that the situation should continue in that way, and we will certainly consider any good man who comes forward.
    Dr. King: Is the Civil Lord aware that recent Answers to Parliamentary Questions have shown that a similar disparity between the Services exists in regard to the selection of cadets as from public schools and State schools? Will he consult his other Service colleagues about all that this seems to involve?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friends in the other Services. I can only say that I wish more and better chaps were coming forward for the Navy from all types of schools. We could then select all the ones we wanted.

    Artificers (Re-engagement)
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of artificers, re-engaging for pension during the last twelve months for which figures are available, had reached chief's rating before re-engagement.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I assume that the hon. Member's Question refers to chief artificers, although all artificers from 3rd class and upwards are paid at the chief petty officer level.
    An artificer may re-engage for pension at any time within the last four years of his twelve-year engagement. During the twelve months up to September, 1959 the proportion of artificers who had become chief artificers before executing re-engagements for pension was 8 per cent. Of those who actually commenced their re-engagements for pension during this period, 14 per cent, were chief artificers.
    Mr. Willis: Does not the fact that they attain this rank fairly early in their careers demonstrate the necessity for a master rate?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It would not be true to say that, outside the E.R.As., they all obtain this rank early in their careers. The question of a master rate is a more complicated one, which ought not to be lightly dealt with by way of supplementary questions and answers.

    Operational Fleet
    Mr. Liptonasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many ships there are in the operational fleet; and how many admirals are employed in the Admiralty and elsewhere.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I would refer the hon. Member to page 6 of my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates 1959–60 as regards particulars of ships in the operational fleet. As to numbers of flag officers, 29 are employed in the Admiralty and 58 elsewhere.
    Mr. Lipton: If the hon. Member will look at the statement to which he has referred he will see that it works out at about one admiral per ship in the Navy, which is rather ridiculous, is it not?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member is not very accurate in his counting. There are 138 ships in the operational fleet, and if we include ships on trials and training and in support, there is a further 97. I am afraid that those figures, added together, exceed 200, so that the figure works out at very much less than one admiral per ship.

    Nuclear-propelled Submarine (Cost)
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will give an estimate of the cost of a British nuclear submarine fully equipped with nuclear-headed ballistic missiles.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I regret that it is not possible to give this estimate.
    Mr. Wall: Since the American Navy has launched vessels of this type, has my right hon. Friend any information as to the cost of those vessels?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The House of Representatives Armed Services Committee said, in a Committee Report in April, that the estimated cost for a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine was 106 million dollars, which is about £38 million.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If that figure can be given for the United States Navy, and is not contradicted—and that must be a judgment on the highest strategic ground—why cannot the Admiralty give the same sort of figure?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: As I said earlier in this House, we have no designs for a submarine of this sort. It would be a little unrealistic, and also unwise, to give an estimate when no such plans have been prepared.

    Strength
    Sir P. Agnewasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the present strength of officers and ratings in the Royal Navy; and how this compares with the average during the ten years 1925 to 1935.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There are at present 102,394 officers, ratings and other ranks in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. The average over the period 1925–1935 was 95,850.
    I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the Vote "A" figures from 1925 to 1935.
    Sir P. Agnew: Do the figures that the Civil Lord has just given mean that, compared with pre-war days, there is an even better chance of a satisfactory career and promotion for both ratings and officers in the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think it does mean that. The modern Navy offers a more varied career and, incidentally, the rewards—the pay and allowances—are very much better, in real terms, than before the war.
    Mr. Lipton: Does that reply mean that we are going to have more admirals in the Admiralty?
    Following is the information:

    Vote "A" Figures

    1925

    100,099

    1926

    100,323

    1927

    101,818

    1928

    101,196

    1929

    99,078

    1930

    95,775

    1931

    93,099

    1932

    89,988

    1933

    89,549

    1934

    90,852

    1935

    92,543

    H.M.S. "Victorious" (Cost)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the cost of the aircraft carrier H.M.S. "Victorious", and the estimated weekly cost of running it.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the modernisation of H.M.S. "Victorious". which was completed in December, 1957, at a cost of nearly £20 million. The cost of oil fuel and other naval stores used in the ship is estimated at about £9,000 a week, and the pay and allowances of her officers and men amount to about £25,000 a week.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have given such warm support to Mr. Krushchev's proposals for total disarmament, can the hon. Member say whether this ship could be adapted for giving cruises to old-age pensioners?

    Frigates (Cost)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the cost of the frigates, H.M.S. "Rothesay", H.M.S. "Londonderry", and H.M.S. "Brighton", and the estimated weekly cost of running them.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: These ships are still building, two on the Clydeside and one at Cowes, Isle of Wight, and I cannot
    1160
    give the cost of Her Majesty's ships before they are finally accepted into service.
    The cost of oil fuel and other naval stores used by ships of the same class is estimated at £800 a week. The pay and allowances of the officers and men when the ship is fully manned would be about £2,500 a week.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us where all this money is coming from?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Estimates.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Rifleman Walter Thomson
    Mr. Pentlandasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the late 4451885 Rifleman Walter Thomson, 1st Cameronians was declared a deserter by a court of inquiry on 9th March, 1942, and that a board of inquiry decided, on 3rd June, 1959, that the original decision of the court of inquiry be annulled, and he now be declared missing, presumed died on active service in Burma, 1942; and, in view of the distress and disgrace caused to the father and relatives of this man over these years, what action he proposes to take to rectify this matter.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I am glad to confirm the facts given by the hon. Member. At the family's request, we conducted a most searching inquiry into this case. In the course of it, more than 150 letters were written to, or received from, survivors of the unit and were examined by a board of inquiry in April this year. I hope that the hon. Member's Question and my reply will serve to make known the fact that no stigma of desertion attaches to the memory of Rifleman Thomson.
    Mr. Pentland: I can assure the hon. Member that the father and relatives of this man will appreciate the sentiments he expressed at the end of his reply, but is he aware that for seventeen years the father and sister of this man carried out their own private investigation and inquiry into the original decision by the court of inquiry in 1942, at great personal expense to themselves? Now that the stigma of desertion has been cleared from this man's name by the board of

    1161
    inquiry in June of this year, is it not possible for the hon. Member to ask his right hon. Friend if he could recommend that an ex gratia payment be made to this man's father who is an old-age pensioner and a war-disabled man of the 1914–18 war? That, in itself, would at least compensate him for so many years of distress and heavy financial loss.
    Mr. Fraser: I would also like to pay tribute to the perseverance of this man's family, and I am delighted that what has come about has come about, but I take the view that this is not a matter which can be put right by paying compensation. If this man's family has been put to any expense in its inquiries my right hon. Friend will be very pleased to consider the position.

    Officers (Public Statements)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the adverse effect upon Commonwealth Forces of non-European origin, he will issue an order forbidding officers on the active list to make public statements in favour of racial discrimination.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The regulations already forbid serving officers to make public statements on political subjects.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Minister aware that on 20th November Field Marshal Lord Montgomery made a speech supporting apartheid which created a deplorable impression? In view of this, coming on top of the Government's vote at the General Assembly and their spotty record in Africa, will the Minister make it clear that the Government repudiate the views of Field Marshal Lord Montgomery.
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The question of field marshals making statements is another matter, which is raised by the hon. Member in his next Question.
    Mr. Strachey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a field marshal is on the active list? Would it not be a good thing to remind this one that he had better confine his remarks to military matters, about which he may know something?
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The question of field marshals on half pay comes up in the next Question.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent field marshals are required to observe the rules binding on other officers on the active list in respect of public statements; and whether he will revise the regulations so as to permit of taking retired field marshals off the active list.
    Mr. Soames: It has long been established that a field marshal retires, in fact though not in form, when he gives up his last appointment. He is then at liberty to give expression to his views on political matters, being treated in this respect in the same way as retired officers of the forces, on whom, happily, no restriction is placed.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Could not steps be taken, by retiring field marshals from the active list when they wish to speak politically, to make it perfectly clear that they do not involve Government responsibility in any way? Alternatively—I appreciate the magnitude and difficulty of the task which I am inviting the right hon. Gentleman to perform—could he induce Field Marshal Lord Montgomery to temper valour with discretion when speaking on delicate topics in public?
    Mr. Soames: Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has his rights as I have set them out. It is not for me to interfere.
    Mr. Mellish: Is it not obvious that it is the field marshal who is barmy and not us?

    Accommodation
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War for how long, on an average, hutted or other accommodation for troops, officially described as temporary, remains in use, in the United Kingdom and overseas; and why the skill of modern architects and designers is not used by his Department to ensure that temporary accommodation is of a reasonable standard of decency and comfort.
    Mr. H. Fraser: No fixed period of use is laid down and the average life of temporary accommodation cannot readily be assessed. As to the second part of the Question, we have been seeking for some time—in consultation with the other Services—a hut which is comfortable, readily transported and erected, and which can be dismantled and used

    1163
    again. We think that this need is met by what is known as the Twynham hut. A number have been ordered, and will be available in the coming year.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what I was really seeking from him was an official War Office definition of the word "temporary," which would be of great value to future lexicographers? Can he say whether there is any truth in the widely held belief that there are a number of huts still in use at Catterick and elsewhere which were erected as temporary accommodation during, or even before, the First World War?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot indulge in semantics with the hon. Gentleman, but our policy is clear. We want to build as many permanent constructions as we can. As the hon. Gentleman will discover if he looks through the Estimates, since 1947 £100 million has been spent on permanent accommodation. We are spending now at an even greater rate than the previous figure of about £8 million—at about £11 million—and we hope this year to spend more. It must be the case, with a changing Army and changing commitments, that we must make a major investment in permanent accommodation which in the long term is more suitable.

    Gilgil Camp, Kenya
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War for how long Gilgil Camp, Kenya, has been in use; which units have been stationed there; for how long in each case; at approximately what date, and at whose charge, the improvements costing £75,000 were put in hand; why they were not undertaken sooner; why the permanent accommodation at Kahawa is not to be ready before 1961; and how much longer the unit at present at Gilgil will have to stay there.
    Mr. H. Fraser: As this Question is in fact seven questions the Answer must be long and I will, with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman at least say whether the recent Press report is correct—it was confirmed in part by a constituent of my own—which stated that a local brewery had provided a dozen tin baths for this
    1164
    camp which were lacking up to then? Was the cost of those baths included in the figure of £75,000? Why should troops have to live on the charity of a brewery?
    Mr. Fraser: That is the only question which the hon. Member did not put on the Order Paper. My right hon. Friend dealt with the comment in, I think it was, the Daily Express last week, and he corrected certain errors which did there appertain. Regarding tin baths, the main point is that the unit is fairly well equipped with showers. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and as hon. Members will well know, in that climate a shower is a more convenient method of washing than a bath.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the showers were installed? Will he look again at my Question on the Order Paper, multiform as it is, when he will find that I did ask on whose charge this expense had been incurred?
    Mr. Fraser: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await my Written Answer.
    Following are the answers. They concerned Gilgil G.1 Camp, which is one of four in the district:

    (i) Apart from war-time use the camp was not occupied until July, 1958.

    (ii) and (iii) The 2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards have been there since July this year. They were preceded by the 1st Battalion, The King's Own Royal Regiment who were the first unit in the camp.

    (iv) Works services costing £75,000 were begun in two phases, £50,000 in December, 1958, and £25,000 in August, 1959. These charges are borne by Army votes.

    (v) Before then, £10,000 had been spent on services to prepare the camp for reoccupation in July, 1958. The main improvements were begun as soon as plans had been prepared and approved.

    (vi) Tenders were sent out in February this year and the contractor took over the site in October. The target date for completion, early in 1961 is reasonable for a large project overseas.

    (vii) The battalion now in Gilgil G.1. will be moved to Kahawa when the new buildings there are ready.

    Surplus Boots
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 1,250,000 pairs of surplus Army boots have been sold; how much they realised; and what is the timetable for the completion of the operation.
    Mr. H. Fraser: About 890,000 pairs have been disposed of and the sales should be completed by February. Until then, in order to safeguard these remaining sales, prices cannot be disclosed.
    Mr. Dodds: Is it not laughable that this House cannot be given information which is known to every dealer who is buying these boots? Is it not the fact that boots which cost £2 a pair have been and are being sold at between 8s. 6d. and 10s. a pair? If that is not correct, will the hon. Gentleman deny it now?
    Mr. Fraser: It is my duty to protect the public purse in so far as I can. These boots are being sold overseas and I am not prepared, nor am I willing, to confirm prices reached until the sales have been completed.

    Court Martial, India (Lieut-Colonel Sandford)
    Mr. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware, with reference to the trial of Lieut.-Colonel H. R. Sandford by general court martial at Quetta, India, in 1934, that the receipt which was the subject of the third charge against the accused was at Quetta, in or about October, 1933, while it was in the possession of the military authorities, shown for identification to Major W. H. Kerr, who immediately identified it as being written in the handwriting of Captain A. N. Youett, and that a few days later Captain Youett explained to Major Kerr why he has signed the name of L. Williams on the receipt; and why Major Kerr was not called as a witness at the trial;
    (2) whether he is aware that, during the trial by general court martial at Quetta, India, in 1934, of Lieut.-Colonel H. R. Sandford, counsel for the accused made two written submissions to the court praying that the original record of the proceedings, taken down by the Judge Advocate in court in his own handwriting under the provisions of military law then in force, should be preserved; and whether these two submissions were forwarded to the confirming officer, and are now in the custody of the Judge Advocate General.
    Mr. Soames: I must refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which I gave him on 11th November.
    Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Colonel Sandford has become accustomed over a quarter of a century to the evasion and stone-walling of the Judge Advocate General's Department? Is he aware that I have in my hand the sworn affidavit of Major Kerr which is dealt with in Question No. 19, and that if Major Kerr had been called as a witness his evidence would have been a complete refutation of the charges against Colonel Sandford? Is he aware that I have in my hand a sworn affidavit of Mr. O'Sullivan, barrister-at-law, the defending counsel at the court martial, which states categorically that alterations were made to the record of the court martial?
    Mr. Soames: The petitions, appeals and so on connected with this case have gone on for twenty-five years and I was astonished to see the accumulation of paper which had gathered in that time. It is indeed a monument to the patience, care and sense of justice of the machinery of military law. But it is the simple fact that in these voluminous papers there is no sign of the slightest miscarriage of justice in this case. Mr. Sandford was tried and convicted at a court martial at which he decided not to give sworn evidence on his own behalf. There have been many representations made to the Army Council over the past twenty-five years. The question of his sentence has been before the High Court and Court of Appeal, and the matter was ruled against him. What I told the hon. Gentleman last week, and I must tell him again, is that, having examined what has gone before, in my view nothing has come to light in this matter hitherto to suggest that justice was not done by the original findings and sentence confirmed by the Army Council, and I cannot review the case again unless new facts not hitherto presented are brought to light.
    Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this case came before the Court of Appeal the Army Council protested that the Court had no jurisdiction and therefore no evidence was taken?
    Mr. Soames: I require notice of that supplementary question.
    Mr. G. Brown: I have not heard about this matter before, but will the Secretary of State confirm what to me seems a remarkable thing? Were the affidavits referred to by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) considered by the various authorities which decided that there was no case for review?
    Mr. Soames: That question is not on the Order Paper and before answering it—these are technical and legal questions—I must have notice.
    Mr. Brown: The Secretary of State said that he would not review the case unless new evidence not hitherto considered was brought to light. I am asking him whether these affidavits in his view represent new evidence and, if so, will be consider it?
    Mr. Soames: Without examining the considerable files on this subject I cannot say whether they represent new evidence, but if they do, I will examine it.
    Mr. Cooper: I put down two specific Questions on the Order Paper, Nos. 19 and 20, and they could not be more precise. My right hon. Friend has made no effort whatsoever to answer them today. All the facts I have given are in the files at the War Office.
    Mr. Soames: I told my hon. Friend that I could not again go over evidence already presented and considered, in some cases, numerous times before. Where these Questions are concerned that is so.
    Mr. John Hall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that this case has been going on for twenty-five years is no evidence of the established guilt of Colonel Sandford? May I remind him that the Dreyfus case went on for a long time as well?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: So did the Oscar Slater case.
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Royal Highland Fusiliers, Aden (Accommodation)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for War what accommodation, temporary and permanent, will be available for the Royal Highland Fusiliers in Aden.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The battalion will be in huts and under canvas. The first of the new barrack blocks now being built is due for completion in August and it is intended to move members of the battalion into it and into succeeding blocks as they are finished.

    Recruitment
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made with the build-up of Regular Forces of officers and other ranks, respectively; and what further inducements in pay and conditions it is in tended to offer in order to attract recruits.
    Mr. Soames: We are still not obtaining the number of officers we need, although there has been a welcome increase this year in the number of cadets entering Sandhurst. I expect some changes in conditions of service to follow the recommendations of the Goodbody Committee.
    Where the recruitment of other ranks is concerned, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my statement in the debate on 12th November, which goes into the subject in some detail. The biennial pay and pensions review is in progress. An announcement about the findings will be made in the New Year.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not it now rather unlikely that the right hon. Gentleman will reach his target of 185,000 officers and men in the stipulated period? If so, will not he require to undertake some drastic action to attract more recruits?
    Mr. Soames: I cannot agree. The original target was 165,000. We were recruiting over that and we were allowed to recruit up to a ceiling around 180,000. We will certainly reach the target of 165,000 by the beginning of 1962 as things are now going. I hope the figure will be somewhat above that. It will still be filling up as the years go on.
    Mr. Strachey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are

    1169
    difficulties about special categories of technicians and other ranks, and may we expect that in the pay review special attention will be paid to those categories?
    Mr. Soames: There are shortages in certain categories. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the forthcoming pay review.

    Personnel, N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War what reductions in officers and other ranks at the disposal of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation it is intended to make in 1960; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Soames: I am unable to make any statement at present.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not that a very unsatisfactory reply in view of the statements which have appeared recently in the Press, in the form of several articles by alleged military experts who seem to be in close contact with N.A.T.O. and who make specific statements about reductions? In view of the fact that the Belgian Government have already made several reductions and in view of the defection of the French due to physical difficulties, is not it necessary that we should know what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Soames: I can only repeat that, where the British Army of the Rhine is concerned at present, I cannot comment further.
    Mr. Shinwell: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a comment?
    Mr. Soames: I cannot say.
    Mr. G. Brown: Does not the Minister agree that this is a serious matter? We are now at the end of 1959 and the situation in N.A.T.O. is causing everyone a great deal of concern, as those of us who were at the recent conference at Washington well know. Does he mean that we have under consideration making a further cut next year?
    Mr. Soames: I can only suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not necessarily right in assuming that, but at present I cannot make a statement.

    Corporal John Ingham
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Secretary of State for War whether Corporal John Ingham is still employed at the Guards Depot, Caterham; and on what duties.
    Mr. H. Fraser: No, Sir. He has been moved to regimental duty with a battalion at another station.
    Mr. Stewart: Is it not the fact that this N.C.O. was found guilty at a court martial of striking and ill-treating recruits on several occasions? Does not the hon. Gentleman think it rather surprising that he was still considered suitable to hold non-commissioned rank? May we have an assurance that he will not be put in a position where he will be in charge of recruits?
    Mr. Fraser: It is not for me to comment on the findings of a court martial. Of course, the offence will be borne in mind when his future employment is considered.
    Mr. Strachey: We are not asking the hon. Gentleman to comment on the findings of the court martial, which are clear enough; but does not it seem very strange that after such a sentence this man is considered a proper person to hold a non-commissioned rank?
    Mr. Fraser: I am prepared to defend this, since it was confirmed by the proper authority. Looking into the background of this man, his past history, and the excellence of his previous record, I think that both the confirming authority and the court martial were right.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is there not a misunderstanding here? Does the hon. Gentleman confirm that he said that he cannot comment on the findings of a court martial? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend can either confirm or act otherwise in connection with the findings of a court martial?
    Mr. Fraser: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In this case I do not propose to comment on it.

    R.A.F. Tactical Transport Group
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War the ranks and appointments of the Army officers to be appointed to the staff of the new Royal Air Force Tactical Transport Group.
    Mr. Soames: Details have yet to be settled, but I expect to appoint tour or five officers headed by a lieutenant-colonel.
    Mr. Strachey: Does this mean that in the reformed No. 38 Group there will now be an integrated staff of officers of the Royal Air Force and the Army? In view of the ever-growing importance of this, would it not be a good thing if a similar integration of Royal Air Force officers into the Army could also be effected?
    Mr. Soames: The setting up of the Tactical Transport Group is most welcome to the Army, which will have representation on it. If the right hon. Gentleman has any specific suggestions as to where Royal Air Force and Army officers might be integrated and will let me know, I will gladly look into them.

  POST OFFICE

    Manchester
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the postal service in Manchester and between Manchester and London.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The standard postal services in Manchester and between Manchester and London are already in line with those provided elsewhere. If my hon. Friend will let me have any criticisms he has I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that letters sometimes take two days to travel from one part of Manchester to another, and that parcels between London and Manchester very frequently take two days?
    Miss Pike: If my hon. Friend will let me have specific instances, I shall be very glad to look into them. The delays of which we have had complaints so far are very often caused by the lateness of trains, and in some cases are due to the absenteeism of postmen who are sick. I should be very glad to have specific instances so that we can look into these matters.

    Inland Telegraph Service
    Mr. Channonasked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the working of the inland telegraph service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on 25th November, 1959. I will gladly consider any views my hon. Friend would like to put to me.
    Mr. Channon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no truth in any of the rumours that he is considering the abolition of the inland telegraph communications service, which plays such a vital part in the communications of this country?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes. I have no imminent changes in view for the telegraph service, although we would all like to cut down the substantial loss.

    Savings Bank (Giro System)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the introduction of the French Giro system in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank.
    Mr. Bevins: The question raised by the Radcliffe Report whether the Post Office should in certain circumstances set up a Giro system on continental lines raises big issues. It requires, and is receiving, exhaustive study. I cannot yet say when conclusions will be reached.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Post Office Savings Bank has been the "Cinderella" service of the Post Office for a very long time. Will he apply his energies to trying to bring this Cinderella very much to the front and to give it this injection of new opportunities of serving the people?
    Mr. Bevins: I am hoping to apply my energies in many directions, but it is rather doubtful whether the Savings Bank system as such, which after all is essentially a deposit system, could be adapted to a system involving current transactions. We shall have to examine that very carefully. We also have to consider whether in this country, with

    1173
    its highly developed joint stock banking system, the Giro system would meet the public need.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the private interests of the joint stock companies to stand in the way of what may well be a very great social convenience.
    Mr. Bevins: I made it clear that we are carrying out a purely objective examination. I hope to report back to the House quite soon.

    Staff, North Wales
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to relax the restriction on recruitment of stiff for his Department in view of high unemployment in North Wales.
    Miss Pike: We are very much alive to the unemployment position in parts of Wales and seek to recruit there to the limits of our ability. We cannot take on more people than we can economically employ within the bounds of the work to be done and the money available to us.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the high level of unemployment of which the Assistant Postmaster-General says she is aware and as there are a number of unfilled vacancies in the Post Office in North Wales, does not she feel that the Post Office has a moral obligation to make a contribution towards solving the unemployment problem?
    Miss Pike: I am advised that in some Welsh towns where there is unemployment the local postal staff have urged that extra staff should be engaged instead of overtime being worked. In such cases, we maintain our complement at the fullest economic level. In North Wales the present complements are fully up to strength.
    Mr. G. Roberts: Is the hon. Lady aware that a very large number of young slate quarriers now redundant in their own industry have applied for vacancies at the regional office of the Post Office at Chester? In view of the special suitability of these young men for this kind of work and the undoubted need for development in North Wales, will she and the Postmaster-General have another look at their programme of works in the area?
    Miss Pike: We are indeed keeping this constantly under review.

    Weoley Castle Sub-Office
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that long queues of pensioners have to wait at Weoley Castle sub-post office on Tuesdays in order to draw their pensions; how many pensions are paid out weekly at this office; and what further improvement in service he will provide to reduce this waiting which causes hardship in winter weather.
    Miss Pike: About 2,600 pensions and allowances are paid weekly at the Weoley Castle sub-post office. When a lot of people arrive at the office together, as happens at certain periods on Tuesday, it has been difficult to avoid some waiting. The sub-postmaster has now engaged a third assistant to help speed the work; and this, together with the recent removal of the office to larger premises, will mean better facilities all round for the sub-office's customers.
    Mr. Chapman: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady, but may I ask whether she is aware that, with the present miserable level of old-age pensions, many people must get hold of them as soon as possible? Is it not adding insult to injury to make them queue in the rain in areas like this waiting for their pensions to be paid over?
    Miss Pike: I am advised that the difficulty arises largely because 40 per cent, of the payments are made on Tuesdays and these are mostly children's allowances. The mothers call for the children's allowances either at nine o'clock when they have taken the child to school or at 11.45 when they are calling for the child at lunch time. The difficulty is usually caused by as many as thirty mothers arriving together at the Post Office. We have taken every step that we can to improve the position.

    Christmas Day (Deliveries)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet come to a conclusion about Christmas morning postal delivery; to what extent he has found it possible to give the postmen an opportunity to spend Christmas Day

    1175
    with their families; and whether a postman will, in the future, be given the opportunity of being with his family at Christmas dinner.
    Miss Pike: There will be the usual Christmas morning delivery this year. We shall do all we can to see that postmen who make the delivery are released as early as possible. Provided there are no exceptional mail delays, they should generally get home in time for their Christmas dinner. I am not able at this stage to say what might happen in future years.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister prepared to sound public opinion on the matter?
    Miss Pike: Yes. We should welcome an expression of opinion on this matter. As a public service we have to weigh in the balance the convenience of our own staff against the wishes of the public in general.

    St. Helens
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied with the building programme so far as it affects the St. Helens, Lancashire, General Post Office; and whether, in view of the part played by the Post Office in the local and national economy, he will provide more money and ensure the general speeding-up of new buildings so far as St. Helens Post Office needs are concerned.
    Miss Pike: I am anxious to provide better accommodation for the Post Office at St. Helens. The difficulty has been to obtain a suitable site on which to build. The matter is being actively pursued and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I can say something definite.
    Mr. Spriggs: I should like to take the opportunity to invite the Minister to visit St. Helens to make an on-the-spot examination of building requirements.
    Miss Pike: I am sure that the hon. Member realises the difficulty of finding a suitable site in the middle of St. Helens. Our present difficulty is that the road improvements mean that we cannot extend our present site. We are doing everything we can to find a new site on which we can extend our post office.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: When the hon. Lady accepts my hon. Friend's invitation
    1176
    to visit St. Helens, will she try to find out how the banks and insurance offices are finding the sites so readily?

    Special Stamps
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he has completed his consideration of policy regarding the issue of special stamps to mark special occasions; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Pike: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Lady, who has conducted herself so admirably in the House today, intend to tell us that in the next five years Scots people will not be able to have a stamp of Robert Burns but that we shall still have to import them from the Soviet Union?
    Miss Pike: We have gone into the whole question of separate issues very carefully. I realise the hon. Member's interest in this matter. I shall be making an announcement about this in the very near future.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    British Broadcasting Corporation (Finance)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the funds available to the British Broadcasting Corporation are not sufficient for it to carry out the duties with which it is charged; and what proposals he has for increasing its revenue.
    Mr. Bevins: As already announced, the B.B.C. represented that the 87½ per cent, of net licence revenue available to it in the three years 1957–58–1959–60 would not be adequate for 1959–60. For this year 92½ per cent, is being paid and this will meet requirements. The proportion of licence revenue payable for future years is under consideration.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the amount available is sufficient? Is not it necessary to have a television studio in the East Midlands? Has he been approached with that end in view by the Leicester City Council and other authorities? If there is sufficient money available, why on earth does not he grant that facility?
    Mr. Bevins: There is nothing in the hon. Gentleman's Question about that particular facility, but the present 92½ per cent, this year represents an increase in income of about £2½ million. The B.B.C. has asked for more for next year and the year after. That request is under consideration.
    Mr. Janner: On a point of order. I asked the Minister a specific question, whether he thought that there was sufficient money available for the reasonable needs of the B.B.C. As he stated that there was sufficient, I asked in my supplementary question why he does not grant essential facilities.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The right hon. Gentleman need not answer anything if he does not want to.
    Mr. Bevins: I assured the hon. Gentleman that the income of the B.B.C. is sufficient to enable it to discharge the duties with which it is charged. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a pointed question on a particular case he has in mind, I shall be very glad to answer it if he will table it.

    Prison Service (Programme)
    Mr. Hollandasked the Postmaster-General if he will use his powers under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, to direct the Authority to refrain from broadcasting in apparently documentary style any fictional matter casting an adverse light upon the officers of Her Majesty's Prison Service.
    Mr. Bevins: The Authority tells me that both it and the programme company regret that the dialogue of a recent play contained remarks which seemed to cast an unfair reflection on the Prison Service as a whole, though it says there was no intention of presenting a misleading picture of the Prison Service. Specialist advice on this series is now being obtained and the Authority and programme contractors are watching the matter carefully.
    Mr. Holland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the programme in question, namely, "Probation Officer" televised on 23rd November at 9.35 p.m., caused considerable concern to numbers of my constituents who are giving devoted
    1178
    service in Her Majesty's Prison Service at Wormwood Scrubs under very difficult and often hazardous conditions?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes. If I were a prison officer I should have been angry with certain things which were said in that programme, but I assure my hon. Friend that processes are now under way whereby I hope that the Authority will be able to make amends for that.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not a good thing that the B.B.C. has apologised for its departure from the usual high standard of its documentaries, and should not that in itself be some consolation to those men who feel hurt by what was said?
    Mr. Bevins: There is a slight misunderstanding here. The Authority was the Independent Television Authority.

    I.T.A. (Radio and Telephone Links)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the evidence appended to the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee dealing with the charges made for the exclusive use of radio and telephone links by the Independent Television Authority; and what directives he proposes to issue thereon.
    Mr. Bevins: None, Sir. We look for the same profit from the I.T.A. as from the B.B.C. or any other customer requiring similar facilities. I think it would be wrong in principle for a public service to impose discriminatory charges.

    Medium Wave-band (Reception)
    Dr. Kingasked the Postmaster-General whether he will initiate a conference at international level to deal with the problem of bad reception of broadcasts on the medium wave-band.
    Mr. Bevins: The International Radio Conference now being held at Geneva will discuss the advisability of calling an early European broadcasting conference to review long- and medium-wave allocations. It may be found better to defer this until very high frequency sound broadcasting—which seems to be the answer to bad reception on medium waves—has developed sufficiently in Europe to make a review of the situation realistic and worth while.
    Dr. King: Whilst congratulating the Minister on all that his Department has done in the provision of high quality V.H.F. reception of British programmes in this country, may I ask whether he is aware that one of the outstanding assets of radio is as a channel of international communication and the reception of foreign broadcasts? In recent years that has become practically impossible. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is bad that radio, which was once international, is now becoming almost exclusively national? Will he take this up as a matter of very grave importance?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes. I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says and have discussions about it.

    Unlicensed Receivers
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the number of sound and television receiving sets operating in the United Kingdom without licence; and how many of these were detected in the past year.
    Mr. Bevins: No reliable estimate can be given of the number of sound and television sets operating in the United Kingdom without licences. I cannot give a number of those detected using sets without a licence, but over 100,000 people took out sound or combined television and sound licences as a direct result of investigations made during 1958.
    Mr. Sorensen: Are any new devices being considered by which those who have not paid their licence fees can be detected?
    Mr. Bevins: Not that I know.

    Leyton (Licences)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General approximately how many licences were issued for sound broadcasting and television during the last twelve months for users of sets in the Borough of Leyton.
    Mr. Bevins: No separate record is kept of licences for sound broadcasting and television issued in the Borough of Leyton and I am sorry that the information is not available.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can some means be found by which this estimate can be secured, to give some idea of the number which are operating in a given area?
    Mr. Bevins: Unfortunately our records refer only to regions. If the hon. Member is violently interested I will try to give him an estimate.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    General Practitioners (Emergency Calls)
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Postmaster-General what arrangements exist at telephone exchanges for the pro vision of the names of general practitioners available in an emergency for National Health patients who are the victims of a medical emergency, and who are unable by reason of having moved to a new address to obtain their own doctor; if he is aware of the difficulties experienced on occasions by night operators in this respect; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bevins: Telephone exchanges prepare their own lists of general practitioners for reference in emergency, but I am arranging with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health for official lists of National Health Service doctors to be supplied to exchanges.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the energy with which he has tackled this matter is greatly appreciated and that it is hoped that it will provide an inspiration to those who, in other spheres, are responsible for these arrangements?

    Application, Basingstoke
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Post master-General by what date he can guarantee providing a telephone service for Mr. H. C. Cooksey, 114, Elmwood Way, Basingstoke, Hampshire.
    Mr. Bevins: Unfortunately, a new cable is required before service can be provided. My best estimate is that Mr. Cooksey will have telephone service by the end of June next, but if we can make it sooner we shall.
    Mr. Freeth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although Mr. Cooksey's is

    1181
    a residential property, it is used for business purposes and he is suffering severely financially from the absence of a telephone? When he moved in in July he was informed that the telephone would be laid on within three months. It then was a further six months, and now it is a year from the date when he first applied. Would it not be possible to fix up a temporary connection from the telephone line going to Winklebury Post Office?
    Mr. Bevins: I assure my hon. Friend that I have examined this complaint in very considerable detail. The existing underground cable is about 150 yards from Mr. Cooksey's home and it would not be either economical or practical to connect his home with that cable. I have also examined the possibility of putting in an overhead cable, but the interference from an overhead electric cable would be so great that the telephone would be almost valueless.
    Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether in your opinion this is the sort of Question which should be on the Order Paper. If we all tabled Questions about constituents who cannot get a telephone service, the Order Paper would be completely flooded out.
    Mr. Freeth: Further to that point of order. Is it not the right of an hon. Member to raise a constituency point when he has reason to believe that a constituent has not been treated properly by a Department?
    Mr. Speaker: My sole task is to decide whether or no the Question is in order. It is in order.

    Old-Age Pensioners
    Lady Gammansasked the Postmaster-General if he will supply cheaper telephones to old-age pensioners living alone, to whom the use of a telephone is essential on medical grounds.
    Mr. Bevins: I have much sympathy with elderly people in such circumstances, but it has never been found practicable for the Post Office to apply differential telephone charges to particular groups. I am ready to look at this again but frankly I doubt whether I shall be able to find a way by which the Post Office can meet the hon. Member's proposal.
    Lady Gammans: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is not aware that many old people regard the telephone as their only means of calling the doctor when they are living alone? Will he look more sympathetically on this vital matter to old people?
    Mr. Bevins: I have indicated my sympathetic approach and my willingness to re-examine the matter.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is not it possible to fit a bell?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the best way of meeting the need is by reducing the telephone charges?

    Telephone Conversation, Reading
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General when he received the signed authority of a Secretary of State to permit interception of a telephone conversation at Reading on 20th April last.
    Mr. Bevins: This is not a case in which the Post Office or a Secretary of State was involved because the party concerned gave permission to the police to listen-in to a conversation on her own installation.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that whether this was a complete or only a partial interception, in the opinion of many people it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the findings of the Privy Councillors on the subject of telephone tappings? Cannot we bring this beastly business of telephone tapping to an end in cases where the national security is not involved?
    Mr. Bevins: Without expressing an opinion on the general question, I think I ought to say that this particular Question refers solely to the Reading incident and, quite clearly, in the nature of the case, I could not have had any control whatever over what happened.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: When the Minister refers to the Home Secretary he is begging the question. Is he not aware that in the view of the Privy Councillors all forms of telephone tapping ought to be strictly limited and that to achieve this all of them should need a warrant? Although the Post Office is not involved,

    1183
    the right hon. Gentleman is not right in saying that the Home Secretary is not involved.
    Mr. Bevins: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think he will find, if he re-reads the Birkett Report, that its recommendations do not cover the circumstances of the Reading case.
    Mr. W. Griffiths: Did not the Prime Minister tell the House that he accepted completely on behalf of the Government the findings of the Birkett Committee? Did not the Birkett Committee say that under no circumstances should an intercepted communication or telephone call be communicated to anybody outside the public service? Did not the Postmaster-General inquire under what circumstance this intercept was to be taken and by whom and against whom it would be used?
    Mr. Bevins: I do not think that the hon. Member has quite appreciated the circumstances of the Reading case. They are not covered by the recommendations of the Birkett Committee and, as Postmaster-General, I have no control whatever over what happened in that case.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister telling the House that he will agree at any time, without a warrant from the Secretary of State, to intercept any communication or telephone call without inquiring about the circumstances under which it will be used?
    Mr. Bevins: I am saying nothing of the kind. What I am saying is that in this case it would have been quite impracticable for the Postmaster-General to have taken any action whatever.
    Mr. Paget: Is not there perhaps a reason for trying to think of some way in which the Postmaster-General could make his feelings effective on a future occasion? Is not the real evil here that information obtained by the police or by the Post Office or by the two together in a criminal inquiry should never be made available to outside bodies? If this is the hole in the system, will the
    1184
    right hon. Gentleman see what he can do about it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not the Questions before me but I believe that Questions on that point are to be addressed to the Home Secretary tomorrow. I must not allow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to anticipate them. I speak subject to correction, as I have not the Questions before me.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Postmaster-General aware that we on this side of the House do not accept his view that the facts in this case were not covered by the general recommendation of the Privy Councillors' Report?
    Mr. Bevins: I do not think that there can be the smallest doubt that the circumstances in this case were not covered by the Birkett Report. Even if that were wrong—and it is not wrong—it would have been quite impracticable for me as Postmaster-General to have taken any effective action in the Reading case.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On the much narrower point, arising out of the Minister's original Answer as to whether this was not a breach because consent was given, will he say why he regards the consent of only one party to a telephone conversation as being binding on both parties? Is it not equally a breach of the understanding upon which these conversations take place if one of them is being overheard without his knowledge and then a record of the conversation is made and handed to a non-official body outside?
    Mr. Bevins: Whether the hon. Member is right or wrong in that view, it is certainly not a matter for me.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not a fact that this conversation was not tapped or intercepted in any normal meaning of the word and that the position is exactly the same as though the subscriber who initiated the call had had two extensions in her house on one of which somebody else listened by arrangement?

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)
Mr. Lipton: I wish to raise a point of order in connection with Question No. 48. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in this morning's issue of The Times the following words appeared in connection with Question No. 48:
"… it was made clear in Government quarters yesterday that no warrant was issued by the Home Secretary to Reading police to authorise the interception …"
My point of order is this. I was always under the impression that when any Question appeared on the Order Paper, the answer to that question would be given in the House and not be made the subject of a deliberate Press release by some Government Department or other before the Question was answered in the House. In my submission, this precedent, if allowed to pass unchallenged, would be a most dangerous precedent and would not be in accordance with the respect that should be given to the House and to hon. Members in the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take note of this fact and perhaps give a Ruling, either now or later, which will prevent a recurrence of this kind of action on the part of the Government to the detriment both of the House of Commons and of hon. Members in it.
Mr. Speaker: Whether the views expressed by the hon. Member are right or wrong, they do not amount to a point of order for me. The Prime Minister.
Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Do they amount to a point of Privilege?
Mr. Speaker: That has not been raised. Strictly, the hon. and learned Member's question is out of order because I had called the Prime Minister to move the Business Motion.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Surely if there is a matter which might be a question of Privilege—and if so, it would be of great importance—it should not be blocked by the fact that the Prime Minister was called, especially since no one has reacted to that call. It needed a moment of thought after your reply, Mr. Speaker, before one could decide what further to say. If this is a matter in which Privilege might be involved, surely it
1186
should not be blocked by the momentary calling of the Prime Minister, with no answer from him.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may explain the position. Supposing an issue of Privilege is to be raised, this would not in any event be the moment to raise it. I was wrong in allowing the hon. and learned Member to raise a point of order after I had called the Prime Minister, because he was definitely too late. I gave, strictly, the wrong answer to the hon. and learned Member, for this is not the right moment to take a point of Privilege.
Mr. Paget: May I ask for your guidance? What would be the right moment? I understood that you were answering my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and you called the Prime Minister without resuming your seat. There could, therefore, not have been an interval at that point.
Mr. Speaker: Strictly it should have been before I embarked upon public business by calling the Prime Minister, that being the earliest possible opportunity in this context.
Mr. Bevan: With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, there was an altercation in the House. The point of order was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and you then said, "This is not a point of order. It does not concern me." You then immediately called the Prime Minister, who did not respond—
Hon. Members: Yes, he did.
Mr. Bevan: That is not true. Therefore, in my respectful submission, a point of Privilege can be raised now, or not at all.
Mr. R. A. Butler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that there was no response when you called the Prime Minister. I have learned a due sense of modesty over the last four years and, when the Prime Minister is not present, I incline my head slightly towards you. On this occasion, I did so in the manner that I have used for the past four years, so I did respond in what I might describe as a normal manner.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Surely the point of substance, Mr. Speaker, is that there was not really sufficient interval between your saying that there was not a point of order and your calling the Prime Minister for any hon. Member to ask whether a point of Privilege was involved. With respect, I suggest that there should have been allowed that moment for someone to ask that question. If I may say so, you ran your calling of the Prime Minister rather quickly on your answer to the point of order, so that there was not a moment available to raise this very considerable matter of substance. I am sure that that could not have been your intention.
Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, the normal time to raise a question of Privilege is after Questions and before public business. In this case, we had Questions, and then, as part of a Question, my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) raised a point of order. You answered that point of order, and, without resuming your seat, called the Prime Minister. A question of Privilege cannot be raised—nor, indeed, can any other point—while you are on your feet. Therefore, in my submission, I did take the first opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: It was not through physical indolence, or lack of desire to exercise my muscles, but in accordance with my ordinary practice that, when I do not anticipate any need to resume my seat between two occasions. I remain upon my feet. In that course, taking the view that the point that the hon. Member had raised was not a point of order for the Chair, I proceeded to the next business, and called the Prime Minister. It was not done with the view of frustrating any other business, but only that I was unaware that any hon. Member desired to raise an intervening point I had called the Prime Minister. That was acknowledged in the conventional manner. Accordingly, the Question is, That the Proceedings on Government Business—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the rule of the House that a matter of Privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity It seems that on this occasion
1188
there was no opportunity, on this day, on which it could be raised, because for physical convenience, you did not resume your seat at the moment that the point could have been raised. Can we take it, therefore, that if you insist on your Ruling, the earliest possible opportunity would be tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Owing to my remaining on my feet, what would otherwise have been the last opportunity disappeared. I retreat from the impossible position I took up, and I permit the matter to be raised now, if the House so desires.
Mr. Lipton: May I venture to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, as a question of Privilege, the facts contained in the point of order that I submitted to you a few moments ago?
Mr. Speaker: I am reminded that the hon. Member's complaint is based upon something in a newspaper. Has the hon. Member got the newspaper?
Extract from newspaper handed in.
Mr. Speaker: I regret that the rules of the House do not permit me to receive a fragment. I am compelled to require the newspaper.
Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend get the newspaper? [Interruption.]
Further to this point of Privilege, Mr. Speaker. What you have said about the necessity for the production of the whole of the document is highly interesting. Would you give us this further Ruling? In view of the necessity to produce the whole document, is there also a necessity to read the whole document—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is addressing the Chair. I must ask the House to preserve enough order to allow me to hear him.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it in order for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to read a newspaper?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is still on his feet. Has he ceased to address me?
Mr. Paget: Yes, Sir.
Copy of newspaper handed in.
Mr. Speaker: I now have the newspaper to which the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) directed my attention. I observe what is there reported. My Ruling does not, of course, go to whether or no the conduct there disclosed does or does not, in the view of the House, involve a breach of Privilege. It does go to the question of whether or no a prima facie breach of Privilege is disclosed. I rule that no such breach is disclosed.
Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the circumstances in which this whole matter has been raised, and of the fact that no opportunity has been given either to the House or to you for proper reflection, may I call your attention to a variety of precedents where Mr. Speaker has asked that he might be allowed to consider the whole matter, without prejudice, and report upon it the following day?
Mr. Speaker: This is not an occasion on which I desire to avail myself of that facility which may be granted to me by the House.
Mr. Bevan: But, with all respect, is it not a very remarkable fact that, first of all, the fragment was produced, and you said that you must have the whole of the newspaper; that the whole of the newspaper was then provided to you, and without, as it seems to me—apart from divine inspiration—any opportunity at all for reflecting on it, you then decided that no mater of Privilege arose? May I suggest, Mr. Speaker—I am trying my very best, and with all respect to you and to the procedure of the House—that it would be very much more in accordance with precedents if you said that, "In all the circumstances, and having had no opportunity of studying the matter, I ask the House to give me an opportunity to do so, and tomorrow I will give it my view."?
Mr. Speaker: I have expressed my view about it. I adhere to what I have said.
Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to guide us on this rather novel point, which raises a question of Privilege not against The Times but against the Government? Would you be kind enough to
1190
give us your reason for your Ruling, so that this would guide us on future occasions, either today or, if you wish, Mr. Speaker, after due consideration? It is a novel point and it would help us a great deal if we could have the reasons for your Ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think on experience that it serves the interest of the House for the Chair to give reasons for its rulings. What usually happens then is that some form of irregular debate arises about them. The House has its remedy. It can discipline the Chair when the Chair is wrong, and I think, with respect, that it better serves the interest of the House that the Chair should not give reasons for its rulings, not because I feel that they would not bear exposure to the light of day or because I feel that some magic power of infallibility rests in the Chair, but because I feel that if the Chair's reasons come to be debated the time of the House is occupied in an irregular discussion when there is no Question before it.
Mr. Gaitskell: What you have said, Mr. Speaker, seems to me possibly to raise rather serious considerations. Do I understand from you that you do not ever intend to give reasons for your decisions on any point or are you merely saying that you are not going to do so on this particular point? Is it not the case that on many earlier occasions your predecessors, when asked to decide on a prima facie question of Privilege, have in fact given reasons and that it is far more in accordance with precedent that the Speaker should do so?
Mr. Speaker: I should like to look into the precedents before answering the right hon. Gentleman. I would prefer to confine myself to this occasion and to say that, on this occasion, I do not think that it is desirable in the interest of the House that I should give my reasons for thinking that this matter does not disclose a prima facie breach of Privilege.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I call your attention to the recent Report of the Committee of Privileges, when Mr. Speaker Morrison was cross-examined at some length on this and spoke of his considerable difficulty when placed in the situation in which

1191
you are now? There is a recommendation in the Select Committee's Report that Mr. Speaker should always be given time, and in the main the Select Committee on Procedure advised that the Speaker, or any future Speaker, should be able to say that he will answer the next day. Having listened to all this up to now, with great respect I suggest that that is a procedure that might be followed in such cases as this. Contrary to some of my hon. Friends, I am not in favour of the Speaker giving long reasons for his Ruling. All I am concerned with is that quite clearly the House should be seized of the idea that you should have enough time to give a mature judgment, and I am sure that you will acquit me of any disrespect when I say that you did not have time on this occasion to give a mature judgment.
Mr. Speaker: We have to get this right. The House entrusts me, presumably, with the decision in these matters, including the decision whether I regard this as a case in which I personally feel the need for further reflection before ruling whether there be a prima facie case or no. There is no finality about it. On that issue, which is the only issue upon which I now rule, I do not feel that this is a case in which I require the indulgence of the House.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. So far as previous precedents are concerned, has it not been the case that hon. Members give reasons to the Speaker as to why he should rule otherwise rather than that the Speaker gives reasons why he has ruled in the way he has ruled, and that requests for time to consider a question upon which the Speaker had doubt have always been made by the Speaker himself and not at the instance of the House?
Mr. Speaker: That may be so. I should like to look at a number of precedents before agreeing or disagreeing.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to clarify this situation? You have told us, in effect, that you have no doubts in your mind and do not need time to think the matter over. Naturally we accept that. That seems to me to imply that you are very clear about the reasons why you are turning it down.
1192
I ask you to reflect on this point, that a refusal to give reasons for not accepting the proposal that there might be a prima facie case of breach of Privilege here has lead to the difficulty that hon. Members do not know what is in your mind or the basis for your decision, and they are not able to get guidance for future purposes which would otherwise be available? Perhaps this could be dealt with quite quickly if you would be so good as to tell us why, obviously with good reason and without the need for much reflection, you decided to turn this down.
Mr. Speaker: I have indicated that in this instance I do not think that it would be to the advantage of the House for the Chair to resume—what I think at one time was not the practice at all—the practice of giving reasons for its decision.
Mr. Oram: May I, Mr. Speaker, touch upon the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the consideration given by the Committee on Procedure to this method of raising points of Privilege? Was there not an illustration today of the somewhat absurd method and are we not all placed in a difficult situation in that respect? May I ask you or the Leader of the House, whichever is the appropriate authority, to look into this to see whether some new procedure ought not to be adopted?
Mr. Speaker: That no doubt is for the Leader of the House. What the hon. Member says will have been heard.
Mr. Gordon Walker: We are in a position of some difficulty, Mr. Speaker. You have, in effect, told us that there is some peculiarity about this case which has led you to the conclusion, in your discretion, not to give reasons. You also said that this was not to be taken to mean that you will never give reasons, but that you would not give reasons in this particular case. Unless we can have some idea of the peculiarity of this case which has led you to that conclusion so that we can distinguish between it and other occasions in which it might be, in your view, proper to give reasons, it is very difficult for us to know where we are. May I ask you, therefore, what is the peculiarity of this case which has decided you that it does not need any reasons to be given for your decision?
Mr. Speaker: No. I would prefer to decide upon each case as it arises whether or no I will give reasons and whether I feel that it is advisable in the interests of the House and for the performance of the duties of the Chair.
Mr. Hector Hughes: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to look at this matter in another way? You have said that you have not given reasons for your decision because, in your view, it is undesirable that the Speaker's decision should be subject to debate in the House. May I point out that, if you give reasons, it does not necessarily follow that a debate will become necessary? If you give reasons it will not necessarily precipitate a debate but it will provide guidance to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I think that what I said was that the giving of reasons, in my experience, often resulted in an irregular debate. Matters can regularly and properly be debated by putting down some substantive Motion criticising the Chair.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would not wish to put us in a position where we are virtually invited to put down such a Motion. That is a thing which no Opposition would wish to do in the ordinary case. But you do put us in a very difficult situation, if I may say so. I should like you to tell us whether you have reflected on the fact that this is a case in which, apparently, the possibility arises of the Government themselves having committed a prima facie breach of Privilege.
Naturally, I do not wish to make any comment on the rights and wrongs of the matter, but it seems to me that precisely because it is so, and that therefore it might be an issue, as it were, between the two sides of the House, it is of special importance that absolute clarity should prevail as to why you have decided that there is no prima facie case, and decided immediately and without even the reflection which it was proposed you should enjoy.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the way that the right hon. Gentleman puts it. Of course, I do not want a Motion on the Order Paper in criticism of the Chair, because the Chair is a mere servant of the House and it wishes that its decisions and conduct should receive general approval. Of course, I do not want that. The reason I did not ask for time for reflection was that I thought the matter was clear. If I had thought the matter was not clear, I would have asked the indulgence of the House for reflection. As I understand it, what is said is that there was a Governmental statement which, in effect, gave the answer to a Question in advance, and all that I have said is that that does not disclose to me a prima facie breach of Privilege. If the House thinks it is, hon. Members can argue about it in another context.
Sir G. Nicholson: Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is a slight misapprehension. Am right in thinking that your Ruling merely rules that the question raised is not of such a nature as automatically to be entitled to precedence over the Orders of the Day, and that any right hon. or hon. Member can put down a Motion on the Order Paper, referring this question to the Committee of Privileges, which will be debated in due time?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. I hoped that I had made that clear by indicating at the outset that all that my Ruling governed was the question, aye or no, is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege disclosed? The Chair does not purport to decide anything more; nor do I.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st December].
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Clause 1.—(PURPOSE FOR WHICH PART I POWERS EXERCISABLE, AND DURATION OF POWERS.)
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "any" to the end of line and to insert: "development area".
  The Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we took, also, the Amendment in page 1, line 11, the first Amendment in line 12, the second in line 13, the one in page 2, leave out line 9 and insert "a development area"; and the following Amendments: Clause 2, page 2, line 30; Clause 3, page 3, lines 5 and 7; Clause 4, the second one in line 27; Clause 5, page 4, line 2; Clause 6, page 4, lines 37 and 41; Clause 7, page 5, line 15, the second one in line 24; Clause 15, page 10, two in line 31 and those in lines 33, 36 and 43; page 11, lines 19, 20 and 22; and Clause 16, page 11, line 26.
  Mr. Jay: With this Amendment which I am moving I understand that we are discussing a number of other Amendments which have the effect of seeking to insert the words "development area" in all the appropriate portions of the Bill.
  All that we are seeking to do by these Amendments is to restore to the Bill the term "development area" which was introduced by the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, but which is not contained in the present Bill. It may appear to some of the Committee that this is merely a verbal point of no great substance. We believe that it has some substance, for two reasons which I will explain briefly.
  First, if we abandon the idea of a Development Area, such as the North-East Coast or West Cumberland, or the Scottish Development Area have commonly come to be called during these last
  1196
  fifteen years, we feel that there is some danger that these areas and those responsible for distribution of industry policy in them will lose some of the corporate sense of responsibility and loyalty to the area as a whole which undoubtedly has been of some importance in carrying out the distribution of industry effort over these last fifteen years. I think that there is no doubt that whether it be in the case of South Wales, the Scottish area, West Cumberland, or the North-East Coast there has been a good deal of local enthusiasm and of a corporate sense of responsibility and loyalty to the whole effort that has been carried out.
  In the Bill it is proposed to substitute the word "locality", which is rather a colourless word, and apparently we are to leave it at that. I agree with the Minister that there is a case for having small areas here and there, as well as large ones. I think that is geographically inevitable, and we shall be discussing that point later, but it does not necessarily follow from that that we are to let slide altogether the idea that at least the large main areas should be a considerable unit of this kind in which people would feel responsibility and loyalty such as I have described.
  My second point has, I think, rather more weight, and that is that it was a cardinal motive of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, that we should not give a bad name to these areas by calling them distressed areas or depressed areas, as they had been called in the past. There was a good deal of agreement among industrialists in particular that, quite apart from more solid motives, it was very discouraging to refer to these areas as if they were down and out, or failures, rather than successes, and might not be the sort of places in which to start a new industry.
  For that reason Mr. Hugh Dalton, who made so many contributions to this policy and this effort, introduced the term "development areas". I believe—though one cannot measure it exactly—that the substitution of those words for "depressed areas" or "distressed areas" made some contribution in the psychological effort to get new industry into these parts of the country.
  It is clear that if we pass the Bill as it is now, these areas, both big and small, will become known as employment areas.

  1197
  That is what they will be called both in industry and in the administrative government machine. I agree that that is somewhat better than the old term "depressed", which was positively discouraging, but we do not feel at all sure that it is not losing something as compared with the more hopeful and more constructive name "development area".
  I would not argue that a major part of this effort depends on a name. We feel, however, that there is something in a name. I am not convinced that we want to let it go and substitute "unemployment area" for "development area". Is it not possible, even given the general notion of adding smaller localities, as the President of the Board of Trade now calls them, to the larger industrial areas, to preserve the words "development area" for psychological reasons to give every possible help to those areas and get new industries to go to them?
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I will reply to the right hon Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) immediately because I think that that will be of benefit to the Committee. I was interested to know the reasons behind the Amendment because, as he rightly said, it has no substantial effect. The definition remains the same. I am impressed by the psychological point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. I agree that "distressed areas" is a phrase that we must never use. "Unemployment areas" or "unemployment localities" would be better, but I do not think that they would be satisfactory. We would like to reflect on whether we can find the right phrase.
  The Amendment would do damage to the purposes of the Bill, because I think that we are both agreed that we want to be able to cover both large areas and small individual places. My impression is that the phrase "development area" would not cover an individual town. The word "locality" that we are using in the Bill was used in the Development of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 19:58, and under that Act it has been applied to both large areas like Merseyside, and to individual places like Barrow-in-Furness.
  If one looks at the 1948 White Paper on the Distribution of Industry it con-
  1198
  tains a passage which, I think, is interesting in referring to "areas". In paragraph 90 it was stated:
  "The Government has throughout maintained the principle that to justify scheduling it must be shown that an area not only has a high rate of unemployment but that the numbers of unemployed are high in the aggregate."
  The White Paper went on to say:
  "There are, furthermore, obvious objections to scheduling areas with very small populations since the whole conception of a Development Area implies some degree of interchange and mobility of labour. …"
  I understand that on that ground the White Paper argued that it would be inappropriate to schedule, for example, North Wales as a whole, or indeed particular places, or the Highlands of Scotland as a whole. Therefore, if one looks at the words "development area" they would not cover the two conceptions that we have of a big area or of individual places.
  Mr. Jay: I would not accept the words of the White Paper as infallible. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that two places were scheduled in 1945. Pembroke town, on the one hand, and some of the areas immediately surrounding Pembroke Dockyard, and, on the other, Wrexham, which is slightly larger. In both cases they were small districts, but they were always known as Development Areas. It does not seem to be an insuperable difficulty, and if the right hon. Gentleman agrees to think it over, I will not press the point.
  Mr. Maudling: I think that we are at one on this: we want a Bill which enables us to deal either with large areas or small ones, and we want to find the right description. I will think over what the right hon. Gentleman said about the right description, but I could not at this stage accept the Amendment which, as I am advised and, I think, rightly, would limit the purposes of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman does not press the Amendment I will think it over with the help of any advice that I may receive from the Committee, either now or subsequently, and see whether we can find a better word.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: An understanding has been reached between my right hon. Friend and the President of the Board of Trade

  1199
  and I do not wish to delay the Committee. I would, however, like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 1 (2) which, I suggest, may provide him with an answer to the difficulty that he feels.
  If my right hon. Friend had his way and the words "development area" were substituted for "locality" in Clause 1 (1), the circumstances and the places to which the Minister would apply the powers of the Bill would still fall to be defined by Clause 1 (2). It is true that there is a further Amendment which, in the first line of Clause 1 (2) would alter "localities" to "development areas", but the word "locality" is preserved in the second line of Clause 1 (2). There is no Amendment to leave that out.
  Mr. Maudling: There is.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Silverman: If there is an Amendment to leave that word out, I suggest that it ought not to be put. I think that that would have the correct effect. Clause 1 (1) would then read:
  "… appropriate to the needs of the development area."
  and Clause 1 (2) would read:
  "The development areas referred to in the foregoing subsection are any locality in Great Britain in which in the opinion of the Board of Trade … a high rate of unemployment exists or is imminent, and is likely to persist (whether seasonally or generally)."
  If Clause 1 (2) were in those terms it would become clear that the size of the area or of any locality was immaterial. The President of the Board of Trade would be able to use the powers either for a large Development Area or for a small Development Area. All that we would be doing would be to substitute, whatever the acreage, the words "development area" for any places to which we wished the powers to apply.
  There is a psychological value in using the phrase "development area" instead of "locality", but there is also something else. This bears to a great extent on the general question of whether we are dealing with batches or pockets of unemployment, or whether we are going in for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called, in another debate, a form of strategic planning. If we are dealing with a whole area, however
  1200
  small, we can talk about diversification of industry and deal with dwindling population. We can deal with everything that it is proper to deal with to restore a failing locality or area to a prosperous one.
  If we are thinking only of odd batches or pockets of unemployment, one may regard this as being sufficiently dealt with if the population drifts away and leaves the area or locality derelict and the individuals find some sort of employment in some other place after having pulled up their roots and destroyed the long and carefully built up social capital of the place from which they migrate.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the difficulty that he saw about limiting the purposes of the Bill is not a real one provided that the word "locality" is preserved in the second line of Clause 1 (2) and "development area" is substituted in the other two places.
  Sir David Robertson: In addition to the points that have already been made, surely the question of fact is more important than anything else. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the Highlands and Islands as places with a high percentage of unemployment, but the numbers are small. Of course they are small in comparison with Lancashire, the West of Scotland, London or Birmingham, but if they get any smaller there will be no people left at all.
  What is needed is development, not in a locality, but in the Highland area which covers about half of Scotland. I would resent those important words being left out of the Bill. I have never asked for anything for my constituency which I have not asked for for every town and large village in the Highland area. I do not want industry in the glens. I want industry in the towns from Campbell-town to Shetland, where people have lived for centuries and where the population has been greatly reduced. We once earned our own living in those areas. We made our own boats, our own ploughs, our clothes and underclothing, and our boots and shoes. We baked our own bread; we did not get it from Glasgow.
  The Chairman: Would the hon. Member try to keep closer to the Amendment.
  Sir D. Robertson: Nothing could be closer, Sir Gordon. I rose to speak because the President of the Board of Trade referred to something that happened in 1948 which had a very material bearing on the Highland area. I simply cannot accept a Ruling that, when I am speaking about half of Scotland, I cannot make my case. The case I make is a vitally important one. The very thing that my Highland colleagues and Scottish Members have been seeking for a very long time is a Development Area. The whole idea is not negative. It is development.
  Do you suggest, Sir Gordon, that the Highlands of Scotland, representing 47 per cent., at least, of Scotland, are a locality? The Highlands are an area.
  The Chairman: I am not suggesting anything at all.
  Sir D. Robertson: I am glad to know that. It is an area where a third of the people live. I said yesterday, and I say again now, that what it needs is development. If the word "development" is cut out of the Bill, I shall resent it and oppose it.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: I strongly support the views of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). Apart from various parts of the Bill itself, I dislike its wording. I strongly emphasise that we need in the Bill the idea of development. Indeed, the Title of the Bill, the Local Employment Bill, is wrong. I would rather it were called the Development Bill.
  If I may refer to my own area without being out of order, I emphasise that it is now known as the West Cumberland Development Area. We have achieved success. Now, it is all to go. When I wish to use my influence with the Board of Trade, attending with deputations of my colleagues, we seek to encourage the development of the whole area, not just that of my own constituency, the constituency of Whitehaven or parts of the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). It is the whole area which we seek to develop.
  This is a concept which we must not lose. We have argued at great length about the diversification of industry, just as we shall, no doubt, argue about prob-
  1202
  lems of depopulation. All these matters can be tackled only if one treats an area as a whole, as a development whole. That was the purpose of previous legislation, as has been said over and over again by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. We regard the Development Areas as a fact. In the area with which I am concerned, we have achieved success. I will not weary the Committee with the success story we could at one time tell. Now we face difficulties and we wish to press forward and redevelop, treating West Cumberland as a unit.
  There is also the psychological factor, as has been pointed out. We have come to think in terms not of tackling black spots, but of dealing with the development of areas where industry must be integrated and development considered as a whole. I strongly support this Amendment. The wording of the Bill as now drafted destroys the whole concept of "Development Area". I will quote what the Economist said in one of its main articles on 31st October:
  "By abolishing the nine development areas fourteen years after they were first set up (more strictly, twenty years for the four that were created in 1945 as enlarged versions of the pre-war special areas) the Government's new Local Employment Bill will achieve what no President of the Board of Trade has previously had the courage to do—to take an area out of the list when it no longer needed special help."
  The President of the Board of Trade has done that, but the point is that there are areas in the list which need help. That is why I condemn the Bill and support the Amendment. I hope that we shall have a better approach to the matter from the right hon. Gentleman than we had in his earlier intervention.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: The President of the Board of Trade must give real thought to defining much more satisfactorily the word "locality". This is really a very important aspect of the Bill, in enabling us to reach a decision which will really bring a cure for the unemployment which at present exists. I agree very much with what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). One cannot define the locality of the Highlands except by defining the Highland counties as such. Otherwise, one is just tinkering with the problem. It will be insoluble if we do not accept the

  1203
  whole area as a defined locality within which the influence of the Bill may be exerted.
  I readily agree that there are other areas further south in Scotland where there could be a much more circumscribed unemployment problem. In such places, the word "locality" might be the appropriate term. There are people studying this matter very seriously in Scotland. All the Scottish Members received this morning a very important circular from the Association of County Councils in Scotland. I am surprised that all the Highland Members are not speaking in the debate, because they control many more of the constituent bodies of the Association of County Councils than we on this side do.
  The executive of the Association is very perturbed about this question. It pinpoints this very problem of the word "locality", thus:
  "The word 'locality' is used throughout the Bill. There ought to be some definite information given as to the general yardstick which will be used in determining whether any area is to be regarded as a qualifying 'locality' for the purposes of the Bill."
  We all agree that that is the definition we want clearly made. It must not be left loose in the Bill, as it is now.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to know the problem. I am quite sure that he does; these matters have been pressing very heavily on him for many years. Areas of Scotland are being depopulated because of the "locality" assessment, because they are not being dealt with as a whole. This is particularly true of the Highlands. The circular from which I have read is a copy of a letter sent to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. He really ought to tell us what are its repercussions. What is his reception of it?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: How does my hon. Friend know that he has received it?
  Mr. Manuel: Because I have a copy of it, and it has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman under cover of a letter from the Association of County Councils. The Association puts the onus on him. I do not want to embroil the President of the Board of Trade in this at all. He ought to get a lead or direction on this matter of "locality" from the Secretary
  1204
  of State, who, I am quite sure, could give it if he has the good will to do so.
  I saw the Secretary of State whispering to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a moment or two ago. I hope that, since he has received, as we have received, this circular, the Secretary of State will have a word with his right hon. Friend before we pass on, so that we may be given some hope which we can convey to Scotland by this weekend that "locality" will have the definition which so many of us hope it will have in its Scottish connection.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. John MacLeod: I, too, am a little disturbed about this matter, because in part of my constituency I have the Highland Development Area. This is now to be withdrawn under the Bill, and I want the position to be made clear. When my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave his earlier reply, I gained the impression that he himself was worried about it. His intention is to bring about development in various areas, and he mentioned the Highlands of Scotland. As a Highland Member, I want to know where we stand.
  As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) pointed out, the word "locality" cannot possibly be used of such a vast area as the Highlands. Presumably, there is a danger of the Highlands as a whole not being on the list permanently, as they were under the D.A.T.A.C. provisions. Under D.A.T.A.C., of course, there have been great delays and inquiries have been made, and I hope that there will be new machinery set up to help in this respect. I understand that, under the D.A.T.A.C. provisions, many inquiries have been made in the Highland area.
  I should like to know whether the recognition of difficulties presented by seasonal unemployment, for instance, extends to ensuring that the problem in the Highlands of keeping people employed all the year round will be dealt with. It is a non-industrial area, but there is a comparatively large element of seasonal unemployment there.
  I am somewhat disturbed that the idea of "development area" has been dropped now in the Highlands region,

  1205
  and I hope that we shall have a much clearer explanation from my right hon. Friend about what the situation will be in the Highlands, where the Development Area is now to be withdrawn.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: When the President of the Board of Trade replied to the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) it seemed to me that he began by being very conciliatory and recognising that some new words would have to be found. He recognised the objection to the present drafting of the Clause. He recognised that those areas which are now subject to some support from public funds or areas which are not just receiving support from public funds, but which are attracting the attention of the President of the Board of Trade with a view to his steering industry into them, have been known for years, until July, 1948, as Development Areas.
  I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, subsequent to the 1948 White Paper, in which those words about sparsity of population and the need to find a lot of unemployment in the aggregate occurred, a new area was scheduled in the eastern corner of the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. MacLeod), yet that was an area where there was no great unemployment in the aggregate. The whole Highland area is sparsely populated. The County of Sutherland, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson)—geographically one of the largest counties in Britain—has a population of less than 14,000. If all the adult men and women in the county were unemployed, there would not be a large number of unemployed persons in the aggregate.
  If the President of the Board of Trade is telling us that the Bill cannot, therefore, apply to Sutherland, we are wasting our time. I do not think that he did.
  Mr. Maudling: The opposite.
  Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman says that he means the opposite. But that is why I rose to speak. In part of his reply he gave the impression that he could deal only with an area where there was a sufficient number of unemployed in the aggregate to warrant his
  1206
  attention under the provisions of the Bill when it became an Act.
  I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will use some such word as "development" to describe the areas he will assist. All over the United Kingdom, when organisations are set up to promote economic well-being, they are called development associations of one kind or another. We find this in Northern Ireland, where what is being done now is being done under the auspices of the Development Council.
  Mr. Peart: We have the same thing in Cumberland.
  Mr. Fraser: In Cumberland, too. It is a voluntary body, set up like development councils in other parts of Britain, including Scotland. But all that is being done in Northern Ireland is now being credited to the Northern Ireland Development Council.
  I am seeking to make the point that, if we want the Bill to succeed in any area, that area must be known as a Development Area or a development locality. It must not be known as a distressed area or a black spot. Such a description has a disastrous psychological effect upon the people living in the area. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not so easy to obtain the sympathy of an industrialist whom one is trying to steer into a certain area if that area is described as a black spot.
  I hope that the President of the Board of Trade recognises that, to deal with the tremendous problem of the North of Scotland, where the aggregate number concerned is not large, he must take action under the Bill, and I submit that the area concerned must, in some way or other, be described a Development Area and not a distressed area. That consideration applies equally to the great industrial areas which are already known as Development Areas.
  I lived in a part of Lanarkshire which was known, after the passing of the 1934 Act, as a special area. It worsened when it became known as a distressed area, and so it remained for a long time, until Mr. Dalton decided that such areas should cease to be called distressed areas and become Development Areas. Some hon. Members may feel that this is quite unimportant, but I can assure them

  1207
  that it is not. It was important to reclassify Lanarkshire as a Development Area.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not happy with the present wording of the Clause, and that he will change it. I hope that he can assure us that he will introduce the words "development area", so that those areas which qualify for assistance under the Bill will be recognised by others as Development Areas and not black spots.
  Mr. Maudling: I think that I can help at this stage. We are discussing not the powers of the Board of Trade or the administration of the Bill. We are concerned only with what we shall call the distressed localities, or areas in which we are to exercise the powers. We are all anxious that there should be no limit as to size. We do not wish to define areas in such a way as to confine us to small localities or to large districts. We chose the word "localities" because we understood that it could cover either a single town or a wide area. It is not limited in its effect. It may be as large as a Development Area or as small as an individual town. We would normally operate on the basis of an employment exchange area, or a group of employment exchange areas, but the word "locality" was chosen as being a neutral word which does not mean either a large or a small area.
  I am much impressed by what hon. Members have said about the word "development." We must get away from the word "distressed," and make these areas as attractive as possible to the industrialist. I ask the Committee to give me an opportunity to study the matter again. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made an interesting suggestion, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) referred to the phrase "development localities." I should like to consider the question again. We must think of a phrase which does not limit our administration, and within that framework I will do my best to see whether I can meet the points raised by hon. Members, although they will understand that I cannot give any undertaking to do so.
  Mr. Jay: I do not wish to prolong the debate in view of what the right
  1208
  hon. Gentleman has said. On the understanding that he will do what he says, and that he realises that hon. Members on this side of the Committee much prefer the term "development areas," and that he will consider particularly the cases of Wrexham and Pembroke, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
  "those areas which on the twenty-eighth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, were specified as development areas for the purposes of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and ".
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): I think that it would be convenient if, together with this Amendment, we discussed the two Amendments in page 1, line 12, at end insert "North Staffordshire and"; and at end insert:
  "the localities in which on the twenty-eighth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, the Board was of opinion, for the purposes of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, that a high rate of unemployment existed and was likely to persist and in addition";
  and the Amendment in page 1, line 13, after "any", insert "other".
  Mr. Marquand: We have had the opportunity of considering that suggestion, Sir Norman, and find it quite acceptable.
  When dealing with the last Amendment, the President of the Board of Trade, in a very receptive way, said that he was doubtful whether he could accept the precise form of words in it, lest it restricted the scope of the Bill. I hope that he will be equally receptive to this Amendment, because he cannot possibly find that it in any way restricts the scope of the Bill. Far from that, it seeks to ensure that there will be no subtraction, in the new administrative apparatus which he is setting up, in respect of areas which are already entitled to the kind of treatment provided by the Bill.
  The Third Schedule proposes to repeal the whole of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, which is referred to in one of the Amendments that we are taking together in this debate. It also proposes to repeal the whole of the Distribution of Industry

  1209
  Act, 1950 and, most important, the whole of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, In those circumstances we feel it is very important to obtain some clarification of what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers in regard to the administration of the Bill.
  The outstanding feature of the 1945 Act was that it set up Development Areas. It sought to solve the problem of excessive unemployment—by which I mean unemployment above the national average—not by picking out small localities here and there for specific temporary treatment but by developing the whole of the industrial foundations and social structure of specific industrial regions.
  4.45 p.m.
  It is true that the Development Areas were areas in which heavy industries predominated, especially coal mining, ship building and steel manufacturing, but the effort behind the 1945 Act was to treat not merely the misfortunes of those heavy industries, but to seek to develop a whole complex of industry so that the linked employments which also existed in those areas, and had grown up because of the existence of the basic industries, could be encouraged to flourish and prosper.
  When we began to study the problem of excessive unemployment in the old industrial areas, as far back as 1929, all those who were interested were preoccupied with the situation in the basic industries, and the surveys which some of us were asked to make in 1930 were directed to ascertaining the amount of surplus labour which existed in the basic industries of coal mining, shipbuilding and steel making in those areas, with a view to carrying out the policy of the Government of the day, which was to transfer the surplus away from the areas in which it existed into more prosperous parts of the country.
  When those surveys were concluded every one of the universities undertaking them came to the conclusion that there was a surplus in the area with which it was concerned, but also that it would be not only morally but economically wrong to seek to treat that problem by a wholesale transfer of people away from those areas into the prosperous areas of Birmingham and London. It was from
  1210
  those surveys that the idea of developing a whole region as an industrial nexus arose. It took a long time to convince public opinion that this was so; indeed, it was not until the Barlow Commission's Report that public opinion became completely converted.
  But every argument led to the same conclusion, that to transfer labour from these areas to more prosperous areas would make the situation in the original areas not better but worse, by starving them of manpower and of the opportunity to develop subsidiary industries on top of the basic ones—which could lead to a more active and commercial industrial life—and, above all, by destroying the whole social capital which existed in these areas.
  So we set out eventually, after this long process of public discussion and the conversion of public opinion, with the notion that we should take a whole region containing coal, steel, shipbuilding and other basic industries, and seek to develop upon them a better and more diversified industrial structure, so that we could keep alive and flourishing in those regions the communities which already existed.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to an earlier debate which took place yesterday, and to the need to avoid excessive costs in developing areas of this kind. We agree that we must try to avoid excessive costs by not locating a new industrial enterprise in an extremely inaccessible place, where transport costs of raw materials and finished products are so high that the firm concerned cannot compete effectively with others in the same line of business. We must avoid excessive economic costs, but we must also have regard to the social cost of denuding areas of their populations and destroying existing community life. Social costs must be set against strict economic cost in our planning.
  That is why, in the Development Areas, we set out to reduce business costs by an improvement of transport, ports, water supplies, technical education, housing, and so on, so that those areas could continue to flourish as communities and not incur the excessive cost which might be incurred if the development plan was sporadic and bore no relation to the overall development of

  1211
  the community and to the business nexus. This is the idea lying behind the Development Areas, and it is so valuable an idea that we must try to preserve it.
  I agree that if, after having adopted this Development Area policy of maintaining community life and overstepping local authority boundaries to supply adequate transport, water, health and educational facilities, so as to develop and invigorate the life of an otherwise declining community, we succeeded completely, the day might come when we would say, "We have done the job and there is no longer any necessity to regard these areas as Development Areas."
  But that day has not yet come—not by a long chalk. It would be a great mistake if it went out from this Committee that anyone believed that the problems of the existing Development Areas, which, according to the Bill as it is now presented to us, are to be taken out of the Act, were solved. The Government's own figures published recently in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, and which apply, I think, to the date, 12th October last, show that there are still in the existing Development Areas no fewer than 146,000 unemployed persons. In other words, 35 per cent. of the total unemployment in the country is still to be found in the Development Areas, and in those areas, on the average, unemployment among male persons is 4 per cent., whereas the national average at the same date was only 1·9 per cent.
  These are the basic facts. Despite all our efforts over many years the existing Development Areas are still in a parlous state. They still need special help and attention. The problem of the Development Areas arose originally because of the decline in the coal industry, partly from the development of the coal industry in Poland and other European countries, partly because of a decline in demand for coal resulting from fuel economy of all sorts and kinds. The coal industry is in jeopardy again. A new situation has been created for Development Areas by the sudden, sharp decline in demand for coal which has arisen once more. We are not at the end of this road, evidently. We cannot afford to say that the job has been done and that we can now concentrate all our
  1212
  attention elsewhere, and none of it on the Development Areas.
  This problem today, indeed, is not confined to the decline in coal. The same situation applies in shipbuilding. We had a debate on that in the House not long ago, and the replies given by the Government to those of us who have shipbuilding undertakings in or near our constituencies were most unsatisfactory. The same may be true of steel. It is true that the output of the steel industry has gone up from the levels it reached a year or two ago when the Government were imposing the credit squeeze, but how much of the improvement in the steel industry may be due to the fortuitous accident of a dispute in the United States steel industry and the consequent inability of American steel manufacturers to supply export markets with their products? We do not know. We cannot be certain about the situation.
  We have become accustomed to working together in the Development Areas. In those areas over the years, as the result of the kind of policy I have described, there have been drawn together a nexus of people concerned to watch not only one town or village in particular but the welfare of a whole industrial region. We have created in all those industrial areas, I believe—certainly in those I know best—industrial developments reaching to the whole of an area and concerned to help themselves by helping one another.
  If the Development Areas should be abandoned, then all that valuable cooperative effort, all that agreement, as I say, to see the interests of the other man in a neighbouring region and not to concentrate on some selfish effort to undercut him in competition for new industry, all that valuable social effort will disappear.
  I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that a locality might be as big as a Development Area. That is fine. What we want today—and it is why we are moving this Amendment—is clarification. A locality, he said, might be as big as a Development Area. Will it be as big as a Development Area in each of these places? That is the question we want answered. Is the right hon. Gentleman thinking, perhaps, of lopping pieces off the Development Areas here and there? I very much hope not.

  1213
  When dealing with that question I must, of course, refer particularly to the Northern Region, in which my constituency is situated and in which, naturally, I have a special interest. In referring to the Northern Region permit me momentarily to explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), who would very much have liked to have supported this Amendment today, has himself to be in the region today in connection with the development of technical education there, which is such a valuable part of the development of the new industrial life in regions like that.
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that in the Northern Region at present, despite all that has been done there, there are still nine empty factories, nine factories which were provided under the Development Area policy, and which are still empty and unused. They may have been used in the interval. I do not know. Perhaps he could find that information before he replies to the debate which will take place on this Amendment.
  We in the Northern Region certainly do not feel that the job is finished. We feel uneasy about the situation. I quoted earlier on figures from the Ministry of Labour Gazette about the whole of the Development Areas at 12th October. Here are figures for 16th November for the Northern Region: 4,579 more persons unemployed than on 12th October. The situation is getting very much worse. It is an increase in unemployment of a very substantial amount in one month. In the Northern Region now the overall unemployment figure is 3·4 per cent. compared with a national average of 2 per cent. We in the Northern Region certainly feel that this is no time to take that region out of the scope of the Measure.
  In Middlesbrough, if I may come from the general to the particular, we feel it is no time to take Middlesbrough out of the scope of the Northern Region. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has no such thought in mind. It may be thought—it is a dangerous thought, but it ought to be brought into the open—that because of the development by Imperial Chemical industries just outside Middlesbrough there is no longer any case for any special attention being paid to that
  1214
  town. However, the Ministry of Labour, on Wednesday, 18th November, gave me the figures for unemployment in Middlesbrough at 12th October. He gave the figures for men and women respectively:
  "A percentage rate of unemployment cannot be computed for Middlesbrough alone, but in the Tees-side area the percentage rate were 2·4 and 3·6."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November. 1959; Vol. 613, c. 127.]
  For women, 3·6. If there is one good reason for carrying out a Development Area policy not confined to specific localities, but covering broad industrial regions, it is that we can diversify lighter industries in such a region quite economically without increasing costs and provide employment for women. We desperately need employment for women in these heavy industry areas. It is all to the good. It stimulates demand and the multiplier factor in turn creates new demand for labour in the heavy industries. We need a still greater diversification of industry in the Northern Region. In Middlesbrough, in particular, to which I am bound to refer, since I represent it in the House, we could not be satisfied with any removal at this stage of either Middlesbrough or any part of the Northern Region from the scope of the action which is now to be taken.
  5.0 p.m.
  I would conclude simply by saying that what we are pleading for in this Amendment is no substraction at this stage from the effort which is being made to combat the overall unemployment situation in Development Areas, because it gives no grounds whatever for complacency. Above all, what we are appealing for is no abandonment of the principle of planning industrial development for whole economic regions. We are appealing to the Government not to split up these regions and allow once more the development of mutual jealousy, but to continue to encourage the harmonious efforts by all the citizens in such a region for the planned development of the whole region for the benefit of all.
  We do not want to see a return to the pre-war patchwork efforts, which were such a disastrous failure in tackling the problem. We want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that he intends to keep the existing industrial Development

  1215
  Areas, and to allow them to carry on as they have done in a planned harmonious effort to conquer the unemployment which still afflicts them.
  Mr. Peart: I should like to support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), and to repeat what I have already said to the Committee. Representing, as I do, a Development Area, I am anxious that the unity of that area should be kept intact. Therefore, I hope that the powers given to the management corporations under the Bill will in no way fragment the area.
  I think that my right hon. Friend has posed admirably the position of the Northern Region. Speaking for West Cumberland, I hope that under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, there will be no fragmentation of our area. I believe that the Development Area policy, as it affects West Cumberland, has been a successful one, and I have stressed that point over and over again in the discussions on this Bill. Although we have succeeded, from the development point of view, there are new problems.
  My right hon. Friend has mentioned the dangers in the Northern Region and the area with which he is more specifically concerned. We think that that is true of West Cumberland, and I believe that the solution of this problem can only be achieved if we tackle the area or the problem in that region from the point of view of a Development Area. That is why we are anxious that there should be no division and no splitting up into separate localities.
  For instance, we have the problem of transport, and we feel that this is a matter which affects the whole Development Area of West Cumberland. It is an urgent matter affecting industrial development, and no doubt at a later stage of the Bill we shall be discussing it. We also have the problem of road communications and of railways, all covered under that general heading of transport, and all matters affecting the area of West Cumberland. Therefore, we hope that this problem of development will be treated as a whole.
  There are other problems. Mention has been made of technical education in one part of the Northern Region. We
  1216
  have this problem in our own area, althought here we have a very fine record. Our schools and technical colleges, specifically those in Workington and Whitehaven, provide very fine technicians, and our apprentices, who are in the main taken up by local industrialists, are of the highest order. Private industry and public concerns have paid tribute to our apprentices' training. Now we have a serious problem, because very soon we shall face a situation due to the "bulge"—the large numbers of school-leavers. This is a matter which affects the whole of the Development Area, and the problem there can only be tackled if we study it as a whole.
  I will not weary the Committee with statistics, but the Workington and District Youth Employment Committee, which embraces an area covered by Ministry of Labour offices at Aspatria, Cockermouth, Keswick, Maryport, Silloth and Workington—a large part of the Development Area—has reported that many of our young school-leavers will find it hard to get a job in 1962. I have the details here, and the situation is really alarming. This report, which was produced only last year, states that it would appear that West Cumberland will prove incapable of supplying the necessary numbers of employment opportunities in the coming decade for those leaving school, unless we can continue development and attract new industries.
  In this area we have felt already the impact of the recession in the coal industry. We have seen a contraction in this area, and, in my own constituency, two collieries have already closed. Many of the men affected have not as yet been absorbed into full employment. This is a tragedy which is recurring in the West Cumberland Development Area. Therefore, we feel that this area, which once experienced unemployment, should be developed. We should not now go back on our present policies. I hope that the Minister, in reply to my right hon. Friend, will give us a specific assurance that, although the West Cumberland Industrial Development Co., Ltd., is to be no longer, and although the major planning is to be done by a large corporation for England, we in West Cumberland will still be treated as a specific unit.

  1217
  Even though the right hon. Gentle-ma n is to consider a suitable reply at a later stage to my right hon. Friend in respect to a previous Amendment about the wording and nomenclature of the Development Area, I trust that we in West Cumberland will still be regarded as one main unit which shall be developed in that way. In the exercise of the powers which are now to be given, either to the President of the Board of Trade or the management corporations, I hope that the area which I have the honour to represent, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) will be treated as a whole. We wish the whole area to develop. New industries are urgently required. West Cumberland must be planned for expansion.
  Mr. John Strachey: The Committee does not know whether the President of the Board of Trade intends to resist this Amendment, but if he does so intend we cannot help feeling curiosity as to why he should resist it, because all that we are asking for is that an assurance to the old Development Areas should be written into the Bill, so that they can be reassured that there will be no whittling away of the existing areas.
  It may be, of course, that the Minister will simply tell us that that is unnecessary, or that he does not dream of rejecting any of the existing areas, or even of whittling any of them away. That may be so, but I think he would be very well advised to consider writing into the Bill, in some such words as these—and I would have thought that these were perfectly suitable words—an assurance to the existing Development Areas.
  In his reply to the debate on the last Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman showed that he himself appreciated the psychological arguments that are involved here. The psychology of the people of the Development Areas of the past is very sensitive indeed. I speak here of the one I know in Dundee, but I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends, or those who represent such localities, would say the same of their own areas.
  Where an area has suffered severely over a period of years from grave unemployment almost a neurosis of insecurity develops, and for those areas to have a very sweeping Measure of this sort, repealing all the powers which came
  1218
  to their assistance and substituting new powers which are wider in some ways but which are certainly vaguer, unless these words are written into the Bill as we propose, will be very alarming indeed.
  My constituency, Dundee, West, has a record of twenty years between the wars when unemployment was never under about 20 per cent. and ran up to 33⅓ per cent.—an appalling thing. To all the older members of that community these memories are very vivid and bitter. It seemed to us that it would be of great psychological value, if nothing else, if we had written into the Bill an assurance that all the existing areas would be maintained and improved.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said so convincingly, no one can possibly say that the job is done in those areas. The position, of course, is better than it was between the wars. Nobody denies that, but there is still, on the average, something like double the national rate of unemployment and there are some very disturbing signs in most of these areas, and certainly in Dundee. There is a very serious situation in the shipyards and a tendency to contraction in the jute industry which, I must say, is a tendency almost entirely due to the Government's conduct in reducing the "mark up" on jute so that the chill hand of unemployment has been felt on the city once again.
  In these circumstances, therefore, I am certain that it would be of real value to see written into the Bill an assurance that, though the Government are adding new powers and new areas, they are fully maintaining all the old areas and all the old powers and are giving to the people of these areas who are very hard-pressed this reassurance.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I was ill yesterday and, therefore, absent from the Committee, but I understand, from reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the President of the Board of Trade has said that he is prepared to use the powers given under the Bill very widely. He has used that term in two senses. First, he has said that he is prepared to designate large areas under the term "locality" and, secondly, that he is prepared to take into account the small population of areas where the total unemployment

  1219
  figure may not be very big, but the percentage is very high and where emigration is a serious factor. I am glad of that assurance, if I am right, and I see that the right hon. Gentleman appears to be indicating assent.
  I sympathise with the view that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to feel bound to keep certain areas designated as special areas or Development Areas for all time. Obviously, we should be delighted if they would be taken out of that category because employment was good and the future was secure. We have not reached that position or anywhere near it yet in most of these areas. I should like to have an assurance on the Amendment that it is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention now to remove from the operation of this Bill any areas designated under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, because in the Highlands and Islands we have only just begun to operate that Act.
  I do not think that it is adequate to meet the problem that we face and I should have preferred help in the form of setting up a development board, but it is being slowly taken advantage of and it would be highly undesirable if doubts were set about the future in areas which need development and which have only recently been designated.
  I sympathise with those who have drawn attention to the Third Schedule, which lists Acts which will be wholly repealed. The 1958 Act is one of them. I should like to have an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that, certainly at present, there is no intention when that Act is repealed of removing such areas as are covered by it from the effects of the Bill. If we can have that assurance, I shall be a great deal happier.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. S. Silverman: If my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) is under the impression that the Government intend to maintain as Development Areas all those areas which existed on 28th October, I can only say that I hope that he is right but that I am not sure. It may well be, of course, that sometimes the efforts made and the powers used in an area produce the desired effect so that it is no longer
  1220
  an area which requires special powers of this kind. In those circumstances it is quite right and proper that the Government should be able to do something about it.
  If it is conceded that the Government's purpose is to leave themselves free to designate other areas which so far have not been designated, the important thing is that Parliament shall not lose control of the situation and that it should not be regarded merely as a matter of administrative convenience that the Minister shall declare an area already designated to cease to be so designated, but that he shall come to the House of Commons and, in some form or another, get the sanction of the Legislature if he proposes to take away from an area benefits which Parliament has already conferred upon it.
  But that is perhaps only indirectly connected with the Amendments. We are asking that there shall be no change as yet and that the Bill when it becomes an Act shall make clear that nobody will be deprived of the benefit of the powers without further consideration. That is why we want these Amendments written into the Bill. One refers to development Areas and another refers clearly to what are called D.A.T.A.C. areas.
  My own constituency is concerned with both, because it is part of the North-East Lancashire Development Area and because it was designated in the last list of towns under the 1958 Act which we shall be repealing by means of this Bill. In both cases, of the Development Area and of the D.A.T.A.C. designation, these were the last areas or localities to be added. We do not want to have to begin agitating all over again to get the benefits under the new Bill.
  Mr. William Ross: To get the chance of getting them.
  Mr. Silverman: At any rate, so that the President of the Board of Trade shall have the power, if not the duty, to continue the benefits which are reproduced in the new Bill after the other legislation is repealed.
  We had to fight very hard to get all this. We had to bring a great deal of pressure to bear on the Government of the day before North-East Lancashire was declared a Development Area at all. We had to work very hard to make the

  1221
  Government see the significance of a rapidly contracting industry and a rapidly dwindling population. They did not appear on the surface in the percentage figures of unemployment. It was a long time before we got it. It was not until 1951 that we were declared a Development Area. In spite of everything the Government may claim to have done, by 1959 we were a lot worse off than we were in 1951. The Government say that that is not because they failed to exercise their powers, nor because they had not enough powers. They had the powers and they exercised all of them, but at the end of the day we were worse off than when we started.
  This is not an area to which reconsideration should be given under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, as to whether it should be one of the localities or one of the areas. That would be the effect of not accepting the Amendments. The Minister would not be bound to continue these benefits to any locality or area. The effect of repealing the old Acts is to repeal till the Orders made under them. At the moment the Bill receives the Royal Assent, no place, whether locality or area, will be entitled to benefit from any of the powers in it until the Minister makes up his mind whether to declare it a Development Area. We think that that is unnecessary and a mistake.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member is raising a point of substance. Does he suggest that after the passage of the Bill, and after these other Acts have been repealed, there will be no legal basis for continuing payments by the Government to the various special areas which are in existence now?
  Mr. Silverman: Yes, I do say that. Until the Government exercise the powers which the Bill gives them there will be no right to exercise any of the old powers under the old legislation. Most of the powers in the Bill, certainly, I should have thought, all the substantial ones, are already contained in the Acts which, by the Bill, we are repealing. Having repealed them, and having repealed inferentially the Orders and designations made under them, the Government will have to start again.
  I do not suggest that that will take them very long. I dare say that they have made up their mind about it
  1222
  already. They must know now whether they intend, immediately the Bill becomes an Act, to redesignate areas which are already designated. If the answer is, "Yes, that is what we intend", there can be no possible reason for not accepting the Amendments. If the answer is, "No, that is not what we intend", let the Government tell us now what they do intend and the areas which they propose not to redesignate if the Bill is passed with the repeals which I have mentioned.
  Perhaps the Government do not know the answer. Will there be an interregnum while they review the position and decide which areas they will designate and which they will not? I cannot believe that the President of the Board of Trade has not clearly in mind at this moment whether he intends to preserve all of them or only some of them. Whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendments or not, he ought to take the Committee into his confidence and tell us exactly what kind of overall plan he has in mind and who will or will not benefit by these powers.
  There can be no secret about the matter. There can be no reason for keeping silent about it, making it a kind of official secret. Many hundreds of thousands of people will be affected as soon as the old Acts are repealed and the Orders under them cease to be valid or operative. They want to know what will happen.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows the situation in my constituency. In the course of the Second Reading debate, I quoted a Ministry of Labour forecast. The regional authorities were asked to estimate as best they could the effect on unemployment when the contracting provisions of the Cotton Industry Bill were fully in operation. They said that it would mean a degree of unemployment of 38 per cent. I do not know whether that figure is right or not.
  I remember that when the Minister of Labour replied to the debate he said that it was wrong. He said that the rate of unemployment would not be 38 per cent., but one-third of 38 per cent. But one-third of 38 per cent. is still 13 per cent., about ten times the national average. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. I think that the figures which I quoted—they were not my own

  1223
  estimate, but local Ministry of Labour figures—were right. They are subject to modification.
  No doubt, if the powers under this legislation are adequately used, new industries will absorb some of the unemployment. No doubt, in time, if the Cotton Industry Bill achieves any constructive or creative purpose, some of it may be reabsorbed into the cotton industry. But these are matters of time. There will be a time lag which will impose on the people concerned intense misery. We therefore ask that the situation should not be left obscure. If it is intended not to deprive areas already in benefit of the powers transferred, as it were, from the repealed legislation to the new legislation, we shall leave our anxieties there. If there is any such intention, the Government should let us know about it before we give them the powers and before we consent to repeal the Acts already in existence.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Part of the case which I intend to present to the Committee I stated last night. I hope not to reiterate one word of what I said, but I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, when considering my Amendment, will bear in mind what was said yesterday about my area. I consider that we have a special case, and I intend to present it without going into any wide issues.
  Approximately half a million people live in North Staffordshire. In the City of Stoke-on-Trent there are approximately 270,000 people. The people on one side of the city live approximately 40 miles from Manchester. The people on the other side live approximately 50 miles from Birmingham. It is an economic area confined within those geographical limits. Our two main industries are mining and pottery. We are now seeing the beginning of the closure of a number of pits. I do not complain about this, because it is the result of a national plan. However, I differ fundamentally from many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
  I stand for a national mid-twentieth century overall economic plan. I have great respect for those who differ from me in this matter, but the only real difference between them and myself in many cases is that I was brought up to
  1224
  work to drawings and to work scientifically. In my view, the mid-twentieth century need in life demands a scientific policy, and the maximum benefit should be derived from the best organisation arising out of policy of that kind. Many people differ from me on that. In my view, the country will go on suffering as a consequence and will be forced, sooner or later, to adopt that policy if it is to hold its own in the world.
  5.30 p.m.
  The mining industry is now, as a result of modernisation, being concentrated in settled pits. This will mean that a large number of men will be either unemployed or transferred. Fortunately, as a result of nationalisation—this is one of the benefits, let me emphasise—the men will not be discharged. They will be transferred. We have received an undertaking that employment will be found for them in the mining industry. My principal concern is that houses should be available for the men and their families who come in from other areas and that no friction should arise from the fact that no preparations have been made.
  The other industry is the pottery industry. Here we have a special case. All Government Departments before the war admitted that, because if a slump comes in either of these two industries, and particularly in the pottery industry, it will mean that we shall have large-scale unemployment. It is only a few years since we had within our city itself nearly 3,000 unemployed. Fortunately, they have now found employment in the industry, and for the time being it is thriving once again. We welcome that.
  We dread a situation similar to that in the pre-war years arising. We dread a situation arising such as arose three years ago. Therefore, it is against that background that we want to prepare. The City of Stoke is being better governed and administered than ever before in its history. As a result of the city council's new policy, as I said last night—I shall not develop the point to any great extent, but I think that in a debate of this sort I would be lacking in my duty if I did not give credit where it was due—and without an atom of encouragement from the Board of Trade, the council has embarked upon the provision of two industrial sites. It has done this, indeed,

  1225
  despite great discouragement, and to this day I still smart under the discouragement that we received. I will explain briefly why.
  Many years ago, as a result of the enlightened policy of the city council, the French Michelin Tyre Company was given all the facilities and encouragement possible. It built a huge works in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. The management of that factory was among the most reactionary in the country. It introduced an anti-trade union policy and all kinds of ideas which were contrary to the generally accepted idea of running industry in this country. However, slowly but surely, the men and women engaged in the factory became very concerned about it and took action on their own. As a result that management is now among the most enlightened in the country. The relationship between the organised workpeople and the management is as good as in any other part of the country.
  What happened? The Michelin Tyre Company decided to expand because its product has such a good name throughout this country and the world. This expansion meant building new factories and large extensions to existing factories. One of the extensions would have provided employment for 700 people in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. The Board of Trade, however, used its influence behind the scenes and had the expansion taken to Burnley.
  I take second place to no one in this Committee in my sympathy for Lancashire because I am a product of Lancashire and still live among the ordinary people there. I have never moved from Lancashire. Therefore, there is no one with a more intimate relationship with these hard-working people. The decision of the Board of Trade was most unfair because the city had gone out of its way to provide facilities so that the Michelin Tyre Company could develop there. The relationship is now excellent and it is making a great contribution to the export trade.
  The President of the Board of Trade is a well informed Minister. He knows how important is the cost of production today in the life of an industry. To move this proposed extension from the centre where research and development
  1226
  had been carried out to a place 60 or 70 miles away was not a good business proposition or a good economic proposition, and it was most unfair to the city and to the Michelin Tyre Company. Therefore, we consider that we have a special case which should receive the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade.
  For this and other reasons I, on behalf of my hon. Friends representing other parts of North Staffordshire, hope that when replying the right hon. Gentleman will give us an undertaking that in no circumstances will there be a repetition of what I have complained about with regard to the Michelin Tyre Company expansion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what I said yesterday about the serious pre-war situation and the lack of diversification in North Staffordshire and also about the need to replace Swynnerton, which used to employ 40,000 people, so that when unemployment on a large scale comes again the people will be able to find employment and will not be dependent solely on the two industries I have mentioned.
  For all these reasons, I commend the Amendment to the Committee.
  Mr. Ross: I can well appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friends in relation to the Amendment which I understand we are discussing in its wider context. Whilst I am prepared to speak to the Amendment relating to the existing scheduled areas, I hope that will not be taken as meaning that I am opposed in any way to an extension of help to areas that are at present outside.
  It must be rather disappointing for the President of the Board of Trade to have to listen to us today, as he did yesterday, making speeches which arise out of a fundamental lack of confidence in the Government, and, indeed, out of a lack of clarity about the Bill which he thinks he has presented so well.
  Let there be no mistake about it. The reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) moved the Amendment in the way and in the terms that he did and why my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) thought it necessary deliberately to specify his constituency, and why my hon. Friends from Wales thought it

  1227
  necessary to specify theirs, arises from the fact that they do not know what the Government are going to do. They fear the worst. We do not know what the Government are going to do. They have not told us, so we fear the worst.
  Why are the Government silent about this? One of the noticeable things in all the discussions on Amendments so far is how long it has taken the Government to give an answer. There is a very simple explanation of that. If they had an answer which would satisfy the Committee they would give it right away. The fact is that they have failed properly to appreciate and to allay the fears of hon. Members. The Minister is silent either because he has nothing to say or because what he intends to say will be unpopular, and our continued speeches are echoing our concern, not only about the silence of the Government but also about the possibility of a lack of action on unemployment in our areas.
  I do not doubt that the intention of the Government in this Bill is to fragment the existing Development Areas, and that they will throw at us the Report of the Estimates Committee of a few years ago. I hope we shall anticipate some of the arguments the Minister will raise in relation to that Report. In fragmenting the existing Development Areas, the Government will isolate the help given in more widespread and remote parts of the country. This would probably have an advantage and attraction for the Treasury in that it would be able to do this work much more economically than is possible at present.
  Using my own area as an example, I suggest that the Minister should start with the existing Development Areas. I do not rule out the fact that other areas require help, but we should not start on the assumption that the same amount of help should be scattered over a greater part of the country. What is required is a greater measure of help. Let us fight the Treasury together on that one. I appreciate that south of my constituency and outwith the Development Area is a place called Prestwick from which, over the past year to eighteen months, we have lost over 1,000 workers. Many of them are now working in England. All the unemployment is not recorded
  1228
  but in Ayr, which is a residential seaside resort and not a Development Area, towards the end of summer there were over 1,000 unemployed. The figure for last month was 1,246 and it has risen since then.
  I appreciate, therefore, that there is need for help in other areas that should be designated. But why do we say that we should start with the existing areas? I ask the President of the Board of Trade, if the House of Commons had taken the advice of the Estimates Committee a few years ago in respect of the breaking up of the existing Development Areas, what would have happened in Scotland? I ask that question because since then, with the chill wind of trade adversity and the even colder wind of Government credit policy, we have seen unemployment come again to areas which seemed at that time to be favourably placed, to be cured of the old, chronic unemployment. They were all the same places—Dundee, Greenock, North Ayrshire, Kilmarnock.
  If the Minister will look up the records of unemployment in Kilmarnock four years ago he will find that unemployment was measured literally in hundreds, for there were 67 or 68 unemployed men, and probably about the same number of unemployed women. On that basis the Minister would have de-scheduled the area, but within six or seven months unemployment rose, and today it is between 1,200 and 1,300. The same thing is true in Central Ayrshire. We built a new industrial estate at Kilwinning, where one factory employed about twenty people. There is a great industry dominating the area and it seemed safe to think that it would go on for ever. Suddenly however, by changes of policy in a private industry, there has been a complete run-down, and we have there the worst-hit area in Ayrshire, with unemployment rising not to 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. but to 8 per cent., and at one time during the past winter it was as high as between 12 per cent. and 13 per cent.
  5.45 p.m.
  So we have to face the disappointment that the old scheduled areas, even after 20 or 25 years of supposed special care, are the areas that are hit with the first chill wind. If the President of the Board of Trade has it in his mind to accept

  1229
  some kind of Civil Service advice, "Let us wipe out the whole of the Development Areas; let us forget them", I ask him to look at what has happened over the past two or three years, not twenty years, and then he should be convinced that it would be very wrong indeed to say that, after seeing 6, 7 or 8 months' figures, we can wipe out the areas and deprive them of the possibility of getting help under the Bill.
  I say let us keep the existing areas. The Minister will not lose anything by doing so. As he told us yesterday, in the Bill he has flexibility in relation not only to the actual places where the powers will be used but as to when he will use them. There is a psychological feeling within those areas that, so long as they are Development Areas, quick help can come when it is needed. That is what at stake, and I hope from this point of view that the Minister will give us that benefit today.
  The events of the past years have shown that the right hon. Gentleman would be trifling with the problem if in Scotland he started to lop off little bits here and there. We in Scotland are not satisfied with things as they are. No one who looks at the position in Scotland feels that what is wanted is merely an area policy, a regional policy. What is wanted is a national policy and, until we get that, we shall not be satisfied. We are looking for some fresh thought from the Minister. If he has any trouble with the Secretary of State for Scotland, let him call us in aid to put things right. After all, let the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Secretary of State is only a National-Liberal.
  Seriously, if the Minister is to do anything for Scotland in respect of employment, he must start with the existing areas and he may well add to them. I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) will raise in relation to new towns and new areas in Fife, and also the feeling about South Ayrshire, where pits are being closed, but the outstanding fact from the failure of the present policies has been that not enough help has been given. Let the Minister give sufficient help to the existing Development Areas and also spread a little more to those areas which need it equally.
  Mr. Maudling: I have not intervened until now because I thought the Committee would like me to listen to all the arguments before I did so. However, in view of what has been said by the hon, Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), perhaps my silence is being misinterpreted, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I put before hon. Members my view on this series of Amendments.
  In dealing with the previous Amendment I said I would try to do the best I could to meet the views expressed by the Committee, but I must make it clear on this Amendment, moved by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), that we regard it as completely contrary to one of the main principles of the Bill, and therefore it would not be possible for us to accept it.
  The principle I have in mind is to make help available where it is most needed. We believe it to be of the greatest importance to concentrate the available help where it is most needed. I must emphasise again the view of the Government, that there is a limit to the help that can be made available and to the amount of money that can be made available from the Exchequer. There is a definite limit, too, to the extent to which it is reasonable to persuade or induce industry to go to localities where, by definition, it would not go on purely commercial grounds and where its costs of production are liable to be higher than in the areas of its own choice. We must always be thinking of areas with special problems, never forgetting the general interests of the economy as a whole. There is, therefore, a limit to the extent to which we can, for social reasons, try to divert industry from its natural economic location to other places.
  There is the further point that I mentioned to the Committee yesterday, that if we give a wide selection of possible areas to an industrialist he will, naturally, always choose the most convenient to him and that is likely to be not the area which is most remote, most difficult and, therefore, often the most in need of help. Certainly all the evidence I have seen in the short time that I have been studying this question at the Board of Trade and all the advice I have received shows that it is much more difficult to help the more distant

  1231
  and more difficult areas if it is possible for an industrialist to go to other areas of less difficulty which are more convenient to him.
  Mr. Jay indicated dissent.
  Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman disagrees, but I think that is true.
  There has been a good deal of reference to Scotland. It is argued sometimes by industrialists whom we have tried to persuade to go to different areas that whereas their cost of production may be X per cent. higher in a Wales or Merseyside location, it would be 2 or 3 times X per cent. higher in Scotland. Therefore, they naturally say that as all the areas are Development Areas, they will go to the one where the penalty is lowest. The wider the area of choice, the more they will go where they think the penalty is lowest and least benefit will come to the areas where the penalty appears to be highest. Because the penalty appears to be highest, that is precisely the sort of area where, normally, there is the greatest difficulty. I ask the Committee to bear this real difficulty in mind when considering the Amendments.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who moved the Amendment, said many things with which I entirely agreed. He emphasised that in considering the cost of industrial locations one must not look merely at the actual cost of production in a given factory. There are also the social considerations, which have so often been referred to, and there are, I agree, wider economic considerations of the cost of housing, sewerage, water supply and that sort of thing. It is because there are these considerations in mind that we agree, as both sides of the Committee agree, that a policy must be followed by the Government of steering industry away from areas where naturally, on purely commercial considerations, it would tend to concentrate.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need for looking at development in terms of areas. This was referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and by several other hon. Members. With that also I entirely agree. Nothing that the Government have said, done or are doing
  1232
  in the Bill goes against the principle that in many cases it is desirable to deal with a whole area. It is also in some cases, as we have explained, desirable to have powers to treat an individual locality, but the fact that we want sometimes to deal in terms of individual small places does not mean that we in any way reject the sound argument for treating whole areas.
  I would say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that the fragmentation of the Development Areas is something that we do not have in mind. I agree with the hon. Member that to fragment areas which can be better dealt with coherently is not necessarily a sensible function.
  Mr. Peart: May I have an assurance that the West Cumberland Development Area will not be fragmented?
  Mr. Maudling: I am not giving any assurances on individual areas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I will come presently to the reasons. The whole purpose of the Bill is not to give assurances on individual areas.
  Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the need to steer industry into areas in order to cure the unemployment that undoubtedly exists. Consider, for example, the Highlands of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman knows well before he starts that he will not get any industry to go into these areas and that the Government themselves will need to do something of their own volition if they are to tackle the unemployment and to stop whole areas from being further depopulated. Can he give an assurance that he will come to the rescue and give an indication to these people that the Government themselves will put in industries if they cannot get industrialists to come—as they will not?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not quite follow the point. If the hon. Member is making the argument that inducement would not work and that we should have to use direction, we do not accept that argument and neither do his right hon. Friends.
  Mr. Manuel indicated dissent.
  Mr. Maudling: If that was not the hon. Member's meaning, I do not understand him.
  Mr. Manuel: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman was listening to me. I am positive that there are certain Highland areas into which the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to attract or to steer industry. I am not in favour of direction, but I think that the Government could, of their own volition and initiative, put into such an area Government factories, which would be of extreme value in retaining the population, to carry out work which the Government have under their own control or direction—contracts, for example, for the Armed Forces and things of that kind. This would be well worth while, and I am sure that everybody in Scotland, irrespective of party, would support the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Maudling: I see the point, but, clearly, it cannot arise on the present Amendment which deals with inducements to private industry—
  Mr. Manuel: I agree.
  Mr. Maudling: —although my silence must not be taken as acquiescence in the argument.
  The third point made by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East was the nub of the argument and it was referred to also by the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond): that is, whether we will undertake not to reduce or in any way change the existing Development Areas. That undertaking we will certainly not give, because it would be quite wrong to give it. One of the main purposes underlying the Bill was to move away from the old system of rigid definition of Development Areas, which has been shown in practice not to work effectively. Our purpose is to concentrate our assistance on areas where it is really needed. It cannot be denied that there are now substantial localities in at least some of the Development Areas where the level of unemployment is below the national average.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the Report of the Select Committee. I want to quote the Committee's Report because it puts the arguments better than I could put them. I quote from paragraph 88:
  "it seems to Your Committee that there are indications that the size and boundaries of the
  1234
  present Development Areas have been preserved against future contingencies for too long, and are now out of date. It may well be that other districts with higher unemployment may be in greater need of the Government financial assistance available to Development Areas."
  In paragraph 89, the Select Committee said:
  "Your Committee believe that insufficient attention may have been given to the possibility that, within each Area there are districts, some of them quite large, which no longer fulfil the conditions necessary to be designated a Development Area. They consider that had these districts been removed, the Board might have achieved more substantial results at less cost through having been able to concentrate their efforts on smaller and more deserving Areas."
  That puts our argument precisely.
  Mr. Peart: The Minister has quoted from the Report of the Select Committee. Surely, he knows that in its recommendations the Select Committee in no way recommended that the whole concept of Development Areas should be ended. Indeed, the contrary was the case. In its recommendations and in the evidence which it considered, the Select Committee merely argued for a readjustment of boundaries.
  Mr. Maudling: The Amendment merely argues for no readjustment of boundaries. On the issue that we are discussing, I am following the recommendation of the Select Committee that the boundaries should be adjusted.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: This is an important point relating to something which I raised in my contribution. The Report of the Select Committe was made in 1955. Will the President of the Board of Trade tell us what happened to some of these areas when unemployment came in 1957?
  Mr. Maudling: What I said was that there are now areas where the rate of unemployment is below the national level. It would be wrong to continue giving assistance to those areas in preference to areas which have a far greater need.
  Mr. Ross: The Government have not been giving assistance.
  Mr. Maudling: Therefore, our policy in settling the areas which will be open to receive Government assistance will be to draw the boundaries so as to include

  1235
  those areas which need help but no longer to include areas that do not need help.
  Mr. S. Silverman rose—
  Mr. Maudling: I want to finish what I am saying. I have given way a number of times.
  The principle is quite simple. The Amendment proposes that we should leave the Development Areas as they are. I agree that it would be wrong to break them up and make too radical a change, but within the existing Development Areas there are substantial localities which no longer have a high level of unemployment. As we believe fundamentally—this is one of the main principles of the Bill—in concentrating help where it is most needed, we intend to do that. Concentrating help where it is most needed involves no longer continuing to treat as open for special assistance localities which do not measure up to that criterion. Therefore, in determining the actual areas that will qualify under the Bill, we cannot be guided by existing lines on the map—as, indeed, the Select Committee wisely pointed out—but we shall be guided precisely by the criterion, and only by the criterion, contained in Clause 1 of the Bill.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, say whether the Government have any idea what they intend to do and, if they have such an idea, at what stage the right hon. Gentleman intends to inform the House about it; or is he waiting until the Bill has been passed and when all his powers will be, as it were, in abeyance and then will he begin to consider how he will apply these new principles and to what areas? This is what people are anxious to know. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us?
  Mr. Maudling: We intend, first, to obtain the powers and then to use them. That is the sequence of events that we have in mind.
  Mr. William Baxter: I understand that the President of the Board of Trade has a formula for designating Development Areas and I presume that it is based on the unemployment figures of particular areas. How does he take into consideration
  1236
  towns like Kilsyth, where there is no industry whatever in the town and all the male and female inhabitants have to go either to Glasgow or to Falkirk for work? It is by virtue of the people travelling away to work that the proportion of unemployment in the town is not high. This, however, necessitates a great deal of public expenditure in the provision of transport for these people and a greater degree of expenditure from their own pockets to go to Glasgow or elsewhere. Bearing in mind the simple fact that most of the people go to industrial estates that were established for the purpose of utilising the unemployed in a certain area, the complaint is that from a town such as Kilsyth the whole population goes either to the industrial estate at Glasgow or to Falkirk to work. Will a town like Kilsyth, whose percentage of unemployment is not shown to be high, come within the ambit of the Bill?
  Mr. Maudling: The answer is quite clear. Localities will come within the ambit of the Bill only if, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a high rate of unemployment exists or is imminent and is likely to persist, whether seasonally or generally. That is the definition in the Bill. There may be further Amendments later concerning the definition, but that is the definition to which we work.
  The question raised by the Amendment is whether we should work by carrying over into the Bill the Development Areas exactly as they now exist. As I have tried to explain, we cannot accept that. We believe it to be wrong, because certain areas are now Development Areas, to treat them automatically and permanently as Development Areas. We believe that the right and only criterion is the criterion contained in the Bill. We believe this to be in the national interest and we are convinced that it is best in the interests of the areas of special difficulty. For this reason, I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Jay: I must comment on what the President has said. The more I hear from the right hon. Gentleman in our discussions on this Bill the more profoundly sceptical I become about his intention to carry out its provisions and, in addition, the more profoundly sceptical I become about the Bill itself. It is already absolutely clear that this Bill

  1237
  is less wide and is a weaker Measure than the 1945 Act which we propose to replace.
  The President started with two entirely false arguments. First, he trotted cut again the argument that help must not be spread too wide. We entirely repudiate that argument. The help is not limited by anything except Government decision and it should be limited only by need. The right hon. Gentleman is, if I may say so, a good enough economist to know that it is not good economic policy to leave any of the productive resources of the country unemployed. Therefore, wherever there is unemployed or available labour it ought to be his policy to see that it is fully employed.
  Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman advancing as an economic argument that one should provide 100 per cent. employment for every person wherever he happens to be living, irrespective of the cost to the country? That is what he has said, and if he does not mean it, perhaps he will make himself clear.
  Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentleman has not yet understood that this is an economic and not a social argument, he has not begun to understand the subject. Of course it is the business of a Government in their employment policy to see that everyone who can usefully work is usefully employed. That is the only way in which we can get maximum production in the country, and that is just as true in peace-time as in war-time. That is the basis of the whole subject which we are discussing.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman made a false point about it not being possible to persuade an industrialist to go to one place if he finds somewhere more convenient within a Development Area. The fact that a wide area is scheduled as a Development Area does not mean that the Board of Trade is bound to provide a factory in any spot in that area or, indeed, that it is bound to give an I.D.C. I will mention a case in point. I remember that in 1945 a famous clothing firm wished to go to Darlington and the Board of Trade wished it to go to south-west Durham. It was open to the Board of Trade to build a factory at south-west Durham but not at Darlington. Of course that
  1238
  choice is retained by the Government however widely an area is drawn, and if the right hon. Gentleman has not understood that, he does not understand this part of the argument either.
  I would not argue that, as a matter of policy, it would be right to preserve exactly the existing boundaries of the Development Areas without any change one way or the other. I believe that the President should have done what a Labour Government would have done, and come forward with a new list of Development Areas which in some respects would have been wider and in others less wide than the present one. If a good case could have been made out on both counts, I think that the House of Commons could reasonably have been asked to accept it. That would not have meant preserving the present rigid boundaries, but that is not what the President has done. He has produced no list at all to the Committee.
  We know that the right hon. Gentleman has a list because he said so during the Second Reading debate, but he has refused to tell us what it is, or even to tell us when he will tell us what it is. We do not even know whether we shall be provided with the list at some time during the Committee stage, the Report stage or the Third Reading of this Bill—or at all. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman puts us in a perfectly impossible position.
  We are asked to accept some list which we have not seen. We do not know whether any single part of the existing Development Areas will be in it or not. In that case, in order to try to make our point, we are bound to press Amendments of this kind to preserve the existing areas. That is the only alternative which the right hon. Gentleman leaves open to us. I protest again against this intolerable procedure of discussing the whole of this Bill without hon. Members on this side of the Committee being told how it is to be applied.
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will realise the implication of what the President has already told us. During the Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman said that the existing boundaries of the Development Areas alone represented about 20 per cent. of the country.

  1239
  He then told us that if we take away that part of the Development Areas which have been, in his language, "administratively descheduled" and add the D.A.T.A.C. areas, that comes to 14 per cent. of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said "country", presumably he meant "population". Therefore, it follows physically that, if we take the Development Areas as they are now and add the D.A.T.A.C. areas, the total percentage is something over 20 per cent. We do not know what is the figure. Having mentioned a figure of 14 per cent., the right hon. Gentleman went on:
  "That, I should have thought, was a reasonable figure and I should be very surprised if our initial list"—
  that is the one he is going to publish some day, we do not know when—
  "departed far in global terms from the existing figure of the total of areas being practically assisted at present, either as Development Areas, D.A.T.A.C. areas or both."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 46.]
  That is the 14 per cent. So we know that his new list will cover 14 per cent. of the population of the country. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny this, and the fact that he does not deny it shows that he already knows what is the list.
  It follows—I hope that hon. Members who represent these areas in all parts of the country understand this—that we are going to cut down, on the President's own showing, from a list which is now something over 20 per cent.—at the very least 25 per cent.—to 14 per cent., so that what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is cutting the present areas very nearly in half.
  I hope the Committee understands where we are getting to. We are not to be told what the list is, although the right hon. Gentleman has got it. We do not know what it will cover in any single respect. All we know is that by this Bill not merely are the powers to be weaker—as we discovered yesterday—but the areas eligible for help, compared with the present position, will be cut approximately by half. Since we are put in the position of not being able to discuss an individual area, we are bound to press this Amendment in order to protest against this procedure and against the cut which, clearly, is to be made in the areas eligible for help.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 262.

  Division No. 9.]

  AYES

  [6.13 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Deer, George

  Hunter, A. E.

  Ainsley, William

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Albu, Austen

  Dempsey, James

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dodds, Norman

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Awbery, Stan

  Driberg, Tom

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  Janner, Barnett

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Beaney, Alan

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jeger, George

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Evans, Albert

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Benn, Hn. A.Wedgwood(Brist'l,S.E.)

  Finch, Harold

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

  Benson, Sir George

  Fitch, Alan

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Bevan, Rt. Hn. Aneurin (Ebbw V.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Blackburn, F.

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Blyton, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  King, Dr. Horace

  Bowles, Frank

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Lawson, George

  Boyden, James

  Ginsburg, David

  Ledger, Roy

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Grey, Charles

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Logan, David

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hales, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Chapman, Donald

  Hannan, William

  McCann, John

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  McInnes, James

  Collick, Percy

  Hayman, F. H.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Healey, Denis

  Mackie, John

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  McLeavy, Frank

  Cronin, John

  Hill, J. (Midlothan)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Holman, Percy

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Mahon, Simon

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mapp, Charles

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Marsh, Richard

  Rankin, John

  Symonds, Joseph

  Mason, Roy

  Reid, William

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Rhodes, H.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Millan, Bruce

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Timmons, John

  Moody, A. S.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Morris, John

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Moyle, Arthur

  Ross, William

  Warbey, William

  Neal, Harold

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Weitzman, David

  Oliver, G. H.

  Short, Edward

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Oram, A. E.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Skeffington, Arthur

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Owen, Will

  Small, William

  Whitlock, William

  Padley, W. E.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Snow, Julian

  Willey, Frederick

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Peart, Frederick

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Pentland, Norman

  Stones, William

  Winterbottom, R, E.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Woof, Robert

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

  Zilliacus, K.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Probert, Arthur

  Swingler, Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Sylvester, George

  Mr. Darling and Mr. Redhead.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  du Cann, Edward

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Holland, Philip

  Allason, James

  Duthie, Sir William

  Hollingworth, John

  Arbuthnot, John

  Eden, John

  Holt, Arthur

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Elliott, R. W.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hornby, R. P.

  Barber, Anthony

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Barter, John

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Batsford, Brian

  Farr, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Finlay, Graeme

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Jackson, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  James, David

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Fraser,Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Gammans, Lady

  JohnsonSmith,G.(Holb.&S.P'ncrs'S)

  Bossom, Clive

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Box, Donald

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kerans, Cdr, J. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Braine, Bernard

  Godber, J. B.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Browis, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Leavey, J. A.

  Bullard, Denys

  Gower, Raymond

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

  Burden, F. A.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Green, Alan

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Grimond, J.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gurden, Harold

  Longbottom, Charles

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Cole, Norman

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Collard, Richard

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maclean,Sir Fittroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Costain, A. P.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

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

  Coulson, J. M.

  Hay, John

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel

  McMaster, Stanley

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Critchley, Julian

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col- O. E.

  Hendry, A. Forbes

  Maddan, Martin

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Marshall, Douglas

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Marten, Neil

  Doughty, Charles

  Hobson, John

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  1242

  1243

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees, Hugh

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mills, Stratton

  Renton, David

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Turner, Colin

  Morrison, John

  Robertson, Sir David

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Roots, William

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Noble, Michael

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Nugent, Richard

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Seymour, Leslie

  Wade, Donald

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

  Sharples, Richard

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Shepherd, William

  Wall, Patrick

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Page, Graham

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Watts, James

  Partridge, E.

  Smithers, Peter

  Webster, David

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Peel, John

  Speir, Rupert

  Whitelaw, William

  Percival, Ian

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Peyton, John

  Stodart, J. A.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Storey, S.

  Wise, Alfred

  Pilkington, Capt. Richard

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pitman, I. J.

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Talbot, John E.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Pott, Percivall

  Tapsell, Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Woollam, John

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Worsley Marcus

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Teeling, William

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Profumo, John

  Temple, John M.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ramsden, James

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Mr. Brooman-White and Mr. Bryan.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "is imminent" and to insert:
  "may be expected (whether because of difficulties in any industry or of local circumstances or otherwise)".
  We on this side of the Committee are entitled to complain that there is precious little consistency in the Government's explanations of what they mean in the Bill. I will not dwell on the point, but we have seen the title "Distribution of Industry" changed to "Local Employment". We have heard statements from the right hon. Gentleman that the change represented the Government's intentions. He told us yesterday that:
  "… the word 'locality' covers both a small town and also an area as big as an existing Development Area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 1129.]
  We have had so many conflicting statements on that point. In respect of the word "imminent" we are confronted with widely different interpretations of what is implied. The Minister in his Second Reading speech—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I apologise to the hon. Member. I should have made it clear that the next two Amendments, in page 1, line 15, after "imminent" to insert:
  "or is anticipated as a consequence of technical developments, changes in the pattern of
  1244
  overseas trade, or an increase in the numbers of school leavers which is liable to result in a high rate of juvenile unemployment",
  and in line 16, to leave out "whether seasonally or generally", will be taken with this Amendment.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order, Sir William. I understand that you merely propose that these Amendments should be taken together and that we are not bound to follow that course. You suggest it for the convenience of the Committee, and if the Committee is not in agreement we are able to take them separately.
  There is a substantial difference between the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and the two Amendments preceding it. The two preceding Amendments are connected with technical developments in industry. They are not strictly geographical and may not be anything to do with the time of year. Our Amendment is geographical, is connected with the time of year and has nothing to do with technical developments in industry. I suggest that the first two Amendments should be taken together and that our Amendment should be called separately.
  The Deputy-Chairman: These Amendments were carefully considered. I am

  1245
  not sure if the noble Lord's Amendment would have been selected by itself on grounds of importance. It was thought, for that reason, that it would be for his convenience and for the convenience of the Committee to take it with the other two Amendments. I think that we should abide by that decision.
  Mr. Lee: It would appear now that the noble Lord is at my charity and, if he will consent to be quiet for a little while, I will condescend to allow his Amendment to be discussed with mine.
  I was complaining about the widely different interpretations we have had of so many points in the Bill, and especially of the word "imminent". My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) pointed out yesterday that on Second Reading the Minister said:
  "The conception behind that is this; it will be impossible to act wherever there is a distant or vague threat of unemployment, or competition with a particular industry. We regard the word 'imminent' as meaning that there is a discernible fact"—
  I impress upon the Committee the words "discernible fact"—
  "for example, the closure of a pit, which is bound to mean the removal of a number of opportunities for employment. Where there is a factor of that kind which can be ascertained, one can say that there is an imminent threat of unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 36.]
  Yesterday, in a reference to the same point the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Certainly, 'imminent', to us, does not mean a very few days, or simply one or two days. It may mean a considerable period. That, however, I will leave until we reach the appropriate Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 1128.]
  Those two statements are completely contradictory. On 9th November the right hon. Gentleman said that a thing, to be imminent, must be ascertainable at a given moment, whereas yesterday he said that "imminent" of itself denotes a certain time lag or that the Government could apply "imminent" in that way.
  "Imminent" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as meaning:
  "Impending threateningly; hanging over one's head; ready to overtake one; coming on shortly."
  6.30 p.m.
  To take the dictionary interpretation as distinct from that which the right hon.
  1246
  Gentleman gave us yesterday, "imminent" to us is a very threatening concept indeed. We therefore move the Amendment, believing that so long as the word "imminent" remains we cannot possibly get the kind of consideration which we want when unemployment may be threatening. The words we suggest would meet almost precisly the interpretation of "imminent" which the right hon. Gentleman gave us yesterday.
  I ask the Minister to look at the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. Section 7 (2) says:
  "Where at any time it appears to the Board that … there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment."
  That is a far wider set of words than "imminent" can possibly be. The Government have given us to understand that their intention is to widen the provisions of distribution of industry policy, but they are narrowing it down in a way which, to us, is most ominous.
  I will give some practical examples of what is happening. We know from publications we had yesterday that production in Britain during the last twelve months has increased by 9 per cent., a percentage unknown in previous years and which may well denote a forward surge following the credit squeeze. At the same time as we see that kind of increase in production, we see also a substantial increase in unemployment. When we see what may well prove to be purely techological unemployment coming, one cannot possibly know at any given point that unemployment itself may be imminent. "Imminent", in the sense in which that is used, is generally denoted by a slackening of production and by slackness either in areas or in a certain factory. When one sees it coming one can fairly well guess that in the end it will result in increases in unemployment.
  We are now in a phase when unemployment may well come even while there is no obvious imminence of the danger of it arriving. When there is not slackness in the economy and when production is rising one would not consider unemployment to be imminent. We know now that we are moving into a phase when unemployment may come far more as a consequence of modernisation than merely because order books may be running down in a particular firm.

  1247
  I ask the Government to look again at the problem. I remember mentioning on Second Reading that in many takeover bids large firms are buying up smaller firms which may be very important employers in small areas. How does anyone know when a takeover bidder is doing it in order to close down the firm which he intends to acquire? One cannot look at the order book of the firm and predict that unemployment is imminent in the area.
  These are very vital issues. It is not possible for the people who will have to work the Bill when it becomes an Act to take into consideration this type of danger if we confine ourselves to the words now in the Bill and which we suggest to the Government should be omitted. In other words, these problems cannot be regarded as discernible facts. We must give ourselves far more scope and we must include either the words in the Amendment or words which broadly express the same point. The words in the Amendment are
  "because of difficulties in any industry or of local circumstances or otherwise".
  Surely these are the factors which the Minister himself has said that he desires to take into consideration. I put it to the Minister of State that, with all the good will in the world, if he confines himself to considering matters which are imminent he cannot take into account the kind of considerations which we are advancing.
  I do not know whether he accepts the definition of "imminent" which I quoted from the Oxford Dictionary, but the implication is certainly of a threat hanging over a factory or an industry at a given time. We take a most serious view of this Amendment, because we feel that to retain the present wording flies in the face of all that the Minister said on Second Reading and in reply to a previous Amendment, when he said that this is the kind of spirit in which he wishes to act.
  Does the Minister agree that the words which I quoted from Section 7 (2) of the 1945 Act are far wider than the words to which we take exception in the Bill? I should like a specific answer on that point. If he agrees, as I am certain he will have to agree, that the wording of the 1945 Act is far wider,
  1248
  then he should accept the Amendment. Will he not agree that the wording of the 1945 Act which I quoted is far wider than the implication contained in the interpretation by the Oxford Dictionary of the word "imminent"—of an overhanging threat at a certain time?
  We wish to make the legislation worth while, in order that it may give us a chance to remove from those people whose jobs are threatened the fear which they may have of periods of unemployment.
  The modernisation of industry will go on at ever-increasing pace. Because of this modernisation, the old criterion—that unemployment is imminent—is no longer suitable in many of these industries. Let us, therefore, modernise the legislation when we are introducing it. Let us not legislate for the past.
  I hope that the Government will take the Amendment seriously, for we feel this to be a vital issue upon which the whole manner in which the legislation will be worked may hinge. I hope that our appeal will not be in vain and that the Minister will contrast the wording of the 1945 Act with the wording of the Bill and will agree that the wording of the Act was far easier for a Government to work. If the Government tie themselves by the use of the word "imminent", they will not be able to apply the humanitarian approach to these problems which the President has intimated that it is his desire to apply.
  Mr. Paul Williams: I wish to refer to the Amendment in line 16, to leave out "whether seasonally or generally", in the name of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and myself. I thank the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) for the courtesy of lending us part of his bandwagon for this part of the debate. The Amendment which I wish to propose—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): I remind the hon. Member of the Ruling given from the Chair. He is not being asked to move an Amendment. His Amendment is being discussed with an Amendment which has already been moved.
  Mr. Williams: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Hoy.

  1249
  It seems that one thing, at any rate, is agreed about the Bill—that its aim is to provide as high a level of employment as possible throughout the land. But the amount of industrial expansion which can take place and is likely to take place is obviously limited, and therefore in trying to influence industries to expand into areas where unemployment is high we must surely aim at providing that enticement in respect of those areas where unemployment is persistent, high and might well be permanent. Any reference to seasonal unemployment puts the Bill in jeopardy. It seems from a number of speeches on earlier Amendments that one fear is that the help which can be given to areas of relatively high unemployment may be spread too thinly. If this is true, then surely to make special provision for areas where there is seasonal unemployment may well be to stretch the resources still further, so that the areas in dire need of help will not receive all the help that they should.
  I cannot understand why it is necessary to write into the Bill the words "whether seasonally or generally". If the Government had wished to deal with the problem of seasonal unemployment, after the passage of the Bill they could have done so in any case. I cannot envisage the kind of industry or undertaking which the Government have in mind for areas in which there is seasonal unemployment. What kind of industry can operate on a seasonal basis? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hotels."] It is exactly those areas where there is a large hotel industry Which are already affected by seasonal unemployment, and to provide more hotels will not ease the problem in those areas.
  There is no indication of the limit of expenditure in the Bill, and if we are to give the Government a blank cheque in terms of expenditure in influencing industry, surely we should aim at ensuring that we help those areas whore there is persistent and high unemployment. This is basically the reason why I have tabled the Amendment. I fear that the help which we are offering may not be used with the efficiency which we should wish. I hope that the Government will be able to explain why they feel it necessary to make reference to seasonal unemployment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: One reason for this and several other Amendments is the deliberate vagueness of the Government in defining such things as "discernible facts," on the ground of flexibility. When the Government talk about flexibility our suspicions, always fairly high, are even higher. I ask the Minister of State to consider the specific case to which the President called attention on Second Reading—that of mining areas where pits are closing. These are clearly discernible facts, to use the President's own words.
  In central West Fife we have in the Cowdenbeath Employment Exchange area an unemployment rate of 6·1 per cent. We know the National Coal Board's plans for that area for a number of years. I have information up to 1975. The Coal Board's plans produced two or three years ago—and these are now out-of-date for the worse; they will not improve on the figures given some years ago—showed that within a reasonable time 14 out of 15 pits will close.
  In addition to this prospect and a rate of unemployment of 6·1 per cent., a quarter of the insured population have been moving out of the area to get work. If they had stayed in the area and if the married women had registered for emmployment—they do not do so because they know that they cannot get jobs—the unemployment figures would be very much higher.
  These are disquieting facts. The increase in unemployment is clearly imminent. On Second Reading the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "We regard the word 'imminent' as meaning that there is a discernible fact, for example, the closure of a pit, which is bound to mean the removal of a number of opportunities for employment. Where there is a factor of that kind which can be ascertained, one can say that there is an imminent threat of unemployment."
  These are the words which I want to stress:
  "If it is likely to be persistent, under the Bill we shall have power to act in anticipation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 36.]
  Who decides whether it will be persistent? Will the decision be taken before unemployment occurs? It must be so taken if the Government are to act in

  1251
  anticipation. If they are to act before it happens they must take preventive measures, and that is what we are asking for in central West Fife. In correspondence with me the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that we need new industry now in central West Fife. In addition, we have the clearly discernible fact of the closure of six of these pits, now known, and eventually of 14 out of the 15. Surely that calls for this area being designated as one of the localities under the terms of the Bill. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that where there are these discernible facts, especially in mining areas, action will be taken before and not after the event?
  Mr. Percy Browne: I wish to say a very few words, if I am in order, on what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) said about seasonal unemployment. I cannot let that pass. It is not an answer to produce extra hotels, as hon. Members opposite suggested, because that only adds to the population at a time of the year when there is more employment than at other times.
  Mr. Julian Snow: It was not hon. Members on this side of the Committee who suggested more hotels. That was suggested by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams).
  Mr. Browne: I apologise if I am wrong. The ideal solution no doubt, would be employment for the winter months only.
  That is an impossibility, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that in Bideford, although we get down to a figure of 2 per cent. of unemployment in summer we go up to 4 per cent. in winter—and we are now already at that figure—and of that 2 per cent. hard core over half are men over 40 looking for employment. I therefore welcome those words in brackets at the end of subsection (2)—
  Mr. P. Williams: I had not meant to mention a constituency point, but my hon. Friend's interjection forces me to do so. He talks of 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. unemployment, but my argument is that it would be better to give help and treatment to areas such as Sunderland, where the unemployment
  1252
  rate is 5·4 per cent., and is high and persistent.
  Mr. Browne: I get my hon. Friend's point, but I still think that it would be wrong to leave out the areas of seasonal unemployment; or to say that there would be less help for them if they were included.
  The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) is playing with words when he says that "imminent" means such-and-such a thing and that "general" means something else. If we mean what we say—as I am sure that we do on this side, at any rate—I am quite certain that the discernible fact, when it becomes apparent, will be considered to be imminent.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: Some parts of my constituency regard unemployment as imminent whenever a Tory Government are in power because they have had plenty of experience of Tory Governments. They had an example of Tory planning just before the recent General Election. I will not ascribe wrong motives to that planning, but anybody who witnessed what went on in our part of the world in the twelve months prior to the General Election would have no doubt that the timing was for the election.
  That planning resulted in 21 mills closing down in the area covered by the employment exchange in my division, and the money that was paid out went into the pockets of shareholders to the tune of £50 million to £60 million, so the Prime Minister said in Oldham, without any sort of guarantee that it would be applied to the furtherance of employment in that locality.
  I agreed entirely with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) when he said that we should be very critical about paying out money to private enterprise without guarantees, but, let us face it, that is the sort of planning to which we have grown accustomed. It has not been a bit of good in this case, because the effect of the plan took place in a time of boom and now nobody wants to close down. We are now having to tell those who contracted some months ago to close down that they must shut by next March, and they do not want to shut. This is madhouse economy.

  1253
  While we are talking about imminent unemployment, I want to ask the Minister of State what sort of organisation, what sort of planning he has in mind to cope with it. It is no use waiting until unemployment appears on the horizon, or just near—or whatever meaning we put on the word "imminent"—and then saying, "Oh, yes we must act"—and act quickly only if there is a General Election coming along in a few months' time. On such occasions judgments are wrong.
  I want the Government to think this one out. Many of our industries had their origin in inventions when we were in the forefront of the Industrial Revolution Either as a result of cheap labour, or for some other reason—and I will not labour the point, because it is not my main one—an industry declines or a new technique arrives.
  An example of that is the extruding of yarns in the rayon industry as distinct from the spinning of them in the cotton industry. The thinking out of the implications of what is now taking place across the Channel is part and parcel of this question of imminent unemployment, because I am convinced that during the next few years several of our old techniques will be replaced by new ones.
  What do we know about these developments? There is not a single research department in industry that has a list of productivity performances of comparable or better machines being made elsewhere in the world, but I suggest that that should be an important part of our organisation against imminent unemployment. We need to know what technical alterations are likely to emerge in any part of the world.
  I am convinced that new techniques will come out of the Common Market, and be in operation far more quickly, than those coming from the Outer Seven. We may have a good deal of first-class technical equipment coming from Switzerland, but I am quite certain that in the next year or two, judging by the way the rest of the Continental countries are parcelling out their jobs, the general machine makers will quickly produce what is needed in countries such as our own. That is a very important point.
  7.0 p.m.
  Another aspect is take-overs and concentration. In my constituency we
  1254
  have a large engineering works. It became part of a larger organisation and, eventually, part of a larger organisation still. As in so many other industries, geographically remote control was meritable. A street of deserted buildings has appeared. It is supposed to be concentrated—but employment is reduced. There is no thinking out of the effects of a decision of that sort, taken in an office in London. Where people's livelihoods are dependent on what there is in an area now, there should be economic surveys of the areas, co-ordinated by the Government, so that we know in advance the kind of conditions to expect.
  I sincerely ask the Government to think about this problem while there is time. What I am saying now will, I think, be obvious in another year or two. In business we are seeing these things clearly emerge. We want these things from abroad. We have tariffs, but we have made no arrangements with the Common Market. Switzerland reduces its tariff by 20 per cent. in June. There is no plan as to the expectancy of employment in many of our areas. Twenty-one mills have closed down in my constituency because the Government have offered money for the owners to close them. That is not planning; it is not good economics. The whole thing wants recasting, and I ask the Government to think again.
  Mr. John Eden: I reinforce the plea of hon. Members who have asked my right hon. Friend, when replying to this short debate, to give some indication of how he proposes to exercise these powers in an area, where it is considered that unemployment is imminent, which has seasonal changes in the rate of employment and unemployment.
  I sincerely hope that my own constituency will not be affected by a high rate of unemployment during what is commonly known in holiday towns as the off-season. Bournemouth is more fortunate than most in being a year-round resort, but obviously a number of small hotels and guest houses have to close during the winter months. That is well-known to the people who seek jobs in those hotels and guest houses.

  1255
  If winter seasonal unemployment is to be great, I do not quite follow how it is proposed to put that right. Is the whole balance of these seasonal towns to be upset by bringing in a major engineering works to absorb the labour? That does not seem to be logical, because the type of labour unemployed would not be the type of labour that would find an outlet for its talents in the engineering industry. Equally, if we establish a great engineering works in an area of this kind, it is quite possible that it will have an adverse effect on the employment position in the on-season in the following year or in years to come.
  I do not see how the powers to be conferred on the Minister under the Bill can be exercised in such a way as to solve the problem which seasonal unemployment conjures up. I should be grateful if the Minister would give a little more information about this, because we must not upset the balance of a community. In Bournemouth, it could reach the possibility of destroying much of the holiday atmosphere if my hon. Friend came along with great powers of compulsory purchase and seized large areas of land to build great works. It may be desirable to do that, but if it is desirable, why cannot it be done by industry itself? Why must it be left to my hon. Friend?
  I feel that we should take cognisance of the nature of an area and the locality which my hon. Friend is trying to help, and that where there is a seasonal element we should not seek to put it right by bringing in a permanent industry, which would further aggravate the situation caused by the fluctuation in seasonal employment.
  Mr. Donald Wade: I have not risen to reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), but I would make these comments on his remarks. Seasonal unemployment may be persistent in that it occurs year after year and for a considerable part of the year and it may have a very depressing effect on an area, as it does in some areas that are known to hon. Members. I think it would be unfortunate to exclude seasonal unemployment altogether merely because it is seasonal.
  I should like to refer to the Amendment that has been moved by my hon.
  1256
  Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and also to the next Amendment on the Notice Paper which appears in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, and which, I understand, is being discussed with it. These Amendments raise more important issues than the definition of the word "imminent", although I should like to say a few words on the subject of definition. Without attempting to make a Second Reading speech, which would obviously be out of order, I would say that the aim and purpose of the Bill are not to impede changes in the pattern of industry or to prevent the development of new industries or even to try to stop the decline of an industry where that is inevitable. Its aim and purpose are to minimise hardship and try to spread employment as widely as possible. After all, we are concerned with the welfare of individuals and not merely with percentages and numbers. In other words, this is a social and not merely an economic problem. We must consider it from that angle.
  Yesterday we debated the subject of diversification, and again I would say that is a social as well as an economic problem. Similarly where depopulation occurs this may be, and in a number of cases it is, undesirable for social reasons, and I think it is right that we should try to check this depopulation by attempting to bring employment to those areas where depopulation is serious. Again there is a social reason, and it is not limited only to existing unemployment.
  That brings us to a consideration of the word "imminent". Once one accepts the view that I have put forward, in passing any legislation one must try to ensure that any action that is taken will be taken in time. I have studied the Oxford Dictionary and I came across the phrase, "impending threateningly". I noticed also the words "ready to befall" and "close at hand". I had a look at other dictionaries, which I will not quote with the same degree of authority, and I read in one of them the definition "about to occur immediately".
  It seems to me that the present wording of this Clause is rather too restrictive in meaning. I do not intend to argue whether we should delete "imminent" or retain it and add other words. I do not think that is vital, so long as the other words are added. In the Amendment in

  1257
  line 15, in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, we have retained the word "imminent" but we have added other words beginning with "or is anticipated …" I certainly think it is necessary to give more indication than is already in the Bill of the circumstances in which the Board may act, and I do not think they are sufficiently clearly covered or defined in subsections (3) and (4). The key word in the Liberal Amendment is "anticipated". Again I shall not quarrel whether we should say "expected" or "anticipated".
  Mr. F. Lee: Does not the retention of the word "imminent" rather restrict one's ability to anticipate?
  Mr. Wade: If the Minister will suggest wording that will cover the point I shall not quarrel. I am quite content to see "imminent" taken out. The interpretation of that word is really the major issue.
  Unemployment may arise as a result of some national policy, for example, in the development of overseas trade. I am in favour of removing restrictions on international trade, but it is only right to consider the consequences on certain industries. Sometimes it is reasonably clear and it is possible to foresee, with some degree of accuracy the effect that the removal of barriers to trade will have on certain industries and in certain areas. For example, if Britain had gone into the Common Market, there is no doubt that that would have benefited some trades and not others. On balance, I have no doubt that Britain would have gained; but certain industries would have suffered.
  Personally, I think it is unfortunate that the present situation has arisen with the risk of Europe being divided. I am not at all happy about the present state of affairs. It may well be that this country has "missed the bus" and we may find that the United States will enter into some bargain with the Common Market countries which will be to our disadvantage. We may find this country left out in the cold. But whether we proceed by close association with the Outer Seven or by some close association or entry into the Common Market, I think it will be possible to forecast with some degree of accuracy the effect that this would have
  1258
  on particular industries and in certain areas. In some cases its effect may take several years, but surely plans could be put in hand in good time, and that is the point of these Amendments. There should be power to act in time and to plan ahead. I am a little doubtful whether any planning ahead can be done if we retain the word "imminent".
  7.15 p.m.
  I should like to give one further example. It arises where the facts are ascertainable, or, at any rate, can be estimated. I am thinking of juvenile unemployment. We know the extent of the bulge. We know roughly how many school leavers there will be in any particular year. I hope the Minister will not dismiss this proposal on the ground that we have a Bill dealing with geographical areas and not with particular age groups. This problem of juvenile unemployment is serious and there are certain areas where it will be particularly serious. We know that there are already some parts of the countryside where there is a considerable flowing away of young people, and this raises a very serious social problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) mentioned it recently in his maiden speech. This in turn affects the attitude of youth to society.
  I remember very well as a student sitting down seriously and solemnly with my fellow students to consider whether anyone over the age of 30 could be of any real use in public life. We came to the conclusion that after the age of 30 we should be so encrusted with the customs and habits of society that we would be quite insensitive to the real needs of the time. We felt sure that if there was to be any moral or social—not to mention economic and political—revolution we must act before reaching the age of 30; otherwise it would be too late.
  I believe that is a healthy and natural attitude on the part of youth, but when the first experience of life after leaving school is a long period of unemployment that attitude becomes very unhealthy indeed. I am raising this matter in the hope that the Minister will take this fact into account, for example in considering the opportunity for apprenticeships. This problem of juvenile unemployment must be taken into account

  1259
  by the Minister in taking any powers which are given to him under the Bill.
  I would sum up in this way. I am in favour of discretionary powers rather than mandatory powers, but I should like to see them as flexible as possible and sufficiently wide. It, is essential that these powers should not be so limited or circumscribed that at some time in the future they may be an excuse for inactivity.
  Dame Irene Ward: I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that all the comments, Amendments and criticisms on this Clause have arisen because anyone who has had any experience of the kind of unemployment that certain areas suffered during the 1930s is extremely anxious that the Bill should be the best possible Bill that Parliament can devise to deal with the sort of problems that may arise in the future.
  If I may refer to the Amendment to line 16, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), on the question of seasonal unemployment, I have tried to give consideration to the point of view that he expressed, but I think that, on balance, I come down in favour of the retention of the words in the Clause. Most Members who have spoken on the question of seasonal unemployment seem to have concentrated on discussing the situation in areas which depend upon tourism and which have a very active and lively hotel industry. I am very interested in that, because I have a seaside resort in my constituency, but there are other people, such as fishermen, who are affected by seasonal unemployment. It is important that the Minister should have the power, and if he uses his power wisely it will be of benefit to retain that word in the Bill.
  One Amendment proposes to leave out the word "imminent". I am inclined to think that that word is too restrictive. In discussing matters of this kind it is very difficult to be certain about what is the best word to use. The word "imminent" is in the Clause associated with a high level of unemployment. I feel that if the word "imminent" is retained we may not be able to plan sufficiently far ahead to meet what one can see as a perhaps unfavourable development in certain parts of the country.
  1260
  If my right hon. Friend proposes to retain the word "imminent" in the Clause, how does he propose to deal with any recession in the shipbuilding industry? At present, I am glad to say, there is not a high level of unemployment in the shipbuilding industry, and unemployment is not imminent, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a better interpretation of the word "imminent". Those of us who are interested in shipbuilding and shipping and allied interests have to look very far ahead, because our proportion of world trade is declining. It is true that it may improve, and we hope that it will, but I find it a little difficult to know how we will provide for areas which are largely dependent on shipbuilding and shipping interests if that word "imminent" is retained in the Clause. I may be quite wrong, but I think it is important for my right hon. Friend to give a wider and real interpretation of the word.
  There is anxiety on the North-East Coast about coast-wise shipping in relation to the coal-carrying trade. If I understand the position aright, as a result of the modernisation of the railways it is becoming cheaper to carry coal by rail rather than by what used to be the normal practice in my part of the country of bringing coal by tramp steamer and coast-wise shipping. If it is true that in the general build-up for the future the railways will triumph over coast-wise shipping we must look ahead.
  I hope that coast-wise shipping will hold its own, because it is part of our life blood on the North-East Coast, but if the railways are going to triumph in the end it is important to know that the Clause might be invoked to help those who build ships for tramp shipping to build more modern vessels with Government assistance.
  I can see a whole vista of arguments that one could develop this evening both for and against the word "imminent". I am looking forward to what my right hon. Friend will say before making up my mind about which is the right way for me to vote. We are not looking at this from a party political point of view. We are all concerned with maintaining the highest level of employment that we can.
  My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke),

  1261
  who is associated with an Amendment to the Clause, refrained from pointing out that in the days when we suffered great unemployment on the North East Coast the part of the country which he represents did not find itself in that position. I think that one's point of view on the Bill depends on one's past experience. It is very important to bear that in mind. I listen with much more respect to people who understand the problem of unemployment than I do to people who are philosophising on the problem.
  There is one point that I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to clear up in connection with the Clause and the Amendments that we are discussing. I have been asked by my dry dock owners to ask my right hon. Friend whether he recollects that in 1958 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget statement, when referring to the 1958 Distribution of Industry Act, said that dry docks would be one of the projects that would come within the ambit of that Act. We on Tyneside are very grateful, because we got a new dry dock with the aid of the financial assistance that was provided for under that Act. Dry dock owners are anxious to know whether they will remain within the ambit of the Bill. I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that it is important to have all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. It is wonderful how Parliament, or Ministers from both sides of the House, sometimes try to escape from some of the things from which we think they ought not to try and escape. I would like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that dry docks will still be within the ambit of the Bill.
  I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) made an important point about juvenile employment. It is essential that juveniles should not be expected to go into dead-end jobs. I hope that there will be power under the Bill to look at the problem of school-leavers from the point of view of genuine employment, employment that will give them a livelihood stretching throughout their adult years. We must not just accept that so many school-leavers have found employment, because nobody knows whether the employment that they have found is dead-end or something that will provide them with a reasonable living in the future.
  1262
  If, in the future, we on the North-East Coast, or, indeed, in any other big industrial area, are faced with difficulties, will the President of the Board of Trade be able to help us in dealing with the problem of pollution of our great rivers?
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think that I have allowed the hon. Lady a fair amount of leniency. I do not see how that point fits into any of the Amendments that are being discussed.
  Dame Irene Ward: If I may say so, our discussion has ranged very widely, and the Minister is to reply. I shall not develop any arguments about antipollution, or anything like that, so I do not think you need have any anxiety on that score, Mr. Hoy.
  In making up one's mind about imminence or otherwise, it is important to know the kind of situation with which we shall have to deal in the future. Therefore, I wish to know just how far and how wide my right hon. Friend is prepared to go in this matter. I have given him several substantial questions to answer. I should like to have answers to them, because they are appropriate to the subject matter of the Bill.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. John McCann: Unlike the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), we on this side know what should be the wording in the Bill. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment to leave out the word "imminent". In my part of Lancashire, "imminent" means "will happen shortly". We are very much afraid that someone will wait until unemployment happens before he does anything at all about it.
  On Second Reading, the Minister himself used the word "imminent" as meaning that
  "there is a discernible fact".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 36.]
  We should like to know, first, when a fact becomes first discernible, and when a discernible fact becomes imminent. No matter what interpretation we put on these words, ultimately, when the Bill becomes law, decisions may be left to a local official whose definition of "imminent" implies two or three weeks.
  Mr. Ede: And will everyone agree that it is a fact?
  Mr. McCann: One of the difficulties, of course, is that people are inclined to say that, while there is life there is hope and, even though an industry may appear to be receding, there will always be the type of person who, like Micawber, will say, "Let us wait for something to turn up"; and so it will go on.
  I rose to speak primarily about juvenile unemployment. We know the number of school-leavers who will be coming into industry for many years to come. The peak in Rochdale will be reached in about 1962. Industry needs time to develop. There is no point in dealing with the situation when the children have already left school. It has been made quite clear that the Bill gives the Government no power of direction, they have to persuade industry by inducements to go into areas where unemployment is likely to be high. The President of the Board of Trade admitted that in certain areas it may be virtually impossible to have the type of employment which is suitable for the particular area. So we can assume that the Government cannot guarantee, within twelve, eighteen or twenty-four months, any work for the school-leavers.
  We have an example in Rochdale which will fortify my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) in his arguments about the textile industry. Because of the Government's actions, we have a discernible fact. We have had a situation where many looms and spindles were to be put out of commission and several mills were to close. But out of that fact came another one: although it was intended that mills were to close, there was no need, apparently, for those concerned to give notice.
  So the local people, who, ultimately, will have to find employment, have no idea which mills in their particular area are to close. In my own constituency, one company has announced only this week that a mill employing 300 people is to close, and it is hoped that those 300 people will be absorbed.
  Those are the reasons that we argue against the use of the word "imminent". We would far rather use the words "may be expected" so that, as a long-term
  1264
  plan, industry can be brought in and developed to enable it to work economically at the time when people need it.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I sustained a short and sharp attack from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) which, I think, must have been based on prejudice. I do not want her to believe that I stand on a bedrock of full employment in South Dorset and sneer across the country at her in Tynemouth, hoping that her unemployment will remain what it is. I am just as anxious as she is that the State should be very active in removing unemployment. I want the State to remove it by means of a derating mechanism, by means of increased subsidies to her local authority and others, and by means of other devices of that kind, rather than by giving grants to industrialists who come into her constituency and compete rather more successfully than the people who have been sweating it out with her for the last thirty years.
  The Liberal Amendment is an indication of what fatal openings are given to Parliament by the introduction of this Bill. Two of the subjects upon which the Liberal Party addressed us at the General Election are included in its Amendment now. If two are included, I cannot see why a much fuller range should not go alongside them. One might say, for example, that threatened fall-out from the hydrogen bomb was imminent and was a sufficient excuse to ask for Government money for the purposes of this Bill. One might say that private enterprise had failed and industrial copartnership was the only solution and, therefore, because that was not provided for in the Bill, it should not be passed. Anybody can suggest any kind of fear and try to provide against it in this portion of the Bill as a reason for asking for State assistance. It is quite ludicrous to think that we can go to the ends of the earth and explore all our political ideas and phobias in an effort to bring about some result within the terms of this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) in speaking to the Amendment in page 1, line 16, which is being discussed now, made a perfectly valid point. The President of the Board of Trade has told us that there will not be great liberality

  1265
  in this matter. He has told us that the Government will look at the matter with great circumspection, and there are not unlimited funds.
  It is surely valid to say that, if hon. Members opposite are so keen to maintain the nature of the special areas about which they were arguing on a previous Amendment, by introducing the seasonal factor one would whittle away the calls upon Government money in bringing the Bill into operation in a different part of the country a very long way from the places where hon. Members opposite have their special interests. Hon. Members opposite ought to consider carefully whether this word "seasonally" should be left out for that very reason. They may receive only one-half or three-quarters of what is now being received in the Development Areas if they agree to the widening of the terms of the Bill.
  It has been suggested that hotels in seaside resorts were somehow to have been included in the operation of the Bill. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) and one or two other hon. Members who have had that expectation are not in the Chamber at this moment. There are several hotels in my constituency. They do extremely well in the summer. During the election campaign, the hotel proprietors were, for the most part, quite justifiably taking a holiday after their long and strenuous work during the summer. Many of them had gone great distances, some of them, I am glad to say, even to the South of France to enjoy their holidays. There is no question at all but that the hotel keepers in the South of England do extremely well in the summer months, and they expect to have an off-season when they take their holidays, re-equip their establishments, and prepare for another season.
  Mr. McCann: What about the staff?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We are not talking about persons now. We are talking about trades. I wish we were talking about persons. We shall be talking about persons at a later stage, I have no doubt.
  Is it really suggested that the state of the hotel industry in this country is now so grave that hotel keepers can expect to be included within the pro-
  1266
  visions of the Bill? Are we really to use these words "whether seasonally or generally" to assist certain hotels in the centre of Britain and round our coasts? [Interruption.] I hope that we shall hear the argument deployed from the benches opposite. If we do not, there the matter will end.
  The moment one begins giving Government money to overcome the disabilities of the hotel proprietors during the winter months, when their trade is off, one opens up enormous new categories of people who could claim the same sort of thing. What about the mate of the "Nancy Belle" who takes his boat out during the summer on the briny ocean and makes a splendid profit out of it? He lays it up during the winter and, perhaps, he has to walk round without too much to do and without very much money coming in. His claim for attention is just as good as the claim of the hotel proprietor up the beach. There is an endless line of opportunities of that kind opened up.
  Mr. McCann: The noble Lord is missing the whole point. For every hotel proprietor, there may be 10 or 20 people who work in the hotel. They do not go to the South of France during the winter. They go to the local employment exchange. I remind the noble Lord that, when the new list of D.A.T.A.C. areas was instituted by his own Government, seaside towns had a high priority on that first list.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am glad that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) interrupted me, because that brings me sharply to the final point I wish to make on this Amendment.
  According to the hon. Gentleman, there are thousands of persons who, at the end of the summer months, register at the local employment exchange and are unemployed. We will leave aside for the purposes of the argument whether they are or are not in some job or other and working during the winter, although they remain on the register of unemployed. Let us say that they are on the register and they are unemployed. What is to happen to the town? Industry is to be brought in. Light industries are to be introduced to cater for the winter unemployment. Is that so?
  Mr. W. Hamilton: Betting shops.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Evidently, it is. What happens the following summer? As the summer season approaches, there is not enough labour to cater for the holidaymakers, so people have to be imported into the town from outside. The population goes up, perhaps by as much as 10,000 if the town is large enough and enough industries have been established there, for the purpose of the summer season. There these people are housed. They become settled in thir places, and they enjoy their summer season there. They are unwilling to move. The following autumn, they, too, go to the employment exchange, and again new industry, under the Bill, has to be attracted in order to cater for the unemployment which arises.
  The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) was absolutely right. This is a madhouse we are in under this Bill. The sooner the Government realise it and make the Amendments we ask for and, if possible, withdraw the first three or four Clauses of it, the sooner I shall be pleased.
  Mr. Ross: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said that we were in a madhouse. His speech went quite a long way to prove it. He said that we were not talking about people. He claimed that we were talking about industries. Has he looked at the three phrases which are linked together in this connection? The first is, "a high level of unemployment". With all respect to him, a high level of unemployment relates not to industries, but to people. It is the number of people who are registering at a local employment exchange. If the noble Lord could appreciate simply the basic facts behind the Bill, he might be able to make a much more sensible contribution to our discussion.
  Like many others who have spoken today, I am worried about the word "imminent". I do not think that it in any way measures up to what the Government themselves declare to be their aim in relation to the Bill. It has been widely said that one of the benefits of the Bill is that the Government will be able to act before unemployment develops. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) mentioned this, too. She saw before her a wide vista of arguments both for and against
  1268
  the word "imminent". It so happened, of course, that all her arguments were against it and she was not able to pick one in favour of it, for the obvious reason that there is none We cannot consider the word "imminent" in isolation. It is linked to the words "likely to persist".
  7.45 p.m.
  The essential part of the definition of "imminent" is the aspect of immediacy that it implies. In other words, although unemployment is expected or is anticipated, the Government cannot bring the provisions of the Clause into use unless the unemployment is imminent. Then, when they start thinking about imminence, they must say, "But that is not enough. Is it likely to persist?" By the time they have settled that, the unemployment will be already there. I sincerely ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider this. Whether he likes the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) or the Liberal Amendment, I hope that we have convinced him that the Clause is quite unsatisfactory and that some other phrase would be far better.
  The other thing that worries me about the question of imminence and the other things with which it is linked is that we know from experience what will happen and we know the things about which we have asked the Government to take action. We know that in Ayrshire, as a result of a decision of the National Coal Board, there is to be a loss of exports from the Port of Ayr to Ireland of 250,000 tons of coal annually. This means that next year, as compared with last year, there will be a fall of 25 per cent. in the coal shipments from the port. One would have thought that that might lead to unemployment or cause a loss of employment.
  We also know that in the coming year, three Ayrshire pits are to be closed—Auchincruive Nos. 1, 2 and 3—affecting about 750 men. First, the question arises of whether that is imminent. As it is not happening tomorrow, it is not imminent. When, however, we link it to the question whether it will cause unemployment that is likely to persist, what a muddle we get into. The Government have the perfect alibi for doing nothing.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland, aided by the Parliamentary Secretary to

  1269
  the Ministry of Power, said that there would be no unemployment from the closing of pits. There will be redundancy in the sense that it is accepted in any nationalised industry that the men will lose their jobs, but they will be found other jobs. That is what was said about the dock workers when we raised the question of the anticipated loss of coal exports, which will mean a loss of 500 trains a year through Ayr locomotive depot. Nobody will be unemployed, we are told. The people are to be found other work.
  To the school leavers in the area, however, it means that avenues of employment in the docks, in the mines and or the railways will be closed. This is where the anticipation of taking action will be destroyed if the President of the Board of Trade retains the existing interpretation of the Clause. Because there is no unemployment, there can be no loss of employment—at least to those at present doine the job; but those who expect to work at certain places when they leave school are bound to be affected by the change.
  I ask the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the matter. He can choose from the two Amendments. We can co-ordinate them and get a good one out of them. In that way, the right hon. Gentleman would get something far better than he has at present. How is he to judge the question of imminence and how will he do it when it is linked with "likely to persist"? We noticed how difficult it was throughout the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth. I would have considered it imminent that she was finishing. We soon found, however, that she was likely to persist.
  Can we be promised that the Government will take speedy and immediate action when they decide to close, say, an ordnance factory in Ayrshire, as they did a short time ago, throwing hundreds of people out of work? Do the Government mean that the imminence of such an action will be judged by the decision, or by the time when people are actually unemployed? The recent closure was spread over a long period. By the time the last man had gone out, many of the people had moved out of the area and come south, to England, or gone to Canada. We get this all the time in Scotland. Twenty thousand people leave
  1270
  Scotland every Tory year. That makes 100,000 in the last five years, including the families.
  What does the President of the Board of Trade mean by imminence? The Transport Commission has told us that in 1961 its Barassie workshop is to be closed. We know how many people are employed there. Will the Government make an effort through the Bill to find employment in Ayrshire to cover the number of jobs which will be lost, or will they argue in the same way as the Secretary of State for Scotland and say that everything will be taken care of by natural wastage and by the men finding jobs elsewhere? This will mean that another avenue of jobs is closed and there will be unemployment among our school leavers, for whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), on behalf of the Liberal Party, and other hon. Members have spoken.
  Let the President of the Board of Trade reconsider this whole string of limitations. They do not meet the cases of which I have spoken; indeed, they cause dismay and disappointment to all hon. Members who have spoken and who know anything about the problem of unemployment.
  Mr. Maudling: A number of points have been raised, and I should like to reply. I have already found in the course of the debate that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is both imminent and likely to persist, but I do not criticise him for that, because he has strong reasons for being both of those things.
  Many separate points have been raised in the discussion. I should like to clear up one point straight away and assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that dry docks are certainly included within "undertakings" within the terms and ambit of the Bill. I could not properly make a statement at this stage about the pollution of rivers, but I would hazard a guess that the clearance of derelict land might sometimes involve derelict rivers. That, however, is a guess and I must leave the matter to you, Sir Norman, or to your successor in the Chair. I cannot deal with it now.
  I agree that the question of the word "seasonal" is a difficult problem. The basis of the problem is that we feel we must look at an unemployment situation

  1271
  which is likely to be persistent. It would be wrong to deal with a purely transient situation when something happens which, one knows, will be cleared up within a short time. It must, therefore, be persistent unemployment. On the other hand, there are places where, throughout large parts of the year, there is a lot of unemployment and yet, at some parts of the year, there is fairly full employment. In that case, we cannot describe the unemployment as persistent. Therefore, we must make special provision for places where there is recurrent unemployment which does not persist throughout the entire year.
  That is the problem with which we are trying to deal. It is a difficult one to deal with. We want, if possible to find something which the Economist would call "contra-seasonal". I cannot think of any contra-seasonal industries. As a consumer, I remember that, many years ago, there was a firm which made ice cream in the summer and sausages in the winter. I suspect that with the present consumption of ice cream, that is not quite the same thing. Examples of that kind, however, are rare. We must face the fact, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) had in mind, that the industry which employs people in winter but not in summer is exceedingly hard to find. This does not mean that we should neglect the problems of these areas where employment fluctuates and where, for substantial periods of the year, unemployment may reach a high level.
  What we must consider is whether, at the trough of the unemployment figure, there is still a labour force available. I agree that if we bring in new industry, as a result of which we create a shortage of labour at the peak season, we will be creating new problems. There will, however, be a number of places where, despite the fluctuations, there is always a substantial body of people available for employment throughout the year. This applies particularly to male labour. My impression is that, particularly in the resort areas, it is the female employment which fluctuates.
  Suppose that, theoretically, one takes the figure of 4 per cent. as a high level of unemployment. If a locality swings
  1272
  between 7 per cent, at one time and 3 per cent. at another time of the year, we should treat the area, even though the percentage often falls below 4, as an area where there is a problem to be tackled. So long as a body of labour is available throughout the year to provide a permanent core of employment, one can tackle the problem and mitigate the difficulties of these areas. We can only mitigate them. By the very nature of the difficulty itself, we cannot completely abolish the seasonal difficulty.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The unemployment that my right hon Friend is tackling is the underlying unemployment and not the seasonal factor of the difference between 4 per cent. and 7 per cent. It is the permanent 4 per cent. running throughout.
  Mr. Maudling: That is true. Unless we can find industries that work in the winter and not in the summer the only thing we can do is to tackle the permanent underlying unemployment. Unless we have this provision in the Bill, however, we should not be able to tackle it. That is why we must retain this provision. Otherwise, we could not do anything for the areas where, for part of the year, there is a high level of unemployment and for other parts of the year there is less unemployment and not what can reasonably be described as a high level of unemployment.
  The Clause is a practical proposal for dealing with the problems of individual areas which have this seasonal swing. I accept at once that it is not practicable to try to solve these problems in their entirety because of the very seasonal nature of the employment in the area.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. P. Williams: Surely this is an academic argument. In view of the fact my right hon. Friend cannot name a single industry to meet his case, it is an academic argument.
  Mr. Maudling: I do not think so. I think if my hon. Friend would consider some of the cases where D.A.T.A.C. is applied he will find that in those coastal resorts or coastal towns where there is a fluctuation between, say, 3 per cent. and 7 per cent. we can introduce some industry which throughout the year will

  1273
  provide employment for part of the population, thereby reducing the peak figure and the trough figure.
  Mr. P. Williams: That is not seasonal. It is basic.
  Mr. Maudling: That is, perhaps, not dealing with the seasonal unemployment, but it is dealing with a problem which is of a seasonal character. Unless we have these words in the Bill we could not do it. I do not think there is really a difference in principle between my hon. Friends and myself in what we are trying to do. All I am saying is that we cannot try to do it unless we have these words in the Bill.
  To a certain extent it would be folly to introduce measures which deal with the problem of unemployment in the winter but which caused only a great shortgae of labour in the summer, because that would merely perpetuate the problem. Subject to that limitation, what we have to try to do is to get powers to deal with high underlying unemployment without the seasonal unemployment superimposed.
  The other problem is in the word "imminent". I accept that it is extremely difficult to think of the right word in these circumstances. I think myself, after a great deal of thought about this word "imminent", that it is the best one we can find. Our conception here goes this way—that it is not enough merely to deal with unemployment when it already exists at a high and persistent level. On the other hand, we should be completely defeating our own purpose if we tried to take measures to face any possible threat of unemployment however remote.
  Every industry in this country which has a large export content is constantly facing a risk in the changing markets of the world—as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) said, in some of the new trading circumstances we are facing in Europe. If one were to say that action should be taken in every possible threat of unemployment we should get real difficulty. We think this word "imminent" is best because it covers any threat, as I tried to explain on the Second Reading, where something definite has happened which inevitably would lead to unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Has happened?"] I
  1274
  will explain what I mean—where there is some factor like a pit closure or a closure of an ordnance factory which would lead to unemployment unless in the meantime some other circumstance supervenes.
  I will illustrate that with one or two examples. I remember that when the Hawker Aircraft Company closed a factory at Blackpool 2,900 workers left over 21 months; but the total unemployed reached a peak of only 265 above the level when the rundown started. The same thing happened at Saunders-Roe in the Isle of Wight when works were contracted due to cancellation of orders. One can often see occasions where the men concerned are reabsorbed very quickly, and where new industry in those circumstances might make a labour shortage and where, secondly, the money spent might be better spent on something else.
  Mr. Lee: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I was arguing this point, but I did try to argue that it does not matter what he thinks or what I think or what anybody thinks. What is important is what is written in the Bill and the way in which it is interpreted. I pointed out to him how the Oxford Dictionary defines the word "imminent". It reads:
  "impending, soon to happen, overhanging, ready to overtake one."
  Will he address himself to that interpretation?
  Mr. Maudling: I am not so familiar with the Oxford Dictionary as the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that was exactly what we meant. It means if unemployment is really threatening. Take, for example, the closure of a pit. I would feel the position which we are aiming at to be this, that if the pit closure was announced to take place say in five years' time that would not be imminent because, though that would in itself mean the removal of a number of jobs within a period of, say, five years, many things might well happen which would provide alternative sources of employment; but if it were announced to take place in about a year I think that would be a very different matter. I think that that might well be an imminent threat.

  1275
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth referred to the shipbuilding industry and also to competition between the railways and coastal shipping. I do not know all the details of competition between the railways and coastal shipping. There may be a danger in the future from that struggle, but it is difficult to say whether that will happen. My hop. Friend referred to shipbuilding. We can say—many people do say—that shipbuilding capacity in the free world as a whole is in the long term a good deal larger than needed to keep up replacement in the world merchant fleet, so in the long run there is a danger of unemployment arising from that.
  On the other hand, we may have a situation where the order books are still fairly long for several years. Then I would say the danger was not imminent, but if we have a number of cancellations and we can see in a foreseeable space of time that yards are running out of work we have a danger which is imminent. The same thing rather applies to ordnace factories, and to the theoretical Royal Ordnance factory to which the hon. Member referred.
  Mr. Ross: Not theoretical.
  Mr. Maudling: The one I was referring to was. I think the announcement of the closure of a pit, the Government decision to close it, will not be the operative fact, whereas once it is decided a factory is going to close in, say, a year there is an imminent threat unless one can see alternative employment coming meanwhile.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Let us assume there is a possibility of closure in twelve months' time or two years' time. How long will it take to push into that area new industries, because unless we plan ahead—unless the interpretation of the word "imminent" allows for future development in the area—we cannot possibly plan for industries to arrive in time.
  Mr. Maudling: I think that is a very good point. It brings us to what is the problem here. It is a matter of degree, and not of kind. We have to consider the question of getting a factory in advance, and whether it would be better employed. The position we are in at the moment, as I see it, is that,
  1276
  as I have been trying to explain, the word "imminent" is the best word that can be used to carry out this provision.
  Mr. Manuel: Really, the right hon. Gentleman is making us on this side of the Committee most despondent. He quoted the instance of a Royal Ordnance factory. A large number of people are thrown out of work. There was a failure to deal with the matter. I am thinking of a factory in my own constituency. Our unemployment has climbed to 6·4 per cent. Workers have to travel to Glasgow from Irvine and the town clerk of Irvine told me only a fortnight ago that they were having great difficulty because, after paying their fares, they were left with only £6 per week. That is the sort of difficulty we want cleared up. That is why I support the Amendment. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—we are in Committee. I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose his own residence is deteriorating. Will he wait till its collapse is imminent before he takes action?
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir N. Hulbert): The hon. Member is entitled to ask the Minister a question, but not to make a speech.
  Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Do I take it from your Ruling, Sir Norman, that the Chair will limit the length of interjections to clear up points raised by the Minister? If that is so, will the Chair say how long an interjection ought to take? Are we to have the Chair decide because of the content of the point being put by the Member making the interjection?
  The Temporary Chairman: That is a completely hypothetical question.
  Mr. Maudling: The example of the house, whether a hypothetical house or my house, is a rather good one. Sometimes, my house would clearly need repainting if it is not to be damaged by the weather, but that does not mean that I repaint it immediately. I repaint it only when some damage is likely to happen. That is a very good illustration of this kind of problem. The fundamental problem here is that this is a matter of degree, and not a matter than can be tackled as a matter of difference in kind.

  1277
  If I may turn to the Liberal Party Amendment, I think this also illustrates some of the difficulties here. For example. I think it is always bad in these cases to pick out individual instances of the problem, because by enumerating one, I am told in law, we exclude the others, and, thereby, the general principle is damaged. It is, therefore, difficult to act in anticipation of the conssequences of technical development. That is very wide indeed. We are living in a world in which there are very big developments. How could we act regarding difficulties which may be anticipated as the result of changes in the pattern of our overseas trade? The pattern of overseas trade is constantly changing, and I do not see how we could take action of this kind against problems involved in this field merely because we anticipated decisive changes in the pattern of overseas trade.
  Turning to the question of the school leavers, which was referred to by the hon. Members for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), and Rochdale (Mr. McCann), I agree that it is a very important point. Clearly, one of the things which we must take into account in assessing the likelihood of unemployment is the question of school leavers. I fully accept that as one of the possible causes, but it would be wrong to pick out that particular one to the exclusion, as it would be, of all others. I hope to satisfy the hon. Member on this point, but without writing these words into the Bill We accept that—although I give no undertaking—the position of the school leavers is one which we certainly must constantly take into account in assessing the threat and possible persistence of unemployment in any locality.
  I hope I have been able to explain w hat I admit straight away is a very difficult matter. It is, however, a matter of degree. I hope I have explained the thought of the Government. We believe that this is the right principle in the general interest of all the areas concerned, and we believe that the words we have chosen are the best words to express that purpose.
  In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee will not accept these Amendments.
  Mr. Jay: I rather sympathise with the President of the Board of Trade in having to answer the discussion on every Amendment, which I realise is due to the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary owing to temporary ill health. May I say that I hope that his return is imminent and that he personally is likely to persist?
  I had rather hoped that it would be possible in this Committee to take a non-partisan and constructive attitude to the Bill and that the President would accept some of the suggestions we have made and some of the Amendments we have put forward. The right hon. Gentleman is making it very difficult by turning down almost every suggestion put to him from this side of the Committee. First of all, I am extremely glad to agree with him, at any rate, on the question of seasonal unemployment. I am sure that it is right to retain these words which allow him to deal with current seasonal unemployment. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), who, after all, represents an area so badly hit by unemployment, is seeking to weaken the powers available in this Bill.
  Mr. P. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman does not realise that I am trying to strengthen them in order to help areas which need help.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman should realise that there is an area of sea coast in and around Sunderland. I am also a little surprised at the attitude of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), because I think I am right in saying that Weymouth is in his constituency. Whenever I go there I am always told what an original type of Conservative the noble Lord is. Weymouth is one of the areas of seasonal unemployment, and I am therefore surprised that he also should be attempting to weaken these powers.
  I believe that we have got to tackle this problem of seasonal unemployment. There are areas like Thanet, which I think an hon. Gentleman opposite represents, the East Coast and South Coast towns and others, which have a heavy problem in regard to seasonal unemployment. The question has been asked tonight, notably

  1279
  by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, about these "contra-seasonal industries", as the President calls them. It is perfectly clear that they do not exist. We used to think that the football pools represented that kind of industry, but it has discovered a method of employing its people all the year round, so that does not give us very much help.
  I suggest to the President, as a constructive suggestion in dealing in particular with seasonal unemployment in coastal areas, that he should try to steer to those areas some of the expansion in office employment which is now taking place in London. I think that if he could do that he would at least mitigate the seasonal unemployment. I am not suggesting that office employment is seasonal, but he will realise that the Inland Revenue, for instance, has moved to Worthing, and that is the type of employment suitable for that area. If he could restrain some of this private office development in London and steer some of these schemes to the South and East Coasts, he would be able to do something about this seasonal unemployment problem.
  Of course, there is no perfect solution to this problem. What we are seeking to do is to mitigate it and to ask the Government to recognise that, while there is no complete and perfect solution, that is no reason why we should not try to do what we can. I do not think the President has met us at all on the basic problem of whether the Board of Trade should merely have powers to deal with unemployment when it is imminent, or it is foreseen, but to look rather further ahead. I want to ask him again why he cannot accept the words in the 1945 Act. Those words provide that the Board of Trade can schedule an area when it appears to the Board that the distribution of industry is such that there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment.
  Is it not perfectly clear that those are rather wider words than the words which he is now seeking to put into the Bill? If he does not deny that we assume that he agrees. Surely there cannot be any doubt that there could be cases in which there is a special danger of unemployment but where that unemployment cannot be argued to be really imminent. If that is so, the Bill which the right
  1280
  hon. Gentleman is introducing is in this important respect narrower than the Act which he is proposing to repeal. I should like to make this perfectly precise.
  Surely, it must be true that there are cases where unemployment is certain, but not imminent, and I can give three examples. We discussed a Bill relating to the cotton industry last summer. When we discussed that Bill it was perfectly certain that as the result of its operation there would be very large releases of labour in areas where unemployment already existed and that those releases would occur sometime within, say, 12 or 18 months from the passage of the Bill. It may be that under the present formula one could say that that unemployment was not imminent, but it is quite certain that one could have satisfactorily stated that there was a special danger of the unemployment coming into existence.
  Mr. Maudling: Is it not a fact that there have been widespread advertisements in newspapers in Lancashire, and particularly in Nelson and Colne, for cotton operatives where, I believe, there was a great shortage?
  Mr. Jay: The situation has turned out exactly as we foresaw, in that labour has been released in some areas, and the demand for labour is now in other areas.
  To give another example, the President is very familiar with the Common Market and the Outer Seven, which an hon. Member for the Liberal Party mentioned. In these circumstances, we know for certain that tariffs are going to be reduced, certainly within five or ten years. It can, therefore, be seen almost without doubt that certain industries will be affected, but not for a considerable number of years ahead. This is another case where the injury is certain but could not be said to be imminent, in the sense that it will be happening years ahead.
  The most important case of all is the expected closure of coal mines by the National Coal Board in view of the decline in the demand for coal. Here is a case, surely, where there is both need and opportunity for really effective planning. It is perfectly possible, and I have no doubt that there are such cases, that the Coal Board knows that in four years' time a pit is certain to be closed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The

  1281
  Forest of Dean."] In many of these cases, in all parts of the country, there will be villages and valleys where there is virtually no employment.
  I should have thought that in any intelligent employment policy we would be starting to act there several years in advance. The President of the Board of Trade knows that it takes two years to build a factory. After a site has been bought, after the Board of Trade has scheduled an area and has got hold of a firm and has gone through all the administrative processes it probably takes three years from the beginning of the operation until the factory is actually starting to employ labour.
  If it is known that a pit is going to close in an area of that kind, action should be started three or four years before the pit is expected to close. It is perfectly clear that under the wording of the 1945 Act, which the right hon. Gentleman is now repealing, it would be possible to do that because it would be clear that there was a special danger of unemployment in that pit village. But I am extremely doubtful whether it could be done under the words of this Bill.
  I have not consulted the Oxford Dictionary, but if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's position I would be prepared to argue that "imminent" means perhaps up to two years, though I agree with him in thinking that it could not be argued that it means up to four or five years. Therefore, on the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, in the case of a pit closure involving perhaps 2,000 men, the Bill makes impossible the planning which would be possible under the Act which he is now repealing.
  I hope that we shall not have a controversial debate on every Amendment and that we shall not be forced to divide simply because the President of the Board of Trade will not listen to our arguments. If he does not accept this Amendment, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to assure us now that he will place in the Bill on Report the actual words which are included in the 1945 Act? If not, what are his reasons for not doing so?
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I ask the indulgence of the Committee in rising to speak on this subject after both Front Bench speakers have spoken. It is not a practice that
  1282
  I like or normally pursue, and I would not pursue it in this case did I not intend to make a speech dealing with a subject which is fresh in the debate and is new ground.
  I accept that those who come from seaside resorts and represent constituencies of that kind have always been at the bottom of the league in debates on unemployment. I do not for a moment suggest that in the past that has been wrong. One has heard a great deal, and quite fairly, about the troubles of Tyneside and Lancashire, and so on, but I beg to draw the Committee's attention to the problem of the position of certain of the seaside resorts.
  I will say straight away that I do not criticise what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) has said, speaking for Bournemouth. To make any real appreciation of the position of employment in coastal and seaside resorts one must understand that the problem differs greatly according to the class of resort. In Bournemouth, where there is all-the-year-round trade because of the climate and other factors, there is steady employment in the hotel industry throughout the twelve months and I can understand why my hon. Friend could take what appears to me to be an astonishing view, at first sight, of wishing to exclude seasonal employment. He does not want to change the character of Bournemouth which is fairly well placed in trade and employment all the year round.
  On a great many occasions in the House of Commons one has heard hon. Members opposite, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and others, dealing with the question of employment in their areas. I think that I am right in saying that this will be about the first speech addressed to the Committee which goes into the real question of seasonal unemployment as seen from the point of view of a constituency most deeply affected by it.
  I want to explain why I support the Government entirely on each of the three Amendments, which are interlocking. If only a certain amount of money can come from the Government within the ambit of the Bill it seems to me a matter of degree—which is the concern of the first Amendment, The word "imminent" is necessary because if the Clause were

  1283
  made as wide as to include "expected" it would cover too wide a field from my point of view. If there is to be a limit on the expenditure involved, and there must be, then it must be a question of degree and of priority. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in choosing the word "imminent" in this context, must place some limitation in that respect. I think that the words which he has chosen are extremely lucid and go as far as the Bill can be expected to go, for reasons which I shall adduce in a moment.
  Secondly, the whole of the Liberal Amendment is quite irrelevant in the context of the Bill. The inclusion of any of its words would exclude others and would lead to the very reverse of the purpose which hon. Members of the Liberal Party seek to achieve. The Amendment is wrong and faulty in that it would not achieve their objectives.
  As to the third Amendment, it is a question, first, of whether the word "seasonally" should be included or should be omitted. In my judgment it is essential to include it, because this question of finance for the distribution of industry has a long history in which seasonal resorts and seasonal unemployment have been excluded. Throughout history, until the 1958 Act when the Thanet area and certain other seaside resorts were scheduled as areas within D.A.T.A.C. and, therefore, could receive grants, nobody had ever before tried to deal with the problem of seasonal unemployment.
  So important was this problem to my constituency that I was adopted as a candidate in 1952 almost entirely on the answers which I gave to this question. It is by a long way the most important consideration to the whole of Thanet, and I speak not only for that area. I had to consider a question of assistance to another constituency, and I notice, to my surprise, that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) is not here today.
  Mr. Percy Wells: The hon. Member is here.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I apologise. The hon. Member will be able to confirm some of the matters with which I shall deal.
  1284
  Among the seasonal resorts for which this subject is of great importance are, for example, Sheerness, Birchington, Westgate, Margate, Ramsgate and also Hastings—and I must add that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) has been here up till recently and I know that he would have liked to have been present now.
  8.30 p.m.
  All these are areas which are directly and closely affected by the issue of seasonal unemployment. The question is how to meet the problem. There are twin aspects of the problem, one of which the President of the Board of Trade was unable to answer and which I believe I can answer for him. It is fairly obvious. In certain seaside resorts the season is very short. In Margate, the season normally lasts from June to mid-September. This year, with the wonderful weather, it was longer. It is a three-month season with a very short reopening for certain places at Christmas and Easter. In Sheerness, the season is even shorter and in certain other areas it is as short as nine or ten weeks in a bad season.
  The first problem concerns men. There is always throughout the summer, and, indeed, frequently throughout the winter, because we can provide a certain amount of light industry, fairly full employment for women. Unfortunately, employment for men, who are usually married, is such that while they may get employment in the summer months there is not enough work to employ them throughout the winter. The figures issued yesterday by the trade council in Margate show that 1,000 men were unemployed last month. I do not bother with percentages. The percentage in my area may be 8, 10, 12 or 15 per cent., but it is not as low as 3 or 4 per cent. It is far above that and always has been.
  How can we deal with this problem? First, we do not need to have industry actually within the seaside towns. Obviously, it would be very undesirable to spoil the amenities of towns like Broadstairs, Margate, Ramsgate, Faversham, or Hastings.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: What about Blackpool?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I cannot speak for Blackpool, because it is in the North, and I have little knowledge of it.

  1285
  I can speak from personal knowledge of every single seaside town in the South, because I was a cricketer. Cricket is played in most of these towns and I have played in each of them. Folkestone, which is my home town, Rye and Hastings all have the same problem. They all regard it as very important. What we want to do, and can do with the assistance of the Government—we cannot do it otherwise—is to introduce both heavy and light industries around the perimeter of these towns without affecting the amenities.
  Hon. Members who know the Margate district will know that there lies an area between Sandwich and Ramsgate called Richborough which is totally undeveloped. This gigantic site, one of the best sites in the country both for port and industrial development, is standing idle. It has been standing idle since the 1914–18 war, when it was a shadow port. It has not been developed. We need and must have the compulsory powers which the Bill takes, and the word "seasonally" must be included to ensure that we can receive the necessary grants from D.A.T.A.C. which are available under the 1958 Act for development. This will meet part of the problem. It will meet the problem of male employment in heavy industry. On the back-lying estates we can get the necessary grants in respect of light industry for female labour.
  I now come to the part of the problem which the President of the Board of Trade was unable to answer and which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) dealt with when he said that, if the word "seasonally" is omitted, would not exactly the same position arise as if it were included? In other words, if there is 3 per cent. unemployment in the summer and 7 per cent. in the winter it is only the seasonal element which causes the difficulty. That is not so. I want full employment in the Isle of Thanet. We are then left with this problem: how shall we get labour for the summer months? My answer is this. There is, in fact, a large pool of labour which is permanently mobile. I find, for example, that many of the people who work in "Dreamland" and the amusement parks and the waiters come down for the short season from London. After very careful consideration of this problem over a matter of
  1286
  years, I have come to the conclusion that the mobility of the catering trade is such that it can meet its seasonal requirements because people go to the country districts or country towns in the winter and down to the South in the summer.
  I believe that this is an exceptional problem which must be cured by the insertion of the word "seasonally". I believe that one of the great things which the Bill will achieve will be to bring about, for the first time in the history of this country a realisation that the pattern of industry is changing. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite remember the old Development Areas, which were the notorious areas of unemployment in 1929 and 1930. Believe me, we are the depressed areas of today. [Laughter.] We are, it is the fact.
  Do hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that there are more people on National Assistance in my constituency today than in any other part of the United Kingdom? [An HON. MEMBER: "Never had it so good."] In my constituency there are more unemployed than in any other part of the country. Of course, many of them are old people and perhaps not in the best of health, and there are other considerations, also.
  However, I draw attention to the fact that in a few seaside resorts, of which Thanet is one, will be found the residual problem of unemployment today. If hon. Gentlemen want to check this, let them look at the wage structure and the rates paid in my part of the country and compare them with those paid in the Potteries and elsewhere.
  The Bill will at least try to achieve something. I try to take an objective viewpoint; after all, I have a big majority and I should be able to afford to do so. I say quite objectively to hon. Members, having listened to the whole of the debate and to many able speeches coming from Lancashire and all the other industrial areas, please remember that today in this class of seaside resort there are many skilled and unskilled men who are unable to get employment.
  As for the youth, it is well recognised that they have to leave the district. I have not dealt with the argument that youth should not have to leave, because it is usually said, "If you are a young man, the sooner you get out the better".

  1287
  I am dealing with the grown-ups and I want to see good employment for them.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will not be misled into the view that he cannot conquer seasonal unemployment entirely. It can be conquered entirely because the mobility of labour in the summer is sufficient to meet the needs of the catering trade. I say that after many long discussions, from a knowledge of this area and after deep and careful consideration of the problem.
  Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) may rest assured that on this side of the Committee we have every sympathy with any area of unemployment. We know that the pattern of employment changes, and has been changing, and although I would not accept the view of the hon. Gentleman that his area is worse off today than Lancashire, and I think few hon. Members would accept it, nevertheless wherever there is persistent unemployment there is in our view a right in that locality to assistance from the powers which the Government have, and that right is not in any way minimised or prejudiced because the unemployment, though persistent, is only seasonal and not perennial.
  I make no apology for intervening in the debate after two speeches from the two Front Benches—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: That is not necessary, because we are in Committee.
  Mr. Silverman: Whether we were in Committee or not I would still make an apology. I added my name to the first of the two Amendments deliberately, and I took the unusual course of adding my name also to the Liberal Amendment because it seemed to me to deal with a slight extension of the matters which might well be taken into account.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: There is nobody on the Liberal bench, so my hon. Friend can say what he likes.
  Mr. Silverman: I have long regarded myself as the last Liberal left in the House of Commons. Even if I had been tempted to let what has been a very long debate come to an end without further intervention, I could not have done so
  1288
  after the intervention of the Minister in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). He interrupted in order to say what I believe to be a fact—that Lancashire newspapers at the moment contain advertisements for weavers in Nelson and Colne. He deduced from that—or otherwise his intervention was incomprehensible—that therefore there was not an imminent danger of persistent unemployment, either in the narrow and strict definition of the word which we have preferred or in the wider gloss upon the use of the word "imminent" which he wants us to read into the Bill, although he will not put the words in the Bill.
  8.45 p.m.
  It is just this which rather terrifies me, because it tends to support the lack of confidence which so many of us have in the Government's intention to do anything constructive or realistic about the problem. Clearly the Minister has neglected to take the opportunity of understanding what the situation is, either in Lancashire or in the cotton industry generally, and especially in this constituency. If he will pause for a moment to see how the situation to which he refers has come about, he will see how tragic it would be if he drew from the fact the inference which obviously he intended to draw, otherwise he would not have made that intervention.
  In the constituency and in the whole of the cotton towns in Lancashire, we have had a rapid contraction over many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North referred to what was likely to happen under the Cotton Industry Act in July. But the story does not begin there, as the President of the Board of Trade knows well. It begins very much earlier, but I am content to begin in 1951. Between 1951 and 1958, one-third of all the mills in Nelson and Colne closed down. They were not induced or bribed to do it and they were not paid compensation for doing it. They were driven out of the industry because of the condition of the cotton trade.
  During that period there was a constant and substantial drift of population away from the area. The result was that when we looked at the employment exchange figures we did not find that kind of per-

  1289
  centage unemployment which was required under the old legislation. We could not have said that unemployment was imminent, because it was developing gradually over seven or eight years. We could not have said at any particular moment that there was a high degree of unemployment, because the criterion was the Ministry of Labour figures and these did not show it.
  Was there, then, no case under the old legislation, or under this Bill, for help by the Government? The Government answer that question by saying that there was a case. That is why they scheduled it as a Development Area. If we are planning, and are to regard this legislation as a means of strategic planning, what should the Government have been doing? Seeing the unemployment grow week by week, month by month and year by year, seeing the mills closing down, realising that this was virtually the only industry in this part of the area, a Government who were taking their work seriously would have been gradually introducing new industries. They would not have waited until the registrable degree of unemployment was very high. They would not have waited until it was, in the true sense of the word, imminent. If we wait until it exists or is imminent, we wait for too long. That has been our experience.
  Next we had the Cotton Industry Act, which was confessedly designed to accentuate and accelerate the contraction. I have already told what the forecast is. Almost two-thirds of the remaining mills have given notice to close before March. Some may have extensions. Will the Minister bear in mind that they cannot change their minds? The Act is clear. They can make an application for compensation on the ground that they are closing after a statutory date and, having given notice to close, they cannot withdraw it and they are bound to close. One would have thought that, at any rate after March, there must be a high degree of unemployment. Even under his definition the Minister might have regarded it as imminent. But what is happening?
  The coming into operation of the Cotton Industry Act coincided with a minor boom in the cotton trade, with the result that mill after mill which had given notice to close down is, perhaps for the first time in years, in full pro-
  1290
  duction and looking for men. They cannot get men partly because the men have left and partly because, under the scheme for which the Minister disclaims any responsibility, a man who would be entitled to compensation for the loss of his employment if his mill closes down and the machines are redeployed, forfeits his right to that compensation if he leaves. The mills which intend to remain in the industry are therefore unable to bring their staff up to the full complement because they cannot attract men from mills which still have full order books but which have given notice to close in March. The Minister ought to know those facts. I do not know whether he does, but if he does he will see how pointless was his intervention in my right hon. Friend's speech.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The situation is even more serious than that. Is my hon. Friend aware that part of the explanation of the advertisements is that the prospects of export orders are greater than for many years and that export agents, eager to place orders for the export trade, cannot carry out these orders because of the reduced capacity? That is creating a very serious situation.
  Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend may be perfectly right. There are, of course, very many other factors that it would be proper to deal with were we now debating the condition of the cotton trade. But I have said sufficient to indicate why, at the moment, the fact that there are advertisements for weavers has really nothing whatever to do with this Amendment.
  The Government ought to be anticipating what the situation is likely to be in March and April. They should be bringing in new industries now and they should be exercising their powers now. If one is planning at all, one does not wait until calamity is upon one before trying to deal with it. Listening to the theoretical parts of the Minister's speech one might say that he was perhaps fully cognisant of that fact and meant to do something about it, but he is apparently still labouring under the complete delusion that there is no problem at all in just that part of the country where the problem is greatest and most critical.
  We should, therefore, insist on taking out of the Bill this word "imminent". I do not know what gloss other people

  1291
  may put on the word, or what gloss the Minister may wish to put on it, but to me it is perfectly plain that "imminent" means something that will happen very quickly if something is not done to stop it. If the Minister waits for that time he will wait too long, and if he insists on a form of words that has that inevitable conclusion it is a very bad omen of what we may expect from him once the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Maudlin: I have been thinking over what was said by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), and I have a suggestion to make to the Committee. I recognise that this word "imminent" is causing a good deal of concern—concern which, as I have said, I do not share. The suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman was that we should consider whether it is possible, instead of using the word "imminent", to use the term "special danger of unemployment" which is taken from the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act.
  I should like to consider that suggestion. Obviously, I cannot undertake to accept it—to do that on the spot would be foolish—but I do see the argument for it. I have put before the Committee my reasons for preferring the word "imminent", but I recognise that there is very strong feeling on this and would therefore like an opportunity to consider that form of words put to me by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lee: I take it that the words which the President of the Board of Trade has in mind are those in Section 7 (2) of the 1945 Act, the phrase being:
  "Where … there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment …".
  We feel that those words, which were the words referred to by my right hon. Friend, are broader and would give the Government the opportunity to do those things that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated he would like to do. I take it he is now suggesting that between now and the Report stage we should give him time to consider this and that, on Report, he will move an Amendment that broadly accepts this principle from the 1945 Act. Is that his suggestion?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment as a condition of my considering it. I
  1292
  think that the suggestion is a very good one and I intend to consider it in any case. However, I must be able to consider it without giving any undertaking now. I shall certainly consider whether we can change "imminent" for the phrase:
  "Where … there is a special danger of unemployment …"
  whether the Committee divides on this Amendment or not.
  Mr. Lee: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He knows the importance we attach to this. We must, of course, reserve our position on Report to see precisely what form of words the President of the Board of Trade will then introduce. That is clearly the position we must take. On that condition, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Tudor Watkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end to insert:
  "or in which further employment is required in order to avoid the depopulation of the locality."
  A number of speeches will undoubtedly be made on the subject of depopulation, but I want to deal with the rural aspect of the subject as it is that which has lead me to table my Amendment. I should like the Committee to remember two things. First, I have been in touch with 21 rural councils in my constituency. All of them are concerned with the Bill, and the majority have said, "This Bill will not be of any use to us at all."
  In the second place, during the General Election I welcomed the Government's decision to introduce a Bill to deal with local employment and I gave an undertaking that I would do all I could to see that treatment of some of the problems of rural depopulation was included in the Measure. I regret that my Amendment in relation to Mid-Wales was ruled out of order, but I do not mind that so much so long as I can make my case on this one. I certainly belieye that if the Amendment were accepted, this would be a better Bill. It would give some security to those areas where there is depopulation at the present time.
  I could keep the Committee for a long time on the subject of depopulation since

  1293
  the beginning of the century. I do not want to do that now, but I hope that on some future occasion we shall be able to go into it in greater detail.
  I am now concerned about something being done to encourage industries to go into those areas because the prospect of depopulation is getting worse. The important point which I want the Minister to remember is that there is not a high percentage of unemployment in those areas because the people have left the districts altogether. I want the Minister particularly to realise that the people who leave the districts are those from the age of 18 up to 35. Therefore, it is a very important problem.
  Two or three years ago the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association was set up. I am a member of that Association and one of its objects is to make provision for promoting industries outside the existing industries of agriculture and afforestation. Agriculture and afforestation did not seem to stem the drift of young people away from the countryside. There have been some half-dozen reports presented to the Government, each of which made reference to this very urgent and important problem of rural depopulation.
  The Bill will have regard to those areas where there is a high percentage of unemployment, but I am concerned with the hidden unemployment, the young married women and the youngsters who have to leave the countryside.
  Two years ago, for instance, there were 27 school leavers who were unable to get a job. The Minister of Labour may have in mind that there are no school leavers unemployed at the present time. The reason for that is that the youngsters left before the end of the school term and went away with their families. Therefore, there is not a high percentage of unemployment, but a case can be made out for including in the Bill areas of that kind.
  May I remind the Minister that the Distribution of Industry Acts, including the 1958 Act, did not help those areas of rural Wales which I represent. Some provision must be made for them and I suggest that the Bill could be made to help in that respect. It will give inducement to industrialists, but it has to be borne in mind that the Bill as it is at present will give greater inducement to
  1294
  industrialists to go to areas outside those which I have in mind. Therefore, it would be better to have the words of the Amendment inserted in the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment. I see the difficulties. I realise that to have legislation to deal with an area like mid-Wales will be difficult, but what inducement is there for the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association? It has sent me a letter stating:
  "The Bill does not help us at all."
  Nineteen out of the 21 local authorities which I represent in the House say, "It does not help us." What is there to help those places faced with unemployment? If four people become unemployed in a hamlet of six, that is a high percentage of unemployment. They do not stop there. They go away. I hope that if this Amendment is accepted it will help to stop rural depopulation.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I support the Amendment. I believe that it is true to say that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made his first objections to this Bill he told hon. Members that the question of depopulation could easily become one of the most vicious features of our life.
  Indeed, I believe that my own constituency, Burnley, illustrates that point probably more effectively than any other part of the United Kingdom. In forty-four years no fewer than 28,640 citizens have left that community. At the moment, 25 firms are scheduled to close down, involving 2,500 people, and 14 industrial premises have been vacant for over two years. When we consider those figures we begin to see the immensity of this problem. This area, which, for well over 150 years, has made such a splendid contribution to the economic well-being of the country, is now being tardily treated. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly made his observations about depopulation the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said, "And why not?"
  I do not know whether I speak as a lone voice in this Chamber, but I believe that man is a spiritual creature. In the town of Burnley I have found such fine characteristics as a very good orchestral society, an operatic society, an amateur

  1295
  dramatic society, the usual brass band that is to be found in the North, and an excellent First Division soccer side. This, together with an active church and chapel life, entitles me to say that this is a good Christian community.
  To those who maintain that only material factors matter I would say that for 150 years these people have made a splendid contribution to the economic well-being of our country. Let us remember that in the post-war years, in Burnley and in the north-east Lancashire area generally, cotton was one of our main exports. We used to hear the phrase, "The country's bread depends upon Lancashire's thread." We may not hear that phrase so much nowadays, but it is true to say that at that time, during a period of economic development, that part of the country was prevented from receiving any industrial rehabilitation because of the dependence of the country on cotton. As a result, that area is now asked to suffer.
  The question of distributing industry to localities where the people require it is very serious. I have a good deal of experience as a trade union official, and I would tell the Committee that in the Home Counties, which could be described as over-populated, great difficulty is found in getting people to work overtime. In some parts of the country there are people who cannot get work, and in others there are people who are being urged to work overtime. Surely that is an economic contraction from both points of view. If the Bill becomes law it will offer no hope for these areas.
  A number of people are opting out of the National Insurance Scheme. There are others who, for some reason of their own, are not registering. We have, therefore, two problems: first, the drift away from the towns; and, secondly, the people who do not register. Am I wrong in saying that it is the young people who drift? The result is that communities are left with an ageing population.
  It is with certainty and truth that I say that almost all sections of opinion in Burnley are anxious to see this Amendment added to the Bill. It is with a sense of pride that I support the Amendment.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment. I have one or two figures to illustrate the extent of the depopulation
  1296
  of Oldham. For the thirteen four-weekly periods which ended in May last, the average figure of unemployment among people over 18 in Oldham and contiguous areas was 4,250. In October, it was 1,350. The reason for the substantial change was the processes arising out of the last stages of the Cotton Industry Act. We know that the "hot" orders pouring into the cotton trade are transitory and that by March of next year we shall be facing an unemployment figure of over 4,000. The OFFICIAL REPORT of 26th November states that in the Oldham area we will suffer 32 closures out of the 156 mills covered by the Act. That is a high proportion. Weaving sheds are excluded from that figure.
  The following figures reflect the major problem that Oldham is facing. In 1921, in round figures, the census population was 148,000. In 1939, that figure had dropped to 124,000. In the eighteen years between the wars the population shrank by 16 per cent. In 1951, despite the industry in the war period, the figure had dropped to 118,000. In 1954, after a boundary revision, it rose to 122,000. Comparing the figure of 1954 with that of 1957 it dropped a further 3,000.
  Most startling of all is the forecase by the local authorities that the 1954 figure of 122,000 will have dropped to 109,000 in 1971. That will represent a reduction of 11 per cent. between 1954 and 1971. Between 1921 and 1971, in spite of a small addition due to a boundary adjustment the population of the town will have shrunk by 39,000. Those are very serious figures. In the Oldham area and the contiguous areas of Chadderton and Failsworth, there was an insured population of 94,000 in 1951, and an insured population of 82,000 in 1958. That is a 13 per cent. reduction.
  Our economic system is slowly but inevitably causing permanent deterioration in the fabric of the town. The town is being left, in the main, with elderly people. The young are going elsewhere. I ask hon. Members opposite—I hope the Minister already realises it—to appreciate the responsibilities of the local authority of an old town like Oldham covered largely by houses which were put up 100 years ago.
  There is in Oldham a strong civic consciousness, a desire to rehouse the

  1297
  people and redevelop the town, a civic drive to put its schools into modern condition and to provide roads suitable for our age. At the same time, the local authority is finding that its resources of men, women and young people are gradually diminishing. Not only that, of course, but even the incidence of the Cotton Industry Act is, in effect, biting rapidly into the rate revenue of the town.
  The words proposed in the Amendment should be included in the Bill. I do not wish to be too unfriendly to hon. Members opposite, but, if it is true that the mechanics of the private board room—I am afraid that this is what it comes to—cannot cope with the social responsibilities which we on this side wish to see accepted, then, under a Conservative Government, it becomes necessary that the edge of the capitalist system should be rounded off.
  The Bill, in effect, is designed to round off the sharp edges of the private enterprise system. It is greatly to the advantage of the Government that they should look after the destiny of the older towns, of the depopulated areas and of the countryside as well. If they do not, the time will come when people generally will themselves look after these matters by providing another Government of a different complexion. If the Government want the Bill to have human value as well as value associated with the money market and the commercial world, they should accept the Amendment.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Grimond: I shall speak briefly because the main points which lie behind the Amendment have already been made and, by this time, they should be well understood by the Committee.
  In many of the more remote rural parts of the country such as the area I represent, the unemployment figures are masked by steady depopulation. They are not, therefore, a true guide to the acute lack of employment which is widespread in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The second point arises from what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). Behind the Bill there must surely lie the idea that we should stop the steady migration of people from the remote parts to the great cities. That may not be mentioned in the Title of the Bill, but it must surely
  1298
  be part, at any rate, of the justification for any Bill of this kind.
  Thirdly, I greatly regret the steady break-up of communities throughout Scotland. It is accompanied by an extremely serious loss of general values, quite apart from the suffering which it causes to people who have to leave homes where they want to stay and where they could make a great contribution to the well-being of the nation as a whole.
  It may be asked, why do people go? Why do they not stay in their own areas? Why do they not themselves provide more employment? There is really no time to go into that now; it is a very long story. At the back of it lies the history of these areas. For years and years the whole trend of our society has been against them. Farö is a more remote place than Shetland and less hospitable, yet its population has risen by about 7,000 at the same time as the population of Shetland has fallen by about 7,000. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that Farö has been able to develop a type of society and a type of Government more suitable to such a place than what we have in this country. We have tended to centralise more and more power, financial, political and social, in London. We have tended to treat these rural areas as convenient nurseries in which we breed labour for our great industries. We continue naturally to think of our great industries as being our predominant pattern of life.
  This cannot go on much longer for the rural areas. The population in many parts of my constituency is now down to a level at which it is almost impossible to keep the normal services going. One can hardly get up a dance or a football team, find a postman or run any of the normal activities of a decent community. This is not altogether because of a lack of spending, because a great deal of money is spent in the Highlands and Islands, but the spending of money is not always well reflected and it is not a question solely of money.
  What is needed in those areas is also management, a lift and a reversal of the spiral of defeat by which people feel that they must go away. It begins at school age when the young people feel that they must go. We must cure and change this in Scotland, Wales and many parts of England.

  1299
  I, and, I am sure, the sponsors of the Amendment, do not attach particular importance to its wording. What we are anxious to have from the Government is, first, an assurance that they appreciate this problem and that it requires urgent attention, because this spiral has been going on so long that, unless it is reversed soon, it will be extremely difficult to reverse it at all. Secondly, in considering the areas to be designated under the Bill, the Government should take note of the effect of depopulation and the masking of the true unemployment figures by depopulation. Finally, when they try to work the Bill and get the industries to go to these areas, they should have flexibility in their approach and not too rigidly insist upon the same factors being applied in the Far North as are applied elsewhere.
  It is, I know, difficult to get industries to go to the Far North. I know that it is necessary to search about and to find small industries and give them a degree of help, nursing, and so on, which, possibly, we would not have to do elsewhere. It is not unfair to ask the Government to do that. The economic factors, however, are by no means the only ones that make for depopulation. I am well aware that the Bill alone cannot cure it, but it can do something. What it can do mainly is to prove a vehicle to the Government to make it clear to these areas that they are fully aware of the problem and that, whether in the Bill or otherwise, they intend to do something to stop it.
  Mr. Maudling: On the previous Amendment, after listening to a great deal of argument, I put forward a suggestion which I hoped would be useful to the Committee. On this Amendment, however, I should make it quite clear that the Government could not accept it because it goes far beyond the purpose of the Bill.
  The Bill continues and extends two things. The first is the system of industrial development certificates to prevent congestion in the congested industrial areas. That, no doubt, we shall discuss when we reach the relevant part of the Bill. In addition, in these earlier parts, the Bill provides inducements to try to get industry to go to areas where there is a serious problem of
  1300
  unemployment. Those inducements are specifically designed to help the problem of unemployment.
  The Amendment goes much further than that. It says that, whether there is unemployment or not, powers under the Bill should be used to deal with the problem of depopulation. I do not want to enter deeply into the merits of the argument on depopulation—many arguments could be adduced on both sides. We in this country cannot set ourselves like Canute against a tide that is flowing quite hard in many parts of the world.
  I see the force of many of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). On the other hand, the problem goes much wider. The hon. Members for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) talked as if it would be right for the Government to use these powers to prevent people moving from one town to another and the population of individual towns from falling. That goes beyond what is realistic.
  I beg the Committee, once again, to realise that we cannot do everything in the Bill and that our resources are limited. To do anything under the Bill we must spend money, large sums of the taxpayer's money. But this would also introduce into our economy a quite definite distortion by inducing industries to go to areas where, on any commercial basis, they would be less economic than in the areas of their choice.
  Our resources are limited. If they were unlimited it would be a different matter. As long as they are limited, however, we must concentrate them on the areas where help is needed. We are aiming at giving assistance in the areas where help is needed and where people are seeking jobs. To extend that to an area where people are not seeking jobs but where the problem is that people prefer jobs in another area would be to extend the purposes of the Bill beyond what was ever intended and far beyond what is reasonably possible within the current scope of the national resources.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: When the right hon. Gentleman says that our resources are limited, how limited are they? How much money will the Treasury grant to him for the purpose of carrying out these proposals? Will

  1301
  the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea so that we can appreciate how serious the Government are in tackling the problem?
  Mr. Maudling: It is not a question only of the money that the Government spend, although that is a major factor. Even if we had unlimited money to spend, the number of available industrial developments coming forward is limited. In addition, every industry that we persuade to move to an area where costs are higher than they would be in the area of its choice means that production and exports become more difficult. Everything that we do in the Bill is deliberately designed, for social purposes, to put an additional load upon the economy. If we put too great a load upon our economy, we should threaten the basis of our general national prosperity and the position of our export trade in world markets, which all the time are becoming more competitive.
  I seriously ask the Committee to bear in mind that in seeking to do what is a very good thing under the Bill we must not do more than the country's economy can afford. We should concentrate upon the most urgent problem and that, I suggest, is the problem of unemployment of the type defined in the Bill in certain specified areas. It is on that problem that we want to concentrate our resources. Perhaps when that problem is solved we can turn to other things, but till this problem is solved, or, at any rate, very largely solved, I am sure we should concentrate on providing employment where employment is needed. It is for that reason that I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman's speech might have merited more consideration if it had been made in discussing a Bill which gave him powers which he had to use. He has already rejected any duty to use any of these powers, and, so far, he has failed to tell us to what extent he is going to use them and what he himself proposes to do in connection with the Bill.
  What we are asking him to do in this Amendment, as we did in the previous Amendment, is to give himself a greater chance of using a little foresight. In the last Amendment it was a case of the length of time over which we ought to look to anticipate unemployment, and
  1302
  the question now is whether we ought not to take power at any rate to deal with places where the population is going away to other centres quite obviously in order to try to get a job.
  If, for instance, men and women leave the Highlands of Scotland they will go to Glasgow and try to get houses and jobs when they get there. They will not have very much chance of getting a house, and what their chances may be of getting a job I do not know. Is it right for the right hon. Gentleman to deny himself the power of enabling some of those people to work in the communities and in the places where they have been born?
  What is to happen if he denies himself the power—I repeat, it is a discretionary one—to deal with cases of that kind? Who are going to be left behind in these villages? They are going to be the older people; not necessarily people so old that they cannot work, but the older people for whom quite obviously, if no provision is made for the young, work is not going to be provided. They by themselves will be harder to deal with than the young who have the opportunity and will to leave their homes and go elsewhere.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is dealing with the countryside in Scotland and Wales or with some town in, say, Lancashire, or wherever it is, perhaps some oldish place where unemployment does not show for the reason that the young men and women are going away to find work elsewhere, that it is surely incredibly short-sighted to think it can be dealt with only by providing for unemployment caused in a neighbouring town by men going to find work there from such a place. Surely to deny himself the power to deal with it simply means that more will leave those communities which, I should have thought, any reasonable Government would have wished to preserve.
  In addition to that, whatever money is going to be spent under the Bill will be wasted simply by lack of foresight, and the most inhuman lack of foresight, because the people who are going to be hard hit by this refusal to take the power to exercise discretion are not going to be the young people or the pensioners, but the older people fit to work who are going to be left stranded in these places.

  1303
  I would suggest one thing to the Committee. We have had most interesting debates today. I have been listening to them. But we are still in the middle of Clause 1. If it is to be finished at all, I wonder whether we could come to a decision on this Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—for if we do not we shall be unable to come to a decision on a number of subsequent Amendments.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: I am very glad to be able to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I hope he will forgive me if I do not take his advice.
  The President of the Board of Trade made two or three very unwise statements in his speech. First, he said that people seemed to choose to move from one town to another, and that this was causing depopulation in certain areas. The right hon. Gentleman should understand, and we would say to him that this is the fundamental reason for moving this Amendment, that we are not so much concerned with people moving from one town to another, or in talking about exchanging houses and exchanging jobs, because that is not the cause of depopulation.
  What we are concerned with is that men and women leave a town not because they choose to do so, not because there is any element of choice entering into their situation, but because, if they are to have work and to keep their families, they must move from places where there is no work for them to places where there is work.
  This is what constitutes depopulation, and this is what my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones), whom I was very glad to hear supporting the Amendment, was speaking of when he mentioned my own home town, and many organisations there in which members of my family have been concerned. He was making the point about Lancashire which, indeed, many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee are continually making about the North of England, the whole of Scotland and Wales.
  We are concerned with impressing upon the Minister that this Amendment is not only crucial to the Bill, but is crucial to the whole progress of our
  1304
  economy and social structure. Let us consider the social implications of the movement of young people from one district to another. When young people move because there are no prospects of employment for them, they leave behind the older people, and when they do that we know, from the very many social studies which have been carried out in the last few years, that there are very serious effects both to them and to the people left behind.
  Whenever old people are left behind, they are deprived of the younger members of their families at a time when they need their help and support in old age, and, at the same time, the younger members of the family, who move away into housing schemes in other areas, are deprived of the support of the older members of the family. This is where the problem of loneliness on housing estates comes in, and the problem of neurosis among suburban housewives, which is to be studied in my constituency during the next two years.
  The problem arises from the fact that the larger family unit is broken up at a crisis point for the older and younger people. This is what is produced all over the country as a result of depopulation of an area following the decline in industry there. It will happen in my own constituency in the mining areas, where we know that pit closures will take place in the next few years.
  I ask the Minister to consider very carefully the implications of what he said when he told us that there is a limit to our national resources, and that our national resources cannot be strained to the point where they can be spent to prevent this kind of depopulation occurring. A hundred years ago, we began the job of clearing up the social evils that had resulted from the laissez-faire and unplanned development that took place during our first Industrial Revolution. During that period, the movement of population was unchecked, the movement of industry was unchecked, and the growth of our large cities and towns created slums. Are we not at this moment dealing with the slums thus created?
  What the President of the Board of Trade, in effect, said was that the nation cannot afford to spend money on preserving our existing communities, so that

  1305
  we are to be condemned to perhaps another hundred years of clearing up all the social evils which the Government is deliberately beginning to create. I would think that if he considers the matter in financial terms, he should look, first, at a point which I know some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have already mentioned in connection with another Amendment.
  They have mentioned the waste of social capital involved as a result of depopulation. In three or four mining villages in my constituency I have estimated that the amount of social capital invested in the form of new houses, schools and social services is between £4½ million and £5 million. We are not concerned only with the waste of that social capital when people leave the houses and schools empty. We have to be concerned, also, with providing those facilities in the new area to which they move. Therefore, one has to double at least the value of social capital left behind in the villages which they desert.
  What is the corresponding cost to industry? There was an assumption far too easily made by hon. Members opposite that the cost to industry of siting itself outside the London or Birmingham area is too great for it to contemplate with any ease. An investigation has been carried out during the last few years by leading economists into the cost of industrial movement and the extent to which industry is rooted to the area in which it has grown up.
  An investigation was made in Stepney a few years ago. It was thought in Stepney that most of the industries there were of a kind which could not be easily moved out or induced to go out elsewhere because they were tied to central London. The investigation, which was very detailed, showed that only one-fifth of the industry of Stepney was, in fact, rooted to the area and that four-fifths could move if it were induced and helped to move.
  At the same time, there has been an investigation into the cost to industrialists themselves and it has been found that large modern industry is capable, when it chooses to think about it, of pre-planning the movement of its enterprise and that then the extra cost is very little indeed. I would say to the President of the Board of Trade that if addi-
  1306
  tional profits for private enterprise are to be weighed against the total destruction of our community life as we know it today, he ought to have no hesitation whatever. If the Bill is meant to be an expression at all of the Government's regard for the people of this country, their employment needs and their lives in human terms he should have no hesitation in deciding which of the two is the more important.
  Mr. Rhodes: When the former President of the Board of Trade came to Lancashire at the time of the General Election he promised that legislation would be introduced to clean up some of the slum mill property that clutters up our towns there. He received a great deal of publicity, but we are not letting the Government get away with it on the basis of this Clause. Unless the Amendment is accepted there will be no opportunity under the Bill to do what the former President of the Board of Trade promised in Lancashire at that time, which is to help the local authorities to clean up the industrial dirt
  If the Amendment is not accepted I do not see how it will be possible for local authorities to receive the Government assistance that has been promised The Government have tried to side-step the issue. The sequence runs in this fashion. Throughout the years when, for whatever reason, a mill has closed down, it has gone into decay and the people have moved away. I am not saying anything about the mobility of labour, because in many cases that is a very good thing. What I am saying is that unless we take advantage of the Bill to clean up some of the mill slums which disfigure our towns in Lancashire, we shall regret it.
  During the last four years, 5,400 people have moved from the area I represent to other areas to find work. Nothing whatever has been done during that time to do anything about either the derelict land or the buildings. I implore the Government to give us the opportunity to do something about these old buildings. Unless we take advantage of the Bill, how does the Minister propose to solve the problem? If in Clause 5 the criterion is a high rate of unemployment, and if mills are not working and therefore cannot employ men, I ask the Minister to tell us

  1307
  what alternative we have. Are we merely to waste away? Is this to be a cancer in the neighbourhood? What are we to do? Industries cannot be brought in unless we clear up the existing mess. If the Amendment is not accepted, we shall have no loophole.
  Mr. T. W. Jones: I wish to support the Amendment because in my constituency we have three major problems. First, we have been menaced for years by the problem of persistent unemployment. I told the House a short while ago that within living memory the population in Blaenau Ffestiniog has been reduced from 14,000 to less than 7,000. What is true of Blaenau Ffestiniog is true of every village throughout Merionethshire. People have been leaving in search of work.
  Secondly, there is the progressive decline of the one major industry in Merionethshire, namely, the slate quarrying industry. A few years ago, the number of slate quarry workers could be counted in thousands. Now they can be counted only in hundreds. They have not left the county alone; they have taken their families with them and have gone to England in search of work. That is a point which I want the Minister to note when he talks about men leaving one area for another. In England, people can go from one area to another without seeing any material change, but if they go from Wales across the border, which is only a matter of a few miles away, they are in a completely foreign country as far as language is concerned. I am now talking about men and women who speak no other language but Welsh. They can speak English better than many Englishmen that I know, but habitually they speak Welsh. They think in the Welsh language. Their traditions are entirely different from those of the people with whom they have to mix when they go across the border.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Minister said there was a limit to the national resources. That limit has been reached in Wales, and not only the limit of our national resources but also the limit of our patience. He would have found this to be true had he been here last night and listened to the debate on the Motion for the Adjournmentt of the House.
  1308
  Thirdly, serious problems will arise in Merioneth in two or three years' time. As the Minister knows, there are huge construction works going on now at Blaenau Ffestiniog and Trawsfynydd, with the hope of other construction work in the area of Bala. However, the work is only temporary and it will come to an end within two or three years. Because hundreds of men have been employed in these works, the latest unemployment figures for Merioneth have been reduced to a percentage of 3·5 of the insured population. This, however, is a misleading figure and should not lull anyone into complacency and into the belief that all is well.
  The end of these works will inevitably see a sharp rise in unemployment, since the number of people ultimately to be engaged as a result of them will be only a few hundred. When the men anticipate the end of the scheme they will do what they did in the past. They will go in search of work elsewhere and we shall be confronted again with an accentuation of the great problem of depopulation. It is true that most of the labour force connected with the schemes is mobile, and this must be taken into account, but much is also local, and the Board of Trade should be planning now in anticipation of what must arise as a problem in two or three years' time.
  I have referred already to the quarry at Blaenau Ffestiniog. It, like every other coal-mining area for that matter, is troubled by another problem. Hundreds of men there suffer from the dreadful disease of silicosis, and to those people even the schemes which have been brought there are of no avail. If a man is declared to be suffering from only a percentage of silicosis he is told not to enter the quarry but to seek light work. Light work, where? Not in Merioneth. They will seek light work elsewhere and will leave the constituency and thus aggravate the problem of depopulation.
  In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee and the Minister will recognise the importance of the Amendment and will accept it.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I did not intend to intervene, and I would not have done so, because, as the older Members of the Committee know, I have spoken so often on this subject, but for

  1309
  the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), which I hope will not be accepted, that this matter might be dismissed by a few moments of debate here in Committee and then we could get on with other matters.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Who said that?
  Mr. Davies: The hon and learned Member for Kettering. That is what it really amounted to; that there are so many other things which have to be discussed. The Committee should realise that in this Amendment is crystallised the main controversy on whether the Bill will effect the purposes we all desire. It is all in this Amendment. If I may refer to myself, it was for that very reason that I made my protest, as strongly as I could, against the 1945 Bill.
  I was disappointed with the speech of the President of the Board of Trade tonight. He said, rightly, that we are dealing with the question of unemployment. No one has ever been other than anxious to use his very best endeavours to try to conquer unemployment. There can be nothing more devastating to a man's soul than to find that he is not wanted—when he is healthy, strong ant anxious for work but nobody wants him Some of us lived through the very bad periods between the two wars.
  We came to 1945 and the Act of that year, which was meant to deal with what had been known as the distressed areas. The new name of Development Areas was given to them and new hope was given to those people. I protested at that time that that Bill did not go far enough and that unless the Government tackled the problem of rural depopulation they would add to the very troubles which they were seeking to correct when more people arrived in the congested areas.
  The same is true today. The President of the Board of Trade says "We are anxious to help where there is unemployment and where we are afraid that there will be unemployment within a short time." Let him do that. What will happen? There will be a call for help, the Government will help, the new industries will go to the areas, and the young people in rural districts will say. "We have no work and no hope of
  1310
  work anywhere near our homes. Nor had the people before us—our uncles and aunts and all who went before us. We shall have to do as they did. There will be work for us in the other areas. Unemployment is threatened, or already existing, in those areas, but new industries are going there, and we will go there, too." They thus add to the difficulty. It may be said that it is not as great as the difficulty which already confronts the people there.
  I wish that I could take hon. Members with me through these rural areas to see our devotion to our countryside, our love of it, of our traditions and of the way we have been brought up. They would find that throughout the centuries nothing has been done to assist us in any way. We have to leave our homes, and all we can do is to meet together in strange lands and sing about our love for those homes. That is exactly what is happening at present.
  I hope I may be forgiven for referring to my own county. It is the most productive county, agriculturally, in Wales. It is not the largest, which I think is Carmarthenshire, also a great agricultural county. Montgomeryshire, however, produces more agricultural produce than any other Welsh county. Nevertheless, the population has steadily declined and is still steadily declining. There is a moment when the young people hope that they will find work at home when they leave school. I saw in our local papers in August an announcement about unemployment in Montgomeryshire. By September it had disappeared. Employment had not been found in Montgomeryshire. They had done what the young men and women had done before them throughout the centuries—gone elsewhere to search for work; and they were no longer on the list in Montgomeryshire.
  There is not a county south of the Grampians in the same situation as Montgomeryshire. The population is not only less than it was in 1901 but less than it was in 1801, when the population of England and Wales was about 9 million. The population of Montgomeryshire at that time was approaching 70,000. Today the population of England and Wales is approaching 50 million, but the population of that lovely county is down to about 45,000.

  1311
  The Government offer these people no hope except to say, "If you go to these congested areas and add to the congestion and the trouble there, we will come to your help there, but we have nothing to offer you in your own homes, despite your desire to live there." It is for that reason that I support the Amendment.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: In my few remarks I want to take a rather different line. I want to commend the President of the Board of Trade on the honesty of his speech. For that reason it is in direct contrast with the promises made by the Prime Minister in Scotland on employment and unemployment at the last election. Seldom has there been such a glowing picture of what the Tories would do, not only for the industrial areas but also for the outlying areas of the Highlands and Islands, as we had in that blatant propaganda by the Prime Minister in the election. I commend the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that, in comparison, his speech is at least honest.
  When he used the phrase, "There is a limit to our national resources", he was saying, "There are certain areas and certain communities which will be permanently excluded and will not be affected by this legislation." That is the meaning of that phrase. I do not think that he will deny it. I am giving him the opportunity to deny it now, because I am deeply concerned about the areas to which I refer. Will he deny it? Of course he will not, because that is the true meaning of his speech; and, therefore, it was an honest speech.
  I represent one of the areas excluded by the right hon. Gentleman's honest admission from any hope of development under the Bill. So do the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod), Argyll (Mr. Noble) and many other Welsh and Scottish Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). How many areas are excluded by the test which underlies that speech by the right hon. Gentleman? I should like to know. That is the importance of the Amendment, why it should be freely discussed and why there should be no limit to the discussion until we have a better answer from the right hon. Gentle-
  1312
  man than a mere admission that the Bill will not help.
  We have been here before. In April last year, on the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, my constituency had the dubious honour of being selected as the only one to be mentioned by name as the very type of place in which that Act would have an impact upon unemployment and depopulation. All these things were said to be within the scope of that Act. Tonight, however, we have had an admission that depopulation and considerations relating to it, economic and social, are outwith the scope of the Bill. It is in that respect a more limited Bill than the Act of last year, which failed. That Act had no impact worth mentioning on the areas that I think of—the Highlands and Islands. There were a few paltry grants, the rest of Scotland got nothing at all, and only £80,000 or £90,000 was given in loans for development in all those areas.
  10.0 p.m.
  Tonight, we are discussing depopulation and unemployment. As I say, the loans under the last Act amounted to very little, and had no practical impact on unemployment or on depopulation. If we are now to be limited to matters of unemployment, as the right hon. Gentleman's own limited terms this evening indicate, this Measure fails in that respect as well. And the right hon. Gentleman has limited the application of this Measure to unemployment. He is not concerned with the consequences of unemployment and depopulation, of course, is one of them.
  We can, of course, solve unemployment by depopulation, and that is what we are doing. I must say that the Government have been eminently successful in solving unemployment in that way in certain areas of the Highlands and Islands. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has said, unemployment figures there are masked by emigration. People do not leave these areas of their own accord. There is no reason for them to do so. They are attracted to them in every way.
  Those areas have their own culture, their own language, their own way of life; the last thing the people want to do is to leave. As the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has just pointed out, whenever they

  1313
  do leave they foregather in Canada, in Australia, in all parts of the world, in clan associations to comfort themselves in the exile resulting from the hopeless quest to find jobs in their own homeland.
  The President of the Board of Trade has given us very little hope in his first speech. I hope that when he replies to the debate on this Amendment he will not confirm that he really meant what he said; that there is a limit to the national resources. What he meant by that was that there was a limit to the areas and communities to which it is intended to apply our national resources in the terms of the Bill. I trust that we will get a little more hope there.
  Depopulation is the result, in many cases, of unemployment. If we look at the Scottish figures in this respect the worst by far are those under this present Tory Government and the present Prime Minister. The emigration and depopulation figures for 1951 to 1957 are by far the worst. From 1951 to 1957 depopulation in the Highlands and Islands alone amounted to over 8,000 of what remains of the old population—by far the worst of the century. Even allowing for the days of emigration in the 'twenties and the heaviest unemployment of all in the 'thirties, the 'fifties under the Tories have been the worst of the lot.
  Regionally, one way of solving unemployment is emigration. As to the Tories' legislation, what they have so far attempted has been a failure, but if the right hon. Gentleman meant what he said it is a sentence of death on many areas. I have been through most of my constituency many times during the last summer, and in all the years I have represented it. I find that the situation gets worse and worse as time goes on. Populations and villages are shrinking because of the lack of employment and even the lack of any prospect of hope of employment in these communities.
  We find schools that had four or five teachers coming down to one-teacher status. Many parts of the Highlands are now the land of the one-teacher schools, and the same applies to the Islands. Many schools have closed down, and when that happens it is the sentence of death, not only for the school but for the whole community. One can but commend the Government for their suc-
  1314
  cess in solving the unemployment problem, not by any deliberate effort but simply by depopulation. The last Act had little success in the Highlands, and the prospects held out by the right hon. Gentleman tonight are not much better than were the results of that last Act.
  What do we ask the Government to do? We would like to see this legislation working, and these Amendments are an attempt to improve it. We do not want to destroy the Bill, but to improve it—of course we do. We want to co-operate in improving it, but tonight we have been given no hope of any kind, so we must fight on this issue.
  The Liberal Party has made its complaints. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery made a very moving speech. His hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out the problems, but neither of them suggested a solution—and the Tory legislation now before us does not give us any hope or promise of a solution, either. Surely we can ask for an extension of what has been happening in the Highlands in recent years as a result of direct Government action.
  Almost all the employment given in the whole of the upper half of Scotland—one-fifth of Great Britain—has been the direct result of Government action. One very prominent example, of course, is Dounreay, and others are the Forestry Commission and the Hydro-Electric Board—a nationalised board. Those are the bodies that have been providing employment there; preventing depopulation, bringing in new homes, keeping the schools open and the communities alive.
  Is not the whole logic of that experience—and the failure of the other method and of other people—that we should extend direct Government action? That is what the Liberal Party should be advocating as well as the Labour Party. Is not that what all parties should be concentrating on doing? One cannot get private enterprise to go to the Highlands. There are not enough big, quick profits in this area—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or co-partnership."] We will not get the Tory firms to go into these areas, but there is nothing to prevent them from using the device of nationalisation to solve these social problems. I can understand diffidence on the part of the Liberal Party more than I can understand it on

  1315
  the part of the Tories. Let the Government be a little bolder in an empirical sense and let them use the resources of the State.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try to hold out a little more hope that this Bill intends to extend and to improve upon the previous legislation instead of narrowing it down to the exclusion of such problems as depopulation and the drift from the Highlands and Islands, the Border countries and parts of Wales and England.
  Our industries in the Highlands and Islands have not benefited much from subsidies or subventions from the Government. In my constituency, we have one main source of employment outside agriculture and fishing; that is, the textile industry. It has not had one halfpenny of subsidy from the Government or from any public source. It has had the disadvantage of high freight rates under a subsidised private enterprise shipping company. We are asking that something be done to try to equalise the cost of production in those areas through adjustments in transport, by a flat-rate transport system. Something must be done about transport costs.
  If we are to try to put pressure on private industries to show a sense of social responsibility to areas of unemployment, I agree that they may have to be compensated in order to equalise costs. But the Government have not applied their minds to that problem. What worries me is that the whole question of the depopulated areas is being set aside altogether. The right hon. Gentleman said that. I hope that he will seriously reconsider the matter before we part tonight.
  Sir D. Robertson: We have had some very interesting speeches on this vitally important problem of depopulation. I am inclined to think that hon. Members opposite are somewhat too pessimistic, because the Government did with enormous success in the North of Ireland what hon. Members opposite would like done in Mid-Wales, North Wales and in the Highlands. They went out into the rural areas from the County Down to Donegal, to places like Coleraine, Carrickfergus, Ballymoney, Lame, Ballymena and Armagh. I know this area
  1316
  very well, as well as I know the North of Scotland and the Highlands.
  The Government brought in 140 firms, such as Blackwood Martin and Sons, Ltd.; Bovril Ltd., a very big firm; British Tabulating Machine Co.; Birmingham Sound Reproducers; British Thomson-Houston Ltd.; British Vacuum Cleaners Ltd.; Courtaulds Ltd., with 1,200 people working in the little town of Carrickfergus; Dunlop Rubber Co.; the English Cotton Co.; and Horrockses.
  There are 140 of them, providing 70,000 new jobs since the war came to an end, in the six rural counties of Northern Ireland. The Government made a net payment to the North of Ireland of £622 million between the end of the war and last year. It was a praiseworthy development. Although many of the people who benefited are natives of Eire, I still think that it was a praiseworthy effort. What I cannot, however, forgive or excuse is the playing down of the Highland area during the same period of time—deliberately playing it down.
  Anyone who knows the difficulties of Northern Ireland in comparison with ours knows that they are very much greater in Northern Ireland. At Coleraine and other places vehicles have to be loaded, to go to the trains, the goods loaded on to them, taken to the Port of Belfast or Larne or elsewhere, unloaded into trucks and taken to the ships. The same thing happens after they have crossed the Channel. It is the most expensive transportation known to mankind—short sea voyages and high terminal costs.
  We bring goods from all over the world, food from Australia and New Zealand, nitrates from Chile and Peru. In the long sea haul the cost is low because of the high mileage involved and that is why we can buy them at prices within our resources. I say that there could not be a greater obstacle than in taking these great firms out there and having to face tremendously heavy costs before the goods can be got to the market.
  We in Scotland have been too quiescent; we have been too polite. For ten years I have been trying by letters to induce the Government to do the only thing that will prevent unemployment, leading to depopulation and, finally, to

  1317
  decay. That is the position that we are in. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and the present Leader of the Liberal Party the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) have spoken of the conditions that prevail in those parts. I want to ask what the Government have to say about it. They look rather ashamed to me. There are 70,000 new jobs—a magnificent performance—in Northern Ireland, and there is stark, shocking treatment for the Highlands of Scotland. Let them answer.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I should not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the very unsatisfactory reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the question that I put to him just now. When he talks about the resources being limited, we should like to know how limited they are as far as this Bill is concerned. We should like to know how much money will be spent under the Bill.
  This is a Local Employment Bill. That is the Title, but it is obvious from the speeches made during the last half hour that it will not be a Local Employment Bill so far as rural areas are concerned, because the right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that they will not be affected by it. In other words, the rural parts will be left to decay still further. Because the Minister will not give us any understanding as to how much the Bill will cost and what are the means at his disposal for giving it effect, we have to look at the last Distribution of Industry Act.
  Last year, the Government came to the House asking for further powers to deal with unemployment, because the powers under the 1945 Act were not sufficient. When unemployment had soared to over half-a-million and had averaged over 400,000 a month for a year, what did the Government do? If the Minister will not tell us how much he will spend under the Bill, we must consider what the Government spent under the 1945 and 1958 Acts put together.
  In 1956–57, we spent £6·2 million. When unemployment went up in 1957–58 we spent only half that amount, £3·4 million. We then had a new Bill which was to work wonders and we spent an additional £800,000 to what we had been spending, making £4·2 million for 1958–59.
  1318
  That is an indication of how the Government tackled the problem. When unemployment soared to a monthly average of over 400,000 for twelve months the Government spent an additional £800,000 in trying to deal with the problem.
  If that is indicative of how seriously the Government treated the last two Acts, we have a right to ask for a further explanation of what the Minister means by "limited resources". If the resources under the new Bill are to be limited in the same way as they were under the old Acts, the effectiveness of the Bill in dealing with unemployment will be negligible.
  On the basis of what was spent under the old Acts, the Government were to solve the whole of the unemployment problem by spending £10 a head for those signing on to find a job. Is that a measure of the Government's intent? Is that indicative of how seriously they regard this problem? Do they think that by spending £10 a head to provide jobs for men who are unemployed that it will solve the problem? It will require a much larger amount than that.
  It is because the right hon. Gentleman refuses to tell us how large the amount will be that we have the right to feel that this is a shadow boxing Bill in exactly the same way as the last one, and that when the Bill is on the Statute Books it will be as about ineffective as the last Act was.
  All that has happened since the last Bill was introduced and passed through the House is that unemployment has gone up instead of down, as it should have done if the Act had done what the Government said that it would do.
  Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I will not detain the Committee for very long. Rural depopulation has been a problem since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and it will continue as long as we allow economic and geographical factors to control the location of industry.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said, depopulation in Wales have been very marked. Paradoxical as it may seem, this has been for two reasons: first, the decline of one industry; and, secondly, the prosperity of another. I am referring to the decline of the slate industry. That industry has been declining since 1881 with the result that,

  1319
  as my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) said earlier, the population of Ffestiniog has fallen to half what it was at the beginning of the First World War. Nothing has happened to take the place of the slate industry, which we have seen collapsing.
  Alongside that, we have another interesting phenomenon. Never in our history has agriculture been more prosperous than it is now. I have in mind, for example, Montgomery, Anglesey, and Caernarvon, where the agricultural industry has never been as prosperous as it is at present. Although agriculture is so very prosperous, we find at the same time that there is more and more unemployment in those very areas.
  The result is that, whilst the decline in the slate industry causes unemployment, prosperity in agriculture also is causing unemployment. What possible answer can there be to this problem? The only answer in our view, is this. We must take into those areas new industries of a rural character if we are to keep the people there and preserve the communal life and rich heritage they have as part of the rich heritage of a very cultured nation.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I do not wish to reiterate the arguments which have already been put. Beside the President of the Board of Trade sits the Secretary of State of Scotland. He is responsible for a country about three-quarters of which is affected by depopulation.
  Mr. Watkins: Where is the Minister for Welsh Affairs?
  Mr. Willis: At the moment, I am concerned with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been popping in and out of this Chamber during the debate like a piston rod in and out of a cylinder. Does the Secretary of State for Scotland—the people of Scotland would like to know this—subscribe to the doctrine announced on behalf of the Government by the President of the Board of Trade? What was that doctrine? We were told that the Government are not concerned with depopulation. Does the Secretary of State accept that?
  Depopulation is a feature of the Highlands, two-thirds of the area of Scotland. It is a feature of the North-East and of
  1320
  the Borders. The only area in which it is not a feature is the area referred to yesterday by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), the industrial belt up towards Dundee, and even there it is to be found in certain parts. Does the Secretary of State really say that he is not concerned with depopulation? Does he agree with his right hon. Friend that we have not in this country sufficient resources to do anything about this problem? That is what was said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We are entitled to know. The people of Scotland are entitled to know.
  I ask the Secretary of State this direct question. Does he say to the people of Scotland that the Government cannot find any resources to deal with this overwhelming problem of depopulation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to say anything about this at all?
  Mr. Ross: Let us not wake him up.
  Mr. Willis: The whole of Scotland, of course, is losing workers every year. We suffer every year a net loss of 4,500 workers, which means that we lose about 12,000 of our population every year. That is the overall figure. But that, in its turn, conceals the fact that, inside Scotland, there is a constant drift towards the industrial areas.
  Will not the right hon. Gentleman reply? I had hoped that he would rise and say whether he agreed or not. If he does not intend to say anything, of course, perhaps we can talk a little longer until we do persuade him to rise. There are enough Scottish Members to put a few pertinent questions to him.
  Mr. S. Silverman: And a few English ones as well.
  Mr. Willis: What is the Secretary of State's attitude? The philosophy enunciated by the President of the Board of Trade is this. There is unemployment in a particular area in Scotland. The Government are prepared to assist. A big factory or plant, let us say, is established in the area. Immediately, people migrate from the surrounding parts into that area. This is merely aggravating the congestion. It is not dispersing industry but aggravating the process against which we are trying to fight. Is that the attitude of the Government?

  1321
  As the Secretary of State knows quite well, the Cairncross Committee issued a very fine Report on this subject, which is quoted time and time again in Scotland. The recommendations of the Cairncross Committee were entirely opposed to this Bill. The Secretary of State can have as many talks with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as he likes, but he ought to know the Cairncross Committee Report. It ought to be part of his bible. The third important recommendation of that Committee was that one of the factors which should be given great consideration was depopulation in Scotland.
  What is the situation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland? Fishing villages are decaying. Unemployment does not necessarily rise because the sons and daughters of families there go elsewhere for jobs as soon as they leave school. Worse than that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said, schools are closing and children go for their secondary education to places 60 or 70 miles away. They are boarded out in order to receive their secondary education, and they never go back home. They take jobs direct from school away from their homes.
  These areas are dying. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that they are dying before his eyes, and whole communities and vast areas of the countryside are desolate dying of neglect. Yet we are told that the Government can do nothing about it. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) has not said something about it.
  Mr. Manuel: Where is he?
  Mr. Willis: There are huge areas in Wester Ross which are nothing but desolation, apart, of course, from a few sporting tenants. Where is the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. Maclean)? Where are the Scottish Members opposite? Only the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has had the courage to speak for Scotland in this matter. Where are all the hon. Members opposite who fought their election campaigns with the cry that they would introduce a good Bill immediately on being returned to power? It has been suggested to me that they are not speaking in case they
  1322
  are sent to the Scottish Grand Committee as a punishment. That might be a good idea. At least, it would educate them about the facts of the country in which some of them live and are supposed to represent. We are entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he thinks about this.
  I said yesterday that I was deeply shocked that the Secretary of State for Scotland could accept the Bill. It does less than the other Bill. I am not surprised, however, because the right hon. Gentleman does not have the courage to stand up and demand what we want. At least, he should have the honesty to get up at the Box to say "I agree. I concur with the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade." Let him get up and say that. We should then know the extent to which his concern for Scotland finds expression in a practical manner in the Bill.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State owes this duty to the people of Scotland. His party suffered a fairly heavy blow in Scotland at the election and the least he can do is to tell us what he will do about it. We in Scotland are in the position of having a Bill that the majority of Scottish Members do not regard as good enough for Scotland, but it is being forced upon us by the majority south of the Border. If we had had a Parliament in Edinburgh, we would not have had the Bill. We would have had something much better. I have spoken longer than I intended because I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to give us a reply on this matter.
  Mr. John McKay: I wish to speak on this special occasion, despite the lateness of the hour, because I regard it as a duty. I have been in close contact with the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers. A fortnight ago, I was called to meet the executive of the Northumberland miners on this very point of the disastrous social conditions that are likely to arise in Northumberland and elsewhere in the coal fields.
  I want to give a few figures from the report of the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers concerning unemployment in the mines. It states that in 1958, manpower in the coal industry fell by 22,500 and so far this

  1323
  year it has fallen by a further 30,000. It then shows that in the five years following the reorganisation of the pits on an economic basis, there will be another 60,000 fewer men in mining.
  In this debate, we have not been told what is to happen to the miners when they are confronted with the great difficulty of unemployment. What is happening is that the aged miners, many of whom want to continue working to get their higher increments, are being debarred from doing so and, in consequence, are getting less money because their time has been cut short. In other words, a condition is being applied in the coal fields which is not applied in the majority of other industries. Because pits are closing in Northumberland and other places, these areas eventually will become depopulated to a serious extent. Therefore, this matter is of crucial importance to the mining community.
  I do not want to say more—the time is late—but unemployment in the mining industry and in other places throughout the country matters more than most things, and it is up to us as a community to see that the wants of unemployed people are fully attended to if we cannot find them work.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)rose—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Maclay: Unaccustomed as I am to enthusiastic applause from the other side of the Committee, I welcome it very much.
  Mr. Manuel: Resign.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has advised me to do that several times before. I have never taken his advice and I will not take it now.
  I should like to answer briefly the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I ask hon. Members opposite, and Scottish Members particularly, to study the High-
  1324
  land White Paper of last year before they start accusing this side of the Committee of neglecting the interests of the Highlands. What is more, let them understand that we believe in action and not in mere words. We have shown action all over Scotland and we are continuing to show it.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well, too, that it is not possible to have everything simultaneously in every part of the whole country, and for that to be provided by any Government. If it is possible, why did not they do more between 1945 and 1951? The hon. Gentleman knows it is not possible. If he will for once study carefully and dispassionately—although I know that is a bit much too much to expect, although he says that he is always dispassionate—what has happened in recent years, if he will study carefully what happened between 1945 and 1950 in the industrial belt and in the Highlands of Scotland, if he will study carefully the full implications of the Bill and also what my right hon. Friend has said, remembering always that it is actions and not words and not praises which count, he will see that the Bill—
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The right hon. Gentleman ought to look at what has been said. He ought to look —[Interruption.]
  Mr. Maclay: I shall finish my own remarks in my own way.
  What I was saying was that if the hon. Gentleman will study what has happened—
  Mr. Willis: Scotland is still losing people.
  Mr. Maclay: —and what happened under the powers available to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if he will study the full implications of the Bill, he will see that, taken with the proper action, which is, of course, essential, it does as much as any reasonable Government can reasonably do to solve our problems.
  Mr. W. Hamilton: If the Secretary of State thinks he can get away with a two-minute speech after seven hours of debate he has got another think coming. The right hon. Gentleman talked about action. He has not refuted the figures given by my hon. Friend, namely, that depopulation of the Highlands since 1951 has been worse and has reached the worst figure for Scotland. He has not yet answered the question which was put to him: does he or does he not agree with the propositions put forward by the President of the Board of Trade on the question of depopulation?
  This depopulation, despite what this Government have done, and, indeed, despite what the Labour Government did, is continuing at an increasing pace, and we are asking the Secretary of State about it, and we are entitled to more than a two-minute brush-off. We are entitled to more than that. This depopulation is increasing and is accentuating other problems. We have to tackle the problems of the conurbations. Not only in this country but throughout the world the problem of conurbation is exercising the mind of every responsible individual. The depopulation of the Highlands and indeed of other areas within the industrial belt of Scotland is aggravating first of all the problem of the Highlands and also the problems of conurbation.
  I do not think there are two more damnable social scourges than unemployment and the feeling that one is not wanted. In the locality where I live, within ten miles of London, living next door is a girl from Lewis, in the Islands, and acting as a nanny. She is out of her own community. She feels isolated. I am certain of that. She is not there by choice. She is driven there because successive Governments have failed to tackle the problem.
  Why have successive Governments not tackled it? Because those communities are isolated communities, politically not very powerful. The people there are in the same position as old-age pensioners. Their political power is not very great. They have not the will and the right to strike or the desire to strike; they cannot withhold their labour. They have none of these weapons at their disposal. So they are treated by the Government as unwanted people. In a civilised community—I hope we still claim to be one
  1326
  —we ought to spend days dealing with the problems of minorities. I believe that the test of a civilised community is the way it regards minorities, and these people are minorities. I believe they are a valuable social and cultural asset, and it will be a sad day if they disappear.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) delivered his election addresses in Gaelic and that some of my Welsh hon. Friends delivered theirs in Welsh. I regard these characteristics as valuable. When a Welshman or, indeed, when a Highland man comes to London there is something lost to the community from which he comes and to the individual.
  For the Secretary of State for Scotland to stand at the Box and to speak for only two minutes and then to say that actions and not words count is just fantastic. He did not even speak for two minutes. He was not so retiring at the time of the election. He did not then speak for just two minutes and promise the Highland people and others what he was going to do; nor did the other Scottish Tories who are now absent from the Chamber. I guess that there are not more than one in ten of the Scottish Tories present here at the moment.
  Mr. Watkins: Depopulated.
  Mr. Hamilton: It may be they will be among the unemployed very soon. I hope they are.
  I want to put one further point to the Secretary of State. I have always complained—and I supported the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in this—about the high taxation that we have to pay. I agree with the noble Lord. I always feel that I pay far too much tax, and I do so because part of my tax goes to pay the Secretary of State's salary. He is my employee, and I am a hard taskmaster. I want my money's worth. I have not had it today, and I hope that Scottish Members will see that we get it before the right hon. Gentleman gets away tonight.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Secretary of State for Scotland has just made his first intervention in our discussions in Committee on the Bill. I

  1327
  should think that the right hon. Gentleman has seldom made a more untimely intervention than the one he made tonight. He did not seem to realise that he was speaking on behalf of the Government in refusing an Amendment which asks the Government to take into account depopulation when deciding whether or not to take action to steer industry into certain areas. The right hon. Gentleman merely threw out, without any statistics to support it, the assertion that his Government in recent years had done more for the Highlands of Scotland than their predecessors in office.
  May I fill in the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan)? In the hundred years between 1851 and 1951 the population of the Highland counties, which represent almost 50 per cent. of the land area of Scotland and, indeed, one-sixth of the land area of Britain, declined from 386,000 to 286,000, a loss of 1,000 people per year for a hundred years. During that time countless commissions were appointed to consider what action might be taken to halt the depopulation of the Highlands.
  10.45 p.m.
  The first time that action was taken to stop depopulation was when the great public works schemes were undertaken by the Labour Government after 1945. What has happened since 1951? I can tell the Secretary of State for Scotland that, according to the reports which he himself publishes, depopulation is now running at 1,500 a year. One thousand a year for 100 years, numberless commissions appointed to consider what might be done to hold depopulation and then, under the administration of Governments of the same political complexion as the present one, since 1951 depopulation has been running at a rate 50 per cent. higher than for the preceding one hundred years. And the Secretary of State boasts of what has been done and what is now to be done under the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman could not have listened to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade who said that it would be ridiculous to accept an Amendment which says that action should be taken by the Board of Trade
  1328
  in an area in which further employment was required to avoid further depopulation of the locality. Goodness gracious! Is there a single hon. Member who thinks that action might be necessary on the part of the Government to deal with unemployment in some of the seaside towns, spoken about in the debate from both sides of the Committee, which have increased their populations tremendously in the past 25 years, is there a single hon. Member who thinks it ought to be possible for the President of the Board of Trade to take action to promote a higher level of employment in Margate and Ramsgate and all these holiday towns, but that it is not desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should take action to stop further depopulation in Caithness and Sutherland, the Western Isles or Ross and Cromarty, or Inverness? I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) is not in his place tonight, nor the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean).
  Is it not equally desirable, and far more desirable, that action should be taken by the President of the Board of Trade, using the powers which he is taking in the Bill, to help these areas? I said on an earlier Amendment and I do not think that it would be improper to repeat that we cannot have a large number of people in the aggregate unemployed in Sutherland or in Ross-shire or in the Western Isles. I am equally sure that we cannot have a large number of people in the aggregate unemployed in North Wales. We cannot because there are too few people there just now. And if the Government delay any longer in taking action to provide employment in these areas, and in many parts of the Highlands of Scotland, the time will come very soon when it will not be possible to take any action to promote employment because there will be no people left at all.
  I should have thought that this was an Amendment which the Secretary of State for Scotland would have very much wanted to have made in the Bill. I wonder whether the position is that he really wants the Amendment but has been refused it by him right hon. Friend. Perhaps it is for that reason that he came to the Dispatch Box a few minutes ago and did not say a word against it.
  I wonder if the Secretary of State would answer this question. Does he

  1329
  not think that the powers being given in the Bill should be exercised in the Highlands to avoid further depopulation?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Maclay: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about my position in this matter. I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I believe that the powers in the Bill, used in the way which, as the Bill is drafted, they will be used, plus the other action which is open to us, can do a great deal to arrest depopulation over a period. I recognise that depopulation has been a desperately anxious problem to successive Governments for a great many years. Various methods have been tried, and will be tried, to arrest it. It is my firm conviction that the Bill, plus the other powers we are using, can in time help to solve this problem, but I do not pretend that rural depopulation, which is common to the whole of the civilised world, is a problem that can be solved overnight.
  Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman must have gone right back to assuming that there are powers in the Bill which he does not possess at the present time. There is no power in the Bill which the
  Government do not possess under existing Statutes. Yet with all these powers depopulation of the rural areas has continued. We find that since the present party became responsible for the government of this country in 1951, 350,000 jobs have been created in London, 900,000 jobs have been created in England, and no additional jobs have been created in Scotland. That is because the Government have failed to exercise the powers they have for the better distribution of industry; and they have refused to allow the Bill to be so changed in its terminology that it might be described as distribution of industry legislation. It is not.
  We want by the Amendment to make it imperative on Her Majesty's present advisers to take such action as is available to them under the Bill as is calculated to provide employment in areas which have suffered depopulation and will suffer further depopulation. That is the issue before the Committee, and if the President of the Board of Trade cannot give us a more sympathetic answer, I hope that the Committee will now come to a decision.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 208.

  Division No. 10.]

  AYES

  [10.54 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Ainsley, William

  Finch, Harold

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Awbery, Stan

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Beaney, Alan

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Kelley, Richard

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

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  King, Dr. Horace

  Benson, Sir George

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lawson, George

  Blackburn, F.

  Grey, Charles

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Blyton, William

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Logan, David

  Boyden, James

  Grimond, J.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  McInnes, James

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hannan, William

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Carmichael, James

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hayman, F. H.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Mahon, Simon

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Cronin, John

  Holman, Peroy

  Mapp, Charles

  Crosland, Anthony

  Holt, Arthur

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Marsh, Richard

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Howell, Charles A.

  Mason, Roy

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Deer, George

  Hunter, A. E.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Dempsey, James

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Monslow, Walter

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Morris, John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Neal, Harold

  Evans, Albert

  Janner, Barnett

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Owen, Will

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Wade, Donald

  Pulley, W. E.

  Ross, William

  Warbey, William

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  8ilverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Small, William

  Weitzman, David

  Peart, Frederick

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Pentland, Norman

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Whitlock, William

  Prentice, R. E.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stonehouse, John

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Probert, Arthur

  Stones, William

  Willey, Frederick

  Proctor, W. T.

  Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Rankin, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Symonds, Joseph

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Rhodes, H.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Roberta, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Woof, Robert

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Robertson, Sir David

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Timmons, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Irving and Mr. Short

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Godber, J. B.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Allason, James

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Marten, Neil

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barber, Anthony

  Green, Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mills, Stratton

  Barter, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Batsford, Brian

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan, William

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Morrison, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Bingham, R. M.

  Harvie, Anderson, Miss

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Bishop, F. P.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Noble, Michael

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Nugent, Richard

  Bossom, Clive

  Hendry, A. Forbes

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Box, Donald

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, Graham

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Partridge, E.

  Bryan, Paul

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bullard, Denys

  Hobson, John

  Peel, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Hooking, Philip N.

  Percival, Ian

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Holland, Philip

  Plckthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hollingworth, John

  Pilkington, Capt. Richard

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Pitman, I. J.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pott, Percivall

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Cole, Norman

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Ramsden, James

  Collard, Richard

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Cordle, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rees, Hugh

  Corfield, F. V.

  Jackson, John

  Renton, David

  Costain, A. P.

  James, David

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Coulson, J. M.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Roots, William

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Jennings, J. C.

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Johnson Smith,C.(Holb&S.P'ncr's,S)

  Sharples, Richard

  Cunningham, Knox

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Shepherd, William

  Curran, Charles

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Dance, James

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Smithers, Peter

  Deedes, W. F.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Speir, Rupert

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

  Stodart, J. A.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Doughty, Charles

  Lindsay, Martin

  Storey, S.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Lit oh field, Capt. John

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Eden, John

  Longbottom, Charles

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Elliott, R. W.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Talbot, John E.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Farr, John

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Teeling, William

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Temple, John M.

  Fisher, Nigel

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Freeth, Denzil

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Gammans, Lady

  McMaster, Stanley

  Turner, Colin

  Gardner, Edward

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)

  Maddan, Martin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  1332

  1333

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Whitelaw, William

  Woollam, John

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Wise, Alfred

  Wall, Patrick

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Mr. Legh and

  Watts, James

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Colonel J. H. Harrison.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  We have had two long days' discussion, and I think that I have heard almost all the speeches. But although we have discussed, I do not think that we have made very rapid progress, and we must try to make more progress next week when I hope that you, Sir Gordon, will have been refreshed by the weekend, and I hope that I will have been refreshed by seeing something of Scotland, which I hope to visit during the next few days.
  Mr. Jay: In view of the voting figures, I certainly think that it would be wise to give the Government time to pause for reflection, and for the President of the Board of Trade to visit Scotland. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in the future proceedings of the Bill, the
  1334
  more of our Amendments he accepts the more rapid will progress be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Maclay.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

  LITTER BINS (ADVERTISEMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E Wakefield.]
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. Rupert Speir: I feel that I ought to apologise for detaining the House and raising a subject which, at first sight, must appear to be a matter of small concern. It is a subject which, nevertheless, has been the concern of the Minister of Housing and Local Government for some time past. Indeed, he issued a special circular dealing with this problem, Circular 52/59 of 21st August last. It is a subject which is of considerable concern to many local authorities throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain.
  The Litter Act, 1958, has now been in operation for some fifteen months. The Act has been operating more effectively than I myself, who had the privilege of sponsoring it in the last Parliament, ever expected. The public, the police, the local authorities and the magistrates have been taking it more seriously than its sponsors imagined would be the case. Indeed, there have already been about 2,000 successful prosecutions under the Litter Act, and I would add that there have been some rather hefty fines.
  I believe that the Act has got off to a surprisingly good start. It has had more support from the public than was anticipated, and I believe that it is true to say that the public have felt that the time had come for effective action to be taken to keep Britain tidy. Of course, the sponsors of the Act never imagined that the mere passing of an Act of Parliament would solve this difficult problem. They realised full well that it would take many years before the bad habits of the nation could be cured. When the Act was going through Parliament, and people used to ask me whether I thought the Act would work, I used to reply to them in the same way as Lord Hugh Cecil used to reply when he was asked whether the League of Nations would work. When he was drawing up the constitution of the League of Nations, and he was asked whether it would work, his answer was,
  1336
  "Think again. Does a spade work? Of course, the answer is, it has to be made to work."
  It is the same with the Litter Act. I think that in this packaging age, this age of cartons and wrapping, it is obvious that unless we pander to the public we cannot hope to make a success of this Act. It is all very well telling the public that they must carry their litter about and take it home, but we only need look round this Chamber, at the end of a long debate, to see that, where litter bins and baskets are not provided, people are careless and they do not have much regard for tidiness unless they are pandered to. Therefore, I say that we must pander to the public and we must provide ample litter bins and baskets in the right places if we want to get rid of the litter lout.
  Many local authorities have been active in providing sufficient litter bins. The Westminster City Council is a very good example. It has provided litter bins throughout the length and breadth of its area. But several local authorities have been lagging behind. Perhaps they do not care sufficiently. Perhaps they cannot be bothered, or perhaps they cannot bear the expense of providing enough litter containers. But no matter what the reason may be, I should have thought, and I would have hoped, that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would have done everything possible to encourage the provision of an ample number of litter bins by local authorities.
  Nevertheless, this is not what he has done. Instead, he has issued Circular 52 of 1959 which I can only describe as very vague and wishy-washy. The circular rightly points out that the Minister has had a number of appeals before him from local authorities against the refusal of planning consent for the use of litter bins carrying small advertisements. The Minister, in his circular, says that, so far, his attitude has been that advertisements so displayed would have an undesirable effect on the street scene.
  I challenge that suggestion that the exhibition of very small advertisements on the outside of litter bins can have an undesirable effect on the street scene, at any rate, in our shopping centres. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. Is it not carrying planning control

  1337
  to absurd lengths to deny local authorities the use of these litter bins with small advertisements on them in our main shopping centres? After all, the shops themselves with their window displays are little more than advertisements.
  Does my right hon. Friend realise that, today, about 650 local authorities are making use of small litter bins with advertisements exhibited on them? In his own borough, Hampstead, such bins are freely used, and have been so used for a long time now, without any adverse comment. Does he realise that, when I go home along the King's Road, in Chelsea, to my flat, I see that nearly every lamp-post carries a litter bin with advertisements? They have been used by Chelsea Borough Council for a long time, without complaint and with considerable success, and, of course, Chelsea Borough Council has great regard for amenities.
  In my constituency, Hexham, the urban district council has been refused planning consent to use advertisement-carrying litter bins. The same is true of many boroughs and urban districts. They may not use these bins although there are firms prepared to provide them free of charge, to erect them free of charge, to maintain them free of charge, and even to insure them free of charge. With some of the larger fibreglass bins costing about £15 apiece, that is a free service which the ratepayers should not be denied.
  There is today a rather ridiculous situation where about 650 local authorities are using these bins supplied free, and receiving no complaints for so doing, whereas others are denied their use and are refused planning consent.
  The firms which are prepared to offer this free service of providing litter bins are sensible concerns. They are quite prepared to adopt a reasonable attitude and be as co-operative as possible with the local authorities. They are prepared, if so desired, to limit the advertisements to bins placed in town centres, in shopping centres, and not to put them in places where there are no other forms of advertising at present. They are prepared to limit the advertisements on the bins, and they go so far as to say that they will use advertisements on only one in four bins, that is to say, there would
  1338
  be one bin with an advertisement for three bins without advertisement. Thirdly, they are prepared to use rigorous control of the advertisements themselves to ensure that an inappropriate advertisement is not put up in any place.
  The siting of the bins, their colour and the wording they carry can all be settled by joint discussion amicably between the firms providing the bins and the local authorities which are to make use of them. I therefore do suggest that ancient and attractive towns such as Abingdon, Hexham, and Harrow, apart from many others that I could mention, are proud of their amenities and their appearance and are not likely to indulge in a rash of litter bins in inappropriate places. They will not distribute these bins like some infectious rash. At the same time, we must have more bins if we are to make headway with the anti-litter campaign and I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider his circular and to look again at this whole problem.
  If my right hon. Friend can do that, and arrange for bins to be used on a more widespread basis, he will be encouraging the campaign to keep Britain tidy. Albeit, these bins will carry some advertisements; but if one walks along Victoria Street there will be seen bins which have not been provided free, but by the local authority. Although they do not carry advertisements, they carry all kinds of notices about keeping the streets clean and I submit that the bins along King's Road, Chelsea, are much to be preferred.
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Short: I should like briefly to add support to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). Indeed, on this occasion, I can address him as my hon. Friend. After a year of the operation of the Litter Act which he introduced, country lovers should say a word of thanks to him. He struck a bigger blow for cleaning up the countryside than anyone else, and as a country lover myself I express my thanks to him for what he did in piloting his Bill through the House.
  I pass through the hon. Gentleman's constituency—an area not unknown to yourself, Mr. Speaker—and as I go over the fells to the Lake District, some of the

  1339
  sights which I see on that lovely mountain area and along the side of Lake Ullswater, appal me. As the number of motor cars increases, so the litter menace increases, and I think that the Ministry must face up to this fact. More people are travelling to the countryside each week-end and, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's Act, they are leaving a great deal of litter behind them.
  I see no objection to small bins with the advertisements. Because of our fantastic system of taxation and rating, our citizens bear great burdens and any relief which they can have should be given to them. I see no harm in these bins being erected and I say that local authorities should be able to accept them.
  In my view, the greater part of the litter comes from picnicking in the great open fells and woodlands, and lake-sides. I have travelled many thousands of miles in the United States and I have always thought, when there, that we do not make sufficient provision for the people who wish to picnic. The Minister should send out a circular urging local authorities—and especially those in the districts I have mentioned—to set up picnic areas; there could be some of the tables one sees in America, and fixed chairs and, perhaps, facilities for cooking, and also the bins into which the litter could be put. If these facilities were provided, and there were provision for the litter, a good deal of the unsightliness now defacing our countryside would disappear.
  I ask the Minister to consider urging local authorities, especially in the beauty spots, to make some provision for picknickers.
  11.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has put the whole country in his debt by his initiative with the Litter Bill and anything that he says on this or allied matters carries the greatest weight. He has taken the country with him. We are all anxious to reduce litter. That is the aim of us all.
  Obviously, for this purpose, litter bins are necessary. As my hon. Friend said, a large number of local authorities have
  1340
  already provided them. My hon. Friend must, however, agree that we need proportion in this matter and that if the litter bins were to be, in my hon. Friend's phrase, like an infectious rash upon the street scene, some disadvantage might have to be set against their success in reducing litter. What we want to do is to get the maximum possible number of litter bins with the minimum possible disturbance to the street scene.
  I must disagree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) in their constant reference to advertisements on litter bins as being small and unobtrusive. The fact is that understandably, when advertisements are permitted, they often cover the whole of a litter bin, and since it is the purpose of an advertisement to call attention to itself they are rarely unobtrusive. If it were so, there might have been less dislike of them. It is the object of my right hon. Friend the Minister at once to reduce litter and to reduce clutter. That is why I cannot see eye to eye with my hon. Friend in his point of view.
  Local authorities, as my hon. Friend knows, are free in their handling of street furniture—they were given freedom under the General Development Order of 1950—but they are not free concerning advertisements except for functional advertisements, which can still be challenged on amenity grounds if they are too obtrusive. My hon. Friend referred to advertisements concerning the enforcement of byelaws in one of the streets near here. If those advertisements are too obtrusive and intrude upon the street scene too much, they can be challenged by the planning authority. They must, therefore, conform with the street scene as much as possible.
  It is the policy of the Government in all these matters to leave as much as possible to the decision of the local authority. I am sure that local authorities, particularly in the areas of picnicking, for instance, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central referred, are aware of the problems. I expect that they will read with interest his suggestions of a picnicking area serviced with a minimum amount of equipment such as there is to be found on the Continent of America and elsewhere.

  1341
  It is as a result of the policy of lack of interference that local authorities such as Chelsea and Westminster are perfectly free, unless challenged by a planning authority, to allow advertisements on litter bins. Public opinion, however, is, mercifully, beginning to be very concerned about the street scene and, at a time when there is a great deal of interest in the improvement of design of such things as lamp standards, telephone boxes and all the other equipment which we take for granted in the streets, it would be retrograde if my hon. Friend were to encourage yet a new sort of clutter.
  It may seem at first sight as if local authorities and private enterprise have a common interest in the provision of free services of litter bins plus advertisements, but this is only a common interest if the advertisements are kept so modest as not in any way to obtrude on the street scene and create yet a new sort of clutter. That is why my right hon. Friend, while he has not intervened when a planning authority has permitted advertisements, has backed up those planning authorities who have opposed advertisements on litter bins. Many planning authorities have taken the view that since litter bins are provided by a number of local authorities without the help of the financial concession that goes with advertisements, there is, therefore, every reason to hope that other local authorities will also provide litter bins, even if they have to pay for them.
  For the future, each case will continue to be decided on its merits, but my right hon. Friend, in an attempt to suggest a compromise, has proposed, in the circular to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred, a modest sort of internal advertisement 8 in. by 1 in. inside the far facing of litter bins, so that anybody using the bins would see it. My right hon. Friend was most careful not to give the impression in any way of directing local authorities about this, because he has no power to direct, but he did suggest this as a compromise. It is far too soon at this date to judge whether this compromise will be acceptable.
  It may interest my hon. Friend to know that my right hon. Friend is at the moment between two fires. While some
  1342
  people, like the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight, think that he has not gone nearly far enough and that advertisements should be allowed, to gain some financial advantage, on the whole of the outside of litter bins, there are other people, equally vociferous, though not in the House tonight, who think that he has gone too far in permitting any advertisements even on the inside of litter bins. Perhaps my right hon. Friend, being shot at from both sides, is in a reasonable position between supporting the fight against litter and that against clutter, those two enemies of the street scene.
  The fact is that street furniture should be improved, and there are encouraging signs that the public takes this matter very seriously. We all know of the enterprise of the Civic Trust, in combination with Norwich, where a complete street, a main shopping thoroughfare, was given a treatment of paint and removal of clutter, to the delight of the local inhabitants and to the interest of, I believe, more than a hundred other local authorities who are now contemplating some form of follow-up action in their own areas. That is a sign that public opinion really is roused. I understand that the Civic Trust would be glad to advise any other local authorities who want to combine service to the public in reducing litter with avoidance of clutter.
  I very much hope that the manufacturers of litter bins—and I am sure that they are sensible people, as my hon. Friend said—will concentrate on providing litter bins at prices attractive to local authorities. My hon. Friend referred to £15 for a litter bin. I am advised that that would be a very large litter bin. In fact, the normal litter bin which hangs on a lamp standard probably costs between 40s. and 50s. It is quite true that it is an attraction for a local authority to get it cheaper or for nothing, but if we follow that argument too far we shall have the Post Office reckoning to build pillar boxes free because it could cover them with advertisements. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend would go as far as that, but if we allow advertisements on litter bins we may then have other people saying, "Let us have advertisements on other parts of the street scene."

  1343
  It is quite true that shop fronts are in themselves to some extent advertisements of the goods within them, but that is what they are for. We do not want advertisements in a rash rather than in concentrated places where they are permitted. I very much hope manufacturers of these bins will consider whether a small inside plaque advertisement suggested by my right hon. Friend may not perhaps be acceptable to advertisers. There is no evidence yet either that it is or it is not. It is too soon to judge.
  I have the assurance of the Council of Industrial Design that it is already very glad to help manufacturers of these litter bins in the pursuit of the aim of attractively priced, attractively designed litter bins, possibly with this internal small plaque advertisement. I am further able to announce that the Council of Industrial Design intends soon, possibly in the new year, to conduct a competition for the design of all sorts of different
  1344
  bins for different applications, and it may well include in the competition a prize for a litter bin which serves my right hon. Friend's purpose of having a small advertisement plaque inside the bin.
  I am sure that this debate will be valuable in drawing the attention of local authorities and manufacturers to the policy of my right hon. Friend, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham will accept that it is not ministerial policy to discourage litter bins in themselves in any way, or to intrude on local authorities' own discretion in these matters, but will bear in mind, whenever the Minister is asked to intervene, that in the street scene as a whole this is a war not only against litter, but clutter as well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Sedgefield
  Sedgefield
  Leyton
  Leyton
  Call-boxes, Bacup
  Call-boxes, Bacup
POST OFFICE
  Redirected Telegrams (Charges)
  Redirected Telegrams (Charges)
  Television Reception, Blaenavon
  Television Reception, Blaenavon
  Postal and Telecommunications Collaboration (Council of Europe Resolution)
  Postal and Telecommunications Collaboration (Council of Europe Resolution)
ROADS
  Motorway Signs
  Motorway Signs
  Improvement Scheme Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Improvement Scheme Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Cats'-eyes
  Cats'-eyes
  Inner Ring Road, Bristol
  Inner Ring Road, Bristol
TRANSPORT
  Vehicles (Fatal Accidents)
  Vehicles (Fatal Accidents)
  Victoria Line Tube
  Victoria Line Tube
  Learner Drivers
  Learner Drivers
  Speed Limit
  Speed Limit
  Radioactive Materials (Conveyance)
  Radioactive Materials (Conveyance)
  CUBA (MR. TOPHAM)
  CUBA (MR. TOPHAM)
  ANGLO-SOVIET CULTURAL AGREEMENT (WHITE PAPER)
  ANGLO-SOVIET CULTURAL AGREEMENT (WHITE PAPER)
  ANTARCTIC TREATY (WHITE PAPER)
  ANTARCTIC TREATY (WHITE PAPER)
EMPLOYMENT
  Young Persons, West Fife
  Young Persons, West Fife
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
  FORESTRY COMMISSION WOODLANDS, ABERDOVEY (FIRES)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION WOODLANDS, ABERDOVEY (FIRES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Commonwealth Sugar Agreement
  Commonwealth Sugar Agreement
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aircraft Movements, London Airport
  Aircraft Movements, London Airport
CYPRUS
  Cypriots, Great Britain (Payments)
  Cypriots, Great Britain (Payments)
  QUEEN'S PROCTOR (INQUIRIES)
  QUEEN'S PROCTOR (INQUIRIES)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Pensions
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Dutiable Goods (Withdrawal from Bond)
  Dutiable Goods (Withdrawal from Bond)
HOSPITALS
  Surgeons, Hull (Private Patients)
  Surgeons, Hull (Private Patients)
  Consultant Appointments, Northern Region
  Consultant Appointments, Northern Region
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Clogs (Production)
  Clogs (Production)
  Borstal Trainees
  Borstal Trainees
  Prisoners on Remand
  Prisoners on Remand
BRITISH ARMY
  Mr. H. R. Sandford (Retired Pay)
  Mr. H. R. Sandford (Retired Pay)
  Court Martial, India (Lieut.-Colonel Standford)
  Court Martial, India (Lieut.-Colonel Standford)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

TRAINING OF DENTISTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a satisfactory position has now been reached in regard to the training of dentists for general practice and also for the school dental service, and whether obstacles to the recruitment of women have now been removed with the full consent and concurrence of the dental profession.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as to the first point in the Question, a satisfactory position is now in sight. The Government accepted and are now implementing the recommendations of the McNair Report on the recruitment of the dental profession. It was recommended that new dental schools should be established for an intake of about 200 students a year, and included in this was a dental school in the University of Wales for a permanent intake of at least 50 students. Proposals and plans already launched, between them, will provide a total increase of 215 in training (compared with 200 deemed necessary in the Report), and will bring the figure of dentists trained annually to 865 to provide the recommended annual figure of 800 dentists who would join those working in this country. These plans include a new dental hospital at Cardiff with an intake of 50 students a year.
The problem of obtaining enough school dental officers is linked to that of recruitment in the profession as a whole. The number of dental officers at schools
1080
shows an improvement since the beginning of 1947, before the National Health Service came into effect, as between 753 in 1947 and 1,032 this year. There is still a shortage, but this should be overcome by the new training facilities that I have described. Building work is involved, and this is bound to limit the degree of acceleration. There are no obstacles whatever to the recruitment of women dentists or to their practising in this country.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he can give any idea how soon it will be possible for children in schools to be adequately inspected in regard to their dental treatment?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I have given a general Answer on that point. I have said that it is linked to the expansion of training facilities for dentists, and school dental officers are bound to go hand in hand with that. I do not think I should try to give a more specific answer on the school dental officers problem.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is it not a fact that the real trouble here is the very low pay received by school dental officers, as a result of which it is almost impossible in most parts of the country to recruit any at all?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that question, may I ask him whether he can tell the House the number of children per dental officer at present in this country?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as regards the second question, I am sorry not to have the figure ready. I cannot claim that it does not come within the scope of the Question, but I have not the figure in front of me. As to the first question, I think I have, so far as I can, replied to that in my Answer to the general Question. If the noble Lord would like to put it to me more specifically, I will gladly reply to him in writing.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord cannot answer my question on the spot, but would he undertake to draw the Ministers' attention to the programme, "Panorama", on the B.B.C. on Monday night which portrayed a grave situation so far as the teeth of our children at school is concerned.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, if my right honourable friends, like myself, were not watching the programme in question I will certainly draw their attention to it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while welcoming the announcement that a dental school is going to be set up in Wales, can the noble Lord disclose where in Wales it is to be?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes; it is to be at Cardiff.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that just as big a menace to children's teeth as the lack of dentists is the over-indulgence in sweets and ice-lollies?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am as anxious as anybody can be to give satisfaction, but I think that that is slightly outside the scope of the Question on the Paper.

OVER-FISHING OF THE NORTH SEA
2.40 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave 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 steps are being taken to prevent the ruthless over-fishing of the North Sea and, in particular, the catching of immature herring by Continental countries which has caused this year's autumn fishing to be the worst on record.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have played a leading part in the formulation of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention, which has been signed by all the European countries fishing the North Sea and the wider waters of the North-East Atlantic. Her Majesty's Government have ratified the Convention, and ratification by other signatory States is awaited. This Convention envisages a
1082
wider range of conservation measures than the existing Convention which it will supersede, and it applies to all species of fish, including herring, which is not a protected species under the existing Convention.
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has carried out investigations, in which our own scientists have participated, into the effect of the fishing for young herring for industrial purposes in the North Sea. It has been shown that this fishery, at its present intensity, cannot be regarded as the main cause of the decline of the East Anglian herring fishery. Her Majesty's Government will continue to co-operate in the scientific study of the problems of the herring and white fish fisheries and to press for the adoption internationally of whatever measures are found to be necessary in the interests of conservation.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that there is a sharp difference of opinion between the scientists and the herring fishermen on this subject? The herring fishermen have no doubt that it is the catching of immature fish which is the main cause of the trouble. May I also ask the noble Earl whether he does not think it is rather unnecessary to subsidise the fishing industry on the scale that we do if we acquiesce in the relentless destruction of the stocks of fish in the North Sea that is going on at the present time?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am aware that there are differences of opinion on this subject, but I think there are differences of opinion upon every subject under the sun. The view of the Ministry's scientific experts, however, is that the Bløden fishery for young herring, which is clearly what the noble Lord is referring to, is not the main cause, but that it is the over-fishing of adult herring stocks. As to whether we spend too much money on our fishing industry, I do not think we do; but noble Lords will have ample opportunity to discuss that point when the Sea Fish Industry Bill is before your Lordships shortly.

CUBAN REQUEST FOR JET FIGHTERS
2.43 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a decision has now been reached on the request of the Cuban Government for a replacement of the 17 Sea Furies sold to General Batista by an equal number of Hunter jet fighters.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, Her Majesty's Government, in common with other Western arms supplying countries, have for some time been restricting arms sales to the Caribbean countries because of the state of tension in that area. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government these tensions have not yet sufficiently diminished to warrant a change of policy. When, as we hope, the situation improves, we will gladly reconsider the matter.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will the noble Marquess, in reconsidering the matter, bear in mind that this is not an extension but a replacement of arms, and by a weapon which can be used only for defensive purposes; and that in the interests of our general relationship and trade with Cuba it is desirable that some decision should be reached in the matter before very long?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I will only say to the noble Lord that it was perfectly clear to Her Majesty's Government, when the request was made by the Cuba Government, that it was for an exchange. However, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the supply of jet aircraft at the present time would introduce a new factor into a still very delicate situation. As regards the question of trade, I think it is only right that I should point out that, despite the fact that we have not been supplying arms to Cuba, our trade has in fact increased quite considerably.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, while I accept
1084
entirely the principle the Minister has put forward, may I ask him whether the decision Her Majesty's Government are taking in this matter is in accord with all the other members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance? Are all the other members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance taking an exactly similar view in regard to Cuba?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it is not possible for us to have an exact agreement with anybody on this matter. What we are trying to do is to set a good example which, as the noble Viscount is well aware, is being followed by many of the Western arms-supplying countries, as I have already said. One cannot do more than that. We hope the example which we are setting will be followed by others.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the threatened events that we know of in other South American countries, can we be sure that the Government have not made the decision after special recommendations to them by Washington?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, my Lords. We did, in fact, reach the same decision as the United States reached, but quite independently of the United States.

PICCADILLY CIRCUS DEVELOPMENTS
2.46 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now able to announce how many days are being allowed between the date of the publication of the amended design for the proposed new building at Piccadilly Circus and the public inquiry appointed to consider it.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Inquiry is due to open on Wednesday, December 16, and the revised drawings will be on display at County Hall on the Monday and Tuesday of that week. It is a most exceptional step to make plans available for public inspection in this way before an inquiry, but

1085
my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government thought it right to secure that this exceptional step was taken in view of the public interest which has been shown in this particular application, and he has been able to obtain the co-operation of both the developers and the London County Council in these arrangements. My right honourable friend hopes that these arrangements will be of value to those who may wish to give evidence at the Inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful, as I am sure we all are, to the noble Earl and to the Minister for giving the House, at such very short notice, the information for which I asked yesterday. But I cannot help feeling very sorry to hear confirmation of what was suggested to us yesterday, that there are not three days but only one or two days to elapse between the publication of this amended scheme for a site of the first importance and the public inquiry which is to take place.
The purpose of inquiries of this kind, as I understand it, is to inform the Minister and the public of all the views that are held with regard to a proposed scheme, and in the present case I cannot help feeling that the only result will be that the Inquiry will be in the nature of a farce. The promoters—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will put it in the form of a question: Is it not true that the promoters and the London County Council will have seen this amended scheme before publication? Probably they have already seen it, and will have plenty of time to prepare a case on their side. Is it not equally true that the objectors, who are not nearly so well organised, inevitably will have little or no time to prepare their case and to get it properly presented? They may well be put at a hopeless disadvantage, and I am sure that cannot be the aim of the Minister or the Government. Might I suggest, therefore, that if there is no time now to postpone this Inquiry—and the noble Earl indicated that yesterday—the Government should ask the Royal Fine Art Commission (who, after all, have given no public opinion yet on this amended
1086
scheme) or some other appropriate body to express their views, in order that the public may get a balanced view on this matter.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we must try to get this matter in proportion. The public have been aware of the general scheme of development on the north side, the Monico site, as it is called, of Piccadilly since March 13, when photographs (I have them here) and leading articles were published in the newspapers. I think that should be borne in mind. The public have known about this scheme since March 13. It was then known that the building would be 172 feet high, and all these matters were known. No objections of any sort were made at that time. There are, of course, three main factors, namely the height and general design of the building, provision for advertisements, and details of the design. The proposals for the first two have been public knowledge for nine months, and the architects and other members of the general public will now have the opportunity of studying the details of the design for 48 hours before the inquiry, and during the inquiry.
With regard to the second question the noble Marquess asked, I have discussed the question of a possible postponement of this matter with my right honourable friend this morning, and he has decided that the inquiry must start on December 16. He has to consider what is fair to the applicant, and he also has in mind that definite objections have already been voiced to the height and so on. He has therefore decided that the inquiry must start on December 16.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I repeat to the noble Earl the question which I put to him a fortnight ago on which he said he would consult his right honourable friend? That is whether a model—now an amended model—of this building can be placed before us (and I think it has also been asked for in another place), so that Parliament as well as the London County Council may see it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, of course I conveyed the noble Earl's request to my right honourable friend, as I said I would, and I have discussed this matter with him. The model, it must

1087
be remembered, does not belong to Her Majesty's Government. It is a model, if there is one, which has been or will have to be made by the developer, and if a model can be made available by the developer it shall be placed here as soon as possible.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put a perfectly practical point to my noble friend? Does he not agree that, if this inquiry is to help the Minister, the case against this building must be properly presented? If there is not enough time for an amenity society or trust to arrange for legal representation and the marshalling of professional evidence, is it not probable that there will be a very large number of individual objectors, and is this not much more likely to prolong the proceedings than the postponement for which my noble friend Lord Salisbury pleads?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I must repeat that the general design and layout of this building—I have in front of me the photographs which were published in the Press—have been available to all members of the public since March 13; and if people object to that type of development, and if they have not already started preparing their case, they still have from to-day until December 16 to prepare a case to bring before the inquiry. The inquiry will be conducted by an inspector, who will report to my right honourable friend, who will then decide.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it not always open to the inspector to postpone the inquiry if it should turn out that any objector is prejudiced owing to the shortness of time? Is it not for such an objector to come forward and establish that he is prejudiced?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: That is perfectly true. It is, of course, usual, once an inquiry has been opened, to continue it till the end; but it is within the power of the inspector to adjourn it, and that he might very well wish to do if he were satisfied that any important part of the case could not be heard without such an adjournment.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, the noble Earl twice referred to photographs.
1088
As a practical measure, could those photographs be made available for the House to see, either in the Library or some other suitable place?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The photographs to which I was referring are available for the House to see, and they are in the Library of the House, because they were published in the Daily Telegraph of March 13 and October 28.
LORD CONESFORD: Since the noble Earl has referred to photographs, would it not be fair to make it clear to noble Lords that the developer himself has made clear by the publication of subsequent photographs or plans that the photographs previously published bore no relation whatever to the building he proposed to put up?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am quite unaware of that. It is, no doubt, a point the noble Lord will make at the inquiry.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, can the Government inform us why a design for the whole Circus cannot be made in advance, and why they could not postpone the development so that we can get a design for the whole Circus, even if the leases have not fallen in?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, to postpone all this matter until comprehensive plans for the whole Circus were ready would really, as I think perhaps the noble Lord will feel on second thoughts, be highly undesirable. The redevelopment of the whole of this area will necessarily take a very large number of years, and the Minister surely ought to be very reluctant to leave the north side, the Monico site, which is now coming down, derelict for a large number of years while the whole area is being redeveloped all round.
VISCOUNT ESHER: The noble Earl does not appear to have understood my question. I did not propose that he should leave the Monico site empty but that he should make a design for the whole Circus in which the Monico site would be included. Surely the Government must agree that in a matter of this kind, when we are dealing with a site of great importance, it is more important to provide the design first and the uses for that design afterwards.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I must remind your Lordships it is not my right honourable friend's responsibility to provide the design.
VISCOUNT ESHER: It should be.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It is the developer's responsibility to provide the design and submit it to the planning authority, and normally that is the end of the matter. In this case, because of the public interest which has been aroused, the Minister has taken the exceptional step of calling in this matter and saying he will decide himself, but he decides only on the development that is on foot and so far proposed.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may a neutral ask a question in this controversy, in order to answer the point made by the noble Lord opposite? Would not the Government be breaking the law if they attempted to carry out the duties of the London County Council?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, arising out of that point, would not the Parliamentary Secretary advise or inform his Minister that it might be wise, especially as an old member of the London County Council, to recall to mind what happened not in regard to a building in a street but with regard to Waterloo Bridge, and that the London County Council had to go to great lengths in order to obtain finally the beautiful structure which everybody welcomes to-day, and should not he be very careful before he overrides the views of the statutory planning authority of this very great metropolitan area?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am sure my right honourable friend is very anxious not to break the law and will be advised not to do so; and I am sure also that he will remember the controversy about Waterloo Bridge.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think the noble Earl said that it was unusual for the public to have access to plans before inquiries are held. Would he convey to his right honourable friend that it might be desirable to consider whether in such cases of universal interest the public should normally have access rather than not normally have access?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is a Starred Question, not an unstarred one. I really feel that this discussion has gone on sufficiently long, and if noble Lords are not happy they can always put down an unstarred Question for discussion later on.

THE HOUSING SITUATION
3.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the housing situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in submitting this Motion to your Lordships, I want to say at the outset that I hope I shall say nothing of a politically provocative character, though possibly some of what I propose to say may be controversial. I feel that, if at all possible, housing should not be, as it has been in the past, the subject of Party politics. To-day the better housing of our people is the professed aim of all political Parties. If there is any difference of opinion between them it can only be on means and not on ends. If we have as our objective the doubling of our standard of living in the next twenty or twenty-five years, then the biggest single factor in the raising of the standard of living must be the improvement of the housing of our people. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the most useful contribution I can make to this debate at the present time is to try to make a survey of what our housing needs will be for the next twelve years, what contribution we are making towards these needs, and what further action is called for.
In view of the perhaps unusual manner in which I am treating this subject, I have given some notice to the Minister who is going to reply, and I hope it will enable him to give an effective reply. I am afraid I am going to trouble your Lordships with a number of figures, which I hope will not be too difficult. For my information I have drawn extensively on the annual Abstract of Statistics for 1958 and the latest Digest of Statistics for October, 1959. As your Lordships will know, in the Abstract of Statistics the Registrar-General projects the population as he sees it right up to the year 1999. I do not want to go as far as that; I propose to go up to 1972, which is a matter of twelve years. In that twelve years the projected population figures

1091
show that there will be an increase in population of something like 4 million in the United Kingdom. Throughout I am going to give United Kingdom figures. They include Northern Ireland, but I hope that that will not disconcert the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave. The figures are given mostly in that form in the Abstract, but the Northern Ireland figures are so small that I doubt whether they will in any way affect the main argument that I am putting forward.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord except to say, in case it affects the noble Lord's use of figures, that I have not the United Kingdom figures including the figures for housing in Northern Ireland. I have some England and Wales figures and some Great Britain figures, but not, I am afraid, Northern Ireland figures.
LORD SILKIN: They are quite small, and I am not proposing to suggest that my figures are mathematically accurate to the last person. Inevitably, we are talking in hypothetical terms—even the Registrar-General who is projecting the population. But it is interesting to note that, according to the Registrar-General's forecast, the population of this country is increasing every five years by about one million people, and that figure is fairly steady right up to 1972. If we take an average and translate that into terms of families—at the present moment the number of persons per family is about 3⅓, but it is tending to become less—it looks as if we shall need something like 56,000 houses a year for the next twelve years merely to keep pace with the increase in population.
I add to that our requirements in order to provide decent housing accommodation for every family in this country. We have to take into account slum clearance, demolition, closure and so on, which will involve obsolescence and the relief of overcrowding. It is difficult to get anything like exact figures for those particular types of housing accommodation, but in 1950 an estimate was made of the constituents of the problem. That estimate has remained on record unchallenged and it will give your Lordships some idea of the magnitude of the problem. In 1950 there were nearly 7 million households with no fixed baths, and over 3 million families either shared
1092
or were entirely without a W.C. Nearly 2 million families shared or were without a kitchen sink. Over 1 million families shared or were without a cooking stove. There were 4¾ million houses over 65 years old in 1950, and of these—these are accurate figures, I think—2¼ million houses were 100 years old or more. Of course some of these conditions have improved. Since 1950 something like 2 million houses have been built. But the houses that I have referred to—the 4¾ million houses which were over 65 years old in 1950—are nearly 10 years older; and the 2¼ million houses which were then over 100 years old are now also nearly 10 years older.
For all the purposes that I have outlined in dealing with these various housing difficulties, and in order to give every family a house of its own—a separate house, with all the facilities and amenities which we think to-day have become necessities—I have assumed that we shall need 200,0000 new houses a year. These would include dwellings for the relief of overcrowding, slum clearance and all the rest, and I am taking the period over the next twelve years. Then we shall need a certain number of houses—there is a great demand for them—for a general improvement in the standard of living. As your Lordships know, there is a growing practice, even among middle-class persons, people with moderate means—especially those who are living in congested parts of our cities—to acquire a second home in the country. This is no longer a rich man's dream. A great many people of moderate means have a second home of some kind in the country, and I include this demand, which is a perfectly legitimate one if we are to increase our standard of living. I couple that with the general improvement in standards and I say that there is a demand, over the next twelve years, for something like 20,000 houses a year for that purpose.
Then there is an excess of immigration over emigration. On current figures I estimate that we need about 10,000 houses a year for that purpose. Your Lordships will be aware of the difficulties which have been created over the immigration of large numbers of people from the West Indies and other territories; and it is of the greatest importance that we should avoid those

1093
difficulties in the future. Many of them have arisen in respect of housing, and I have assumed that there we need about 10,000 houses a year.
I want to add, further, a certain number of dwellings that in my view are essential if we are to provide some mobility in our population. At the present time a person's job is determined by where he lives and, in practice, he cannot leave that job because he will have the greatest difficulty in finding other accommodation. In an industrial nation such as ours it is of great importance that people should be able to move fairly freely from one town to another or from one place to another and be reasonably sure of getting accommodation. Here I am taking an arbitrary figure and saying that there will be a need of something like 150,000 dwellings to provide that mobility. Thus the grand total of our requirements is 300,000 dwellings a year.
That is not an impossible figure. It happens to coincide with a figure which was settled by Her Majesty's Government at a certain Conference some years ago. Whether that was an intelligent guess as to our requirements or pure coincidence I will not say; but it is an indication that if we had kept up providing 300,000 dwellings a year and continued to do so for the next twelve years we should be keeping abreast of our housing situation. I may say that over a number of years we have provided more than 300,000 houses. The average number of dwellings built over the eight years from 1951 to 1958 was just under that figure—293,000; and if we take the last six years the total is almost exactly:300,000 dwellings a year. So your Lordships will see that certainly up to this stage I am not being in the least controversial.
The number of dwellings that we are providing, however, has been declining since 1954. That was the peak year, for in 1954 we provided, in the United Kingdom, 354,000 dwellings. In 1955, the total was 324,000, a decline of 30,000. In the year 1956 the total was just over 300,000, and in 1957 307,000. In 1958, it was 278,000—a further decline of 19,000; and in 1959, I estimate (and we now have figures for the first ten months of the year) that the total will be 263,000, a further decline of 15,000. So that compared to the number in 1954 the
1094
number of dwellings which are being provided in the present year will show a drop of 91,000. I repeat, if we had been keeping pace with the total of 300,000 a year, we should, according to my calculations, have been keeping up with our requirements; but we are falling sadly behind, and this year we shall be 37,000 dwellings behind the number that we require.
This decline in output of dwellings is due entirely to the reduction in the number of dwellings provided by local authorities. Production by private enterprise has been gradually increasing. The peak year for local authority dwellings was 1953, when they provided 245,000; but last year the total was only 150,000, a drop of 95,000; and this year it looks as if the total is to be 130,000 dwellings, or a drop of 115,000 dwellings from the peak year. This drop in the number of dwellings built by local authorities is not accounted for wholly by the abolition of the subsidy—and I want to be quite fair—because the subsidy was not abolished until March, 1956. Nor is it entirely accountable to the high rates of interest. Those began in November, 1956, when the rate was 5¾ per cent. In January, 1958, it was 6¾ per cent. and to-day it is 5¾ per cent. Those rates have, of course, been factors, but the decline in local authority housing began before those rates came about, although it is true to say that the abolition of the subsidy and the high rates of interest have accentuated the drop.
Private building has increased, but it has not entirely made good the decline in local authority housing, and so we have this overall drop to which I have referred. Furthermore, apart from a number of luxury flats in London and certain seaside resorts, private building is almost wholly building for sale, and there is a growing tendency even for flats to be erected for sale only, and not for letting. The rents and selling prices are high and, as a rule, are not within the reach of most persons needing accommodation. Consequently, private enterprise housing is riot, on the whole, making good to any large extent the need of accommodation at rents or prices which families with incomes of, say, up to £1,500 a year can afford to pay.

1095
In other words, we are not catering, by and large, for the large middle classes. We are providing substantial accommodation in the way of luxury dwellings, and the local authorities are building a certain number—a declining number—of dwellings for workers. But in between those two classes we are doing very little. In house building we are falling between the two stools of local authorities and private enterprise, and we are not making great headway in dealing even with the lower-paid section of the community. If one wants evidence of this, one can find it in the waiting lists of local authorities, which are as long to-day as they were years ago—and in some cases waiting lists have been closed—and by visits to places like Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Belfast and other of our great cities. Noble Lords may have read in the Sunday Times this week an article on Manchester, the first of a series. That article portrays a horrible picture of housing conditions in that great city, and one can find those conditions repeated in most of the large cities of this country. In London alone, where there were, according to the 1951 Census, 1,130,000 dwellings—that is in the London County Council area—nearly half were shared by two or more families.
An interesting sidelight on the difficulty of accommodation is the growing number of permanent caravans we have in the country. There are to-day something like 60,000 families living permanently in caravans. Caravans are not very popular, except with those who are living in them, and not always even with them. Your Lordships may have seen the Arton Wilson Report which was recently published. The finding of the Arton Wilson Committee is that people are living in these caravans because they can find no other accommodation at a price they can afford to pay, and because they are enabled to put them on sites which are close to where they are about to work, and they are a considerable contribution towards mobility. But the caravan owners and site owners are having great difficulty with local authorities. A large number of the permanent caravan sites are unauthorised, and nobody seems to want them. Yet they are making a contribution towards the housing problem of this country. I am very glad that we have had this Committee reporting, because
1096
something must be done to regularise the position and to enable those people who want, or have, to live in caravans to be able to do so in proper conditions and on authorised sites.
It may well be that the noble Earl who is going to reply may challenge some of the figures I have given. If he does, then he ought to challenge the figure of 300,000 houses which the Conservative Party, at their conference in, I believe, 1954 or 1955, agreed to build. Evidently that figure must have had some relationship to the needs. But I hope he will agree that I am not far out in my calculation—I do not pretend that it is a purely scientific calculation, but I think it is near enough for my purpose.
If we are going to build 300,000 houses a year over the next 12 years, and possibly beyond that, we shall need a considerable amount of land: something like 20,000 to 25,000 acres a year—say up to 300,000 acres for the next 12 years. Many local authorities are not zoning enough land for residential purposes; others are desperately short of land. Indeed, in some of the most congested parts of the country, and particularly, as I know, on the outskirts of London, in places like West Ham and Walthamstow and so on, there is no more available land in the area. In any event, for both these reasons—because land is scarce and there is not enough land being zoned for residential purposes—land costs are rising, and rising very rapidly indeed, so helping to accentuate the problem. This is becoming a serious factor in the cost of housing. It is not at all unusual to find that the cost of the land for a dwelling is about £1,000. This high cost of land and the scarcity are combining to create pressure for greater densities in our cities—and eventually, I think, the same will apply to the countryside—and high flats are becoming more common.
The trouble about high flats—flats of, say, 13 or 14 storeys—is that they are becoming more and more expensive to build. I think the optimum height for a block of flats with lifts is about 9 or 10 storeys; without lifts it used to be about 5—quite high enough. But once we go above 9 or 10 storeys we add to a very considerable extent to the cost. The London County Council, whose rents are by no means low, find that they have to

1097
contribute a subsidy of £100 per dwelling per annum in respect of most of these high flats. That, my Lords, is an impossible position, and we must do something about it. As I say, we are bound to have this conflict between providing dwellings, say, in the way of houses, thereby, in many cases, losing agricultural land (and since the noble Earl who is to reply is interested in both houses and agriculture he may have to resolve his conflict), and building high and forcing the majority of our people into flats, which is contrary to our traditional way of living. It seems to me that we have to do one or the other.
I have stated the problem, my Lords, and it is, I would repeat, largely due, first, to an increasing population; secondly, to the enormous backlog of bad and overcrowded houses; and, thirdly, to the desire that we all have to provide our people with a higher standard of living over the next 20 to 25 years, and that means better housing and getting rid of many of our pre-war houses which are to-day regarded as most unsatisfactory.
What is the solution? The solution seems to me to relate not so much to the difficulty of providing the required number of houses as to ensuring that we build the right type of accommodation. We shall get no solution if we concentrate on building expensive blocks of flats. The Minister may well answer that in time there will be a surplus of such accommodation and that we shall not get any more; but while that building is going on and developers are discovering that there is this surplus, the ordinary person is not getting the accommodation he needs. We have to divert a certain amount of our resources to the provision of housing and to accept that as an established and permanent part of our social requirements. We have to make more land available. On any calculation we shall need more land. We have to see to it that the additional land that we require is used in the most efficient and economical manner. I would suggest that the Government are making a great mistake in not building considerably more new towns, which are not only economical in their use of land but most rewarding, financially and socially. I would recommend to the Government that they might well look at this idea of new towns once more.
1098
I hope that to-day I have established at least a need for a full inquiry. I am not asking the Government to accept my figures in their entirety: I am not suggesting that they are not capable of amendment in one form or another. Nevertheless, I think that I have established that this is a matter which ought to be looked into either by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government itself or (and in my view preferably) by an outside Committee. I would ask the noble Earl to represent to his right honourable friend that, if we want to look ahead and see that our people are well housed in the future, and not build up problems for ourselves, there really is a case for setting up an inquiry at the earliest possible moment, so as to ascertain what our real needs are and what are the means by which we can meet them.
I have not suggested that this is going to be an easy problem to solve. It is a subject which bristles with problems and difficulties and conflicting views—such as that between flats and houses; the need for preserving agricultural land; the need for housing land, and many others. I can only say that good housing in the right place might help to solve many of our other problems. It might well solve the traffic problem, for instance. I do not want to enlarge on that, but it is a fact that a large part of our community spends a large part of its time in going from one place to another—going from home to work, and home to leisure. With more satisfactory arrangement of our housing conditions, we could save a great deal of traffic; we could save a great deal of ill-health and time lost; we could provide more leisure and an opportunity of a better life. I believe that in the long run the welfare of a people must be judged by the houses they live in. Nothing is more capable of creating conditions of contentment and happiness than good homes, and nothing is more rewarding. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Motion has made an extremely interesting and constructive speech. It is one which nearly makes me feel compelled to tear up the few notes I have in front of me, because there is nothing he has said with which I do not entirely agree, and

1099
I find that there is little that I can constructively add to what he has already said. However, there are just one or two points which he mentioned that I should like to emphasise, and upon which I think I can bring to bear a little more light.
It has been mentioned in one of the publications of the Ministry that about nine million people have been rehoused since the war. I am not sure of the exact figure, but I think it is something approaching that number. That is a very good record indeed, but it does not mean that there is not a great deal more to be done. One of the things which have rather startled me during the last few years is the conditions in some of the London areas. There are parts of the town which I knew quite well when I was a medical student, doing my maternity work in the year 1925, which even then had absolutely worn-out buildings—floors rotten, bug-ridden, and everything else one can think of. A large number of them have been pulled down, I agree, but when I go to see people, in those areas to-day I still find, even in 1959, many of the same old buildings which certainly should not have existed in 1925 and probably should have been pulled down before the First World War. So when the noble Lord puts our need at the rather large figure of 300,000 a year, I think he is not in the least exaggerating; indeed I should say that he is not even quoting quite a big enough figure. Certainly there is no difference between us about that matter.
There is one point which rather worries me. One knows that there is this enormous demand for houses and that people are still badly housed, with families living in congested conditions, and therefore I think it is sad to see some of the large blocks of offices which are being put up. I do not want to use the term in an unpleasant way, but I think that they are put up in a somewhat speculative fashion in the sense that they are not fully booked up before they are built; and one has read in the national Press from time to time that some of these blocks have not been taken and are not occupied. I do not say that the Government can do anything about it, but it makes me wonder whether some of the work cannot be directed from
1100
these great big blocks of flats to houses for people to live in.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has pointed out, the pressure for houses is going to increase. The population is going up, as the noble Lord said, by about one million every five years. That figure corresponds with the figure which I have been given too; and the need for separate dwellings is, I am sure, going to increase at a faster rate than the population is increasing. More and more people who are at present sharing accommodation in a rather uncomfortable fashion want to live, with their families, by themselves in some form of private accommodation. That is shown by the work of the private builder. There has been a great increase in the number of houses built for the owner-occupier, as the noble Lord has said, rather than of buildings being built entirely for flats.
The question of putting up these blocks of flats is indeed a difficult one. For quite a long time the Ministry of Health, followed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, have been following a policy of high-density building, but it seems to me that there comes a moment when it gets extremely expensive. The noble Lord quoted some figures. I was given some further figures by the Town and Country Planning Association, which I think is a reputable body and gives quite good figures. That Association told me that if you build a block of six-storey flats with an average square-footage of 850 each flat costs about £2,465; if you build a block of twelve-storey flats of the same type the cost would be £2,847; whereas if you build a two-storey house, particularly round about London, the figure drops to £1,615. So that is, indeed, one of the great troubles about these tall blocks of flats: they are very expensive.
A further point is that, as the noble Lord has said, the vast majority of people would far rather live in a house than a flat—and there I am bound to say that I agree with them entirely. One wonders therefore, whether some kind of compromise could not be reached between the two-storey house and the tall block of flats. I realise that that would mean a large encroachment upon valuable agricultural land; and I wonder whether the Government should not

1101
seriously consider building more new towns rather than putting up these enormous great blocks of tall flats which are very expensive and which are not very popular. Further, one does not really know what their future is going to be. Whether they are going to turn into slums in another fifteen or twenty years' time I simply do not know, because they have not been there long enough to see; but I am rather suspicious that some of them may not last very well and may, in an even shorter time than some of the houses, turn themselves into slums.
What I should like to suggest, therefore, is that the question of more new towns be gone into very carefully; and I would ask at the same time whether it would not be possible to attract industry to some of the smaller towns and to build house property there, rather than to concentrate on the building of flats in the big areas—in other words, to try to reverse the process. It is simpler to make provision for people in some of our towns which are rather decayed and to attract industry back to them in that way.
One of the matters which is as important as ever it was is what Edward Chadwick in the middle of nineteenth century first began to talk about as environmental hygiene. That is something which we all think is firmly established. Now that most people have piped water water supplies, drainage and sewage disposal, there is a tendency to think that everything important has been done: but the Chadwick theory applies just as much to good conditions of housing, to the actual design of a house and its rooms and to the way it is constructed. All this is just as important as the facts that we now have a wholesome water supply and reasonable drainage.
This has been brought home to me in an interesting way. Not long after the war. I went down to Torquay to visit a nursing home used entirely for old folk. It had about twenty or thirty patients. One of the great difficulties we had then was to find out what to do with people in their seventies who were taken with Icing-term illnesses, and hospital beds were scarcer then than they are now. I asked them at the nursing home what the old people did, and I was told that it was very extraordinary, but long-term illnesses among old people just did
1102
not occur there. I was told that when people get to a certain age they get old people's illnesses from which they either recover or die. So they did not have that problem of the long-term illness.
At that time I was involved in two schemes for cottage homes, one in London at Mill Hill and the other in Surrey, at Weybridge. These homes take mostly people who were small shopkeepers or who had served behind the counters in drapers' shops or haberdasheries. Because there is a long waiting list, these people are generally about seventy, and they go on living there as long as they want to. When the cottage homes were founded sixty or seventy years ago there was a good deal of accommodation for the long-term sick, but they just do not occur. About a couple of days ago I visited both these homes. They were full of perfectly fit people in their very late eighties and nineties, who were not in bed. They were there merely because they were rather frail, but they had no long-term illness.
All this makes one think that good housing, with a certain amount of care and a considerable increase in domiciliary service, to bring that side in, too, will take away in time the enormous pressure on hospital beds which now exists for the old and elderly with long-term illnesses. Commenting on that, I think it is a great pity that it is not simpler for elderly people to be rehoused. By that I mean that it should be easier for someone who is elderly and frail and has a room perhaps on the fourth floor to be rehoused on the ground floor. I know from a great deal of personal experience that that would save an enormous amount of trouble, because old people who live on fourth floors cannot lead normal lives and a certain number have to come into hospital, where they use the hospital merely as a hotel, which is an expensive and wasteful way of employing hospital beds. This is due to the difficulties which local authorities seem to find in moving someone from the top floor to the ground floor. I. think that this matter should be looked into.
There is another point which I should like to raise, and which I think is covered by the terms of the Motion. I am rather sorry that there appears to be no medical staff at the Ministry of Housing and

1103
Local Government. I have looked in the Imperial Calendar and there certainly do not appear to be any doctors. Nowadays when housing, new towns and water supplies are extremely important matters it seems rather sad that there should not be a well-established and experienced medical staff at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It was one of the saddest things which occurred in the 'fifties when the Ministry of Health was separated from what has now become the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, a separation which more than anything broke up the conception of environmental hygiene. One of the brilliant bits of statesmanship which occurred in this country after the First World War was the turning of the Local Government Board into the Ministry of Health, which was very well managed by the father of the noble Viscount whom I see on my left, who was for a long time the Leader of your Lordships' House. It was a tragedy when that good arrangement was split up. Before I sit down, I should like to make a plea that if these two Departments cannot be put back into one, certainly from the health point of view there should be a tighter link between them than they have at the present time.
3.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, before entering on the few remarks which I wish to make, I should like to explain that I felt a need to speak on this Motion by reason of two articles which I saw in the papers on a house-builders' conference, where the needs of private enterprise housebuilders were put forward. These articles raised a question on which I have previously spoken to your Lordships—namely, the use of land and its reservation, the question of preventing, so far as we can, agricultural land from going the wrong way or in ways other than the best. I am greatful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for obliging us by putting down this Motion to-day. He is a master of the subject and has so much to his record, from the days in which he was in charge of housing on the London County Council until the days when he gave us the Town Planning Act, that I am sure that nobody has more right than he to put forward this Motion. We have all
1104
had great pleasure in listening to his remarks, although we must differ sometimes.
I should like to clear myself of any possible misapprehension. On the printed page of the magazine, the House Builder, I saw that the Minister of Housing and Dame Evelyn Sharp, the Permanent Secretary, disclosed that they were against allowing local authorities to zone a greater amount of building land in the next quinquennium than in the past, and that the official view was that they rather favour renewing the centres of old towns, getting rid of worn out property and, if necessary, building high. The house builders were very proud of themselves in that in the first nine months of this year they had put up 107,402 private houses, which is not a bad contribution. But they pointed out that that contribution could have been much greater if they could have laid their hands on land at an economic price to make it possible for them to carry on their business. When the 1947 Act made the green belt, it immediately threw a blight on certain land on one side of the line and gave a sort of semi-monopoly value to land on the other side of the line. It was disclosed to me that the house-builders think that more white land should be put at their disposal, but not at the price of £9,000 an acre which has been reached and which is, of course, of no use at all.
This is where I have endeavoured to think out what could be done. It seems to me that the next thing to food (which is our life-blood) that we want is shelter, and nothing can be more important in that respect than housing. We must therefore put houses on the ground, and we must make the ground on which they are built of a value that enables house-builders to carry on their activities. That cannot be done under the present methods.
I was looking at the Ipswich new town plan the other day. They divided their territory into six areas and designated two of them as residential land. What must happen? The moment that is disclosed, up goes the monopoly value, which cannot be for the good of the general public. What, therefore, can be done? We have the Nature Conservancy, with an income of £350,000 a year, who are, I understand, entitled to buy land;

1105
and the Forestry Commission have an income every year, and they are entitled to buy land. It seems to me that we need a land bank, constituted how you will, but having the public interest at heart, which will acquire from municipalities and on the open market land from which, being a public body, they will not be seeking speculative returns; and, by being a land bank, they can hold land for people until such time as the growth of population and the growth of demand gradually comes down, and then it can come out of deposit and be used. That, I think, would be a tire development, and I cannot see why it should not come about. It would inure to the benefit of the public and prevent speculation, which we want to prevent. In regard to the question of getting possession of land for the Ipswich plan, the fact that certain areas of land had been taken up by the large developers, which meant that there was less land for the small builders and the small building owners, was much deplored. I, too, deplore this, and that is why I venture to put this idea before authority.
There is a parenthesis here which I wish to bring in because I think it will be of interest and of use. One purpose of the Local Employment Bill now before the other place is to be able to move populations. We know that this has been difficult to do and in many ways it has been a failure. There is in this country a body of private house-builders calling themselves registered house-builders, and they undertake by their terms of association to build houses of a certain construction which any surveyor would declare, and so would enable a would-be second purchaser to know that he was buying good quality stuff. In America they have developed this scheme and use it in the way that I have described. When a man finds his work in one place is ceasing and wants to get to work in another place, he trades in the standard registered house, for which he has no difficulty in finding a purchaser, and thus has a reasonable sum with which to buy another house in the new place. If that idea is not already known, I would commend it to the Front Bench as being something which might help us in the question of location of industry, distribution of population and local employment.
1106
I now turn to the subject of central information. I was told that it was not easy to discover what the demand for land by the Ministry of Housing might be over the next five-year period, or the period up to 1971. Further, my informant knew of no place where it was easy to discover what similar demands for land might be put forward by the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Board of Trade. I wish to ask the Government whether it would not be a desirable thing (if it does not already exist) to have an annual review at which these four major Departments could coalesce and state what their requirements are; and not only that, but give out the result to the public, so that the public may know what is intended to be done or what needs to be done. Surely that would be valuable to many people. I would say that we need to take stock of the whole position.
In regard to the building programme, so far as I can see there are four ways, some of which have been mentioned already, to link the schemes; and that, we were told, was the main official view. The private enterprise builders want us to release more white land. Then we have the Outer London plan. In the Greater London plan the centre was contained by a concentric green belt, beyond which were all the newer dormitories and the new centres of light industry, which are alas!—because I understand there is no grand central plan for this outer fringe—rapidly becoming a sprawl, where chaos will some day reign if good planning is not indulged in. On that subject, I do not know whether I am Tight but my notion of a development plan is a five-year plan. It seems to me that after the first difficult five-year period we ought to have a coalition of five-year development plans of the neighbourhoods into a regional plan, with the lesser authorities grouped together.
The fourth way in which housing could be produced would be by what is known as the expanded towns. I understand that that would be better, or at any rate easier, than setting up a whole new ring or triangle of Harlows or other satellite towns. The expanded town idea means older centres of population, probably with great charm and with a market place as a good centre for the new town expanding round that. It seems to me

1107
quite clear that the number of houses required has been under-estimated, and we cannot long put off the day when we must have something in the nature of new towns. This curious thing has arisen. The existence of these places where commuters live and sleep, as I call them, is now producing a two-way traffic. It not only produces that mass of people rushing into the centre of London, but it also produces people who are rushing to the new towns because their work is in light industries in those new towns. That ring needs organising and preventing from becoming ill-adapted, as we have seen nearer home. It all comes out of the general slide of industry and population southward, which the Barlow Report hoped would have been prevented.
I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that from 1951 to 1958 400,000 new jobs came into London. The population in Greater London is now 27 per cent. of the whole, and what might be called "Greater Greater London" can be said truly to be linked with towns 100 miles apart, East and West, North and South, from Reading to Southend, from Luton and Chelmsford, and down to Brighton. They are all somehow linked up with London. If things go on with the increasing strains and stresses of getting to and from work, the Government will have to do something to resolve the knot into which one might say we have got ourselves entangled. That is all I have to say, except that I believe private enterprise has a right, as reputable business men, to come into their own after the years of subordinating themselves to council house construction which was necessary after the war. A great reputable body like that should be encouraged, and if we do not agree with the Party opposite—we who are hoping to see more private houses and private enterprise—I think that all sides of the House should be prepared to see our great English private enterprise building industry given looser rein.
4.8 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, a debate on the housing situation has been long overdue, and I feel sure that I speak for Members in all parts of the House when I say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for initiating this debate. I wish to devote the main
1108
part of my speech to one aspect of this problem, and that is mortgages and the Schedule A tax. The Schedule A tax is a niggling tax. The revenue obtained from it is small, and it means only that the person who is purchasing a house other than by direct help from the taxpayer or from local authorities is further penalised.
I must declare an indirect interest in this matter, because I am a Vice-President of the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations, of which my noble friend Lord Ellenborough is the President. I would stress that this organisation, although some people seem to think that it is one of these secret Tory societies, is in fact a strongly non-Party organisation. It has the Government's blessing and, indeed, has had considerable support from the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We as a body are out to press the Government for at least a review of the Schedule A tax. We do not say necessarily that it should be taken off in one fell swoop. It is arguable that this tax is an incentive to people to keep their homes in good repair. But whether a house is 50 years old or five months old, the same amount of tax appears to be payable. Fortuitously, I received my own Schedule A demand this morning, but that has not entirely prompted me to raise this particular matter; I have been planning to do so ever since I put my name down to speak. I speak as a young house-owner, and there are a great many in this country.
It is, I think, the wish of all Parties that we should become a property-owning democracy. There may be differing views among the Parties as to how this should be carried out, but whilst the Government have improved the mortgage situation very creditably there is just one very nasty thorn in the flesh, and that is this problem of legal expenses. A young couple applying to purchase a house may get a 90 per cent. mortgage, and that, I submit, is a generous mortgage. But then they are faced with a bill for legal fees that may amount to anything up to £60 or £70. I know that the amount is based on a scale of charges, but it is nevertheless a cumbersome and uncomfortable dip into the pocket.
I am not suggesting that legal fees should be abolished but perhaps the noble Earl who is to wind up this debate

1109
would consider the inclusion of legal expenses in any mortgage that is granted. At present it seems to me rather like going into a cafe and ordering a steak and chips, which may cost five shillings, and then being presented with a bill for the hire of the plate. I feel that there is a comparison there; and it is, I would say, an unfair burden on the intending purchaser of a house. I can speak with some experience here. I own a relatively small house, with four bedrooms. I am not complaining for my own part, but there are many thousands of young people who are constantly being urged to buy houses and are faced with this very difficult problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had some words to say on the new towns, and I should like to make a few more points. The noble Lord will be well acquainted with Stevenage. During his term of office as a Minister of Town and Country Planning certain people did rather naughty things to the signs on Stevenage station—perhaps the noble Lord will recall that: and may I say that I deplore such activity. I think we should all give credit to the noble Lord and his associates for their venture into the new towns. They have been a success, and certainly in Stevenage the building is going ahead extremely well. The same cannot be said, however, of the quality of some of the building, and indeed of council houses, particularly in that area. I was asked several times by council house tenants, during the Election campaign, when I canvassed in my old home town of Baldock, a few miles away, "Why cannot we buy our own houses?" The quality of some of those houses, although they had been erected for only a short time, was far from satisfactory, but I think that, here again, some incentive could be given for council house tenants to buy their houses. After all, it would save a considerable drain on the Exchequer and on the local authorities.
Far be it from me to decry council house building; it is a necessary thing. But so is private building, and I believe as a small property owner that every incentive should be given to private building After all, it is not only the rich city man who buys a house privately; people of all incomes and all walks of life are trying to do just that. While on the subject of private building, may I say that there was an interesting article
1110
in the magazine Houses and Estates which perhaps I may quote briefly to your Lordships. It said:
"It is worthy of note that Russia initially forbade private ownership of land and buildings and yet more recently they abandoned part at least of the policy, and it is now permitted to own a dwelling for one's own occupation. One may go further and say that there is even encouragement if one takes into account the low rate of interest charged on mortgage advances by the State Bank."
Perhaps some of our own building societies might take note of that paragraph. Quoting further, on the subject of new town building, an article in this month's Home Finder gives most encouraging figures of building in the new towns. In Crawley New Town eight out of nine residential neighbourhoods have already been completed and each houses a population of from 5,000 to 8,000 people. And indeed the new towns generally are springing up into very fine community centres. I am told on good authority that in Stevenage New Town only a small fraction of 1 per cent. of people have recently been moving out; they are all very satisfied with the community life there. I know that recently there were somewhat spurious complaints from malcontented youngsters, but certainly from what I have seen of the new towns the community spirit is thriving fast.
Turning to slum clearance for a few moments, the Government, I think, are to be commended on the rate at which they are going in this business of slum clearance. I am not saying for one moment that a great deal does not remain to be done—indeed, only a few hundred yards from Edinburgh's Royal Mile I saw less than two years ago some of the worst slums in the country. I, too, read the very interesting article on Manchester in the Sunday Times, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It is an article which gives a great deal of food for thought. The noble Lord mentioned the building of more new towns. In theory, that is an admirable proposition. But the big question is, where are they to be put? I submit that possibly Scotland may be the solution, although it would no doubt call forth a great deal of protest from the Highlanders, if the eventual policy was to industrialise the-Highlands and so relieve the unemployment situation that is at present affecting Scotland. Perhaps Aberdeen, or

1111
somewhere in that area, might be a site for a new town. However, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will have some observations to make on that point.
I would conclude by once again congratulating Her Majesty's Government on their progress in the housing drive. The housing problem will be with us for many years to come. So long as we have farmers and builders this will remain an extremely difficult problem, because much of the land on which houses are built is necessarily good arable land. Just how that problem is going to be resolved, I am not in a position to say. But I would make this final plea to the Government: that they should look into the problem of Schedule A tax, and give every possible incentive to those who wish to buy their own homes out of their own pockets. By doing that, a great stride forward will be made in the solution of the housing problem.
4.22 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Silkin for giving us the opportunity for this badly needed discussion, and also for introducing the subject in such a broad way and giving us so many ideas to discuss. I cannot hope to emulate him in his broad vision on the subject, and I shall not attempt to follow him in being completely non-controversial. When, for many years, one has been in contact with thousands of people and one knows of their extreme difficulties with regard to housing—continuing difficulties, difficulties which may in fact be getting worse—it is impossible for one not to feel at least rather warm about some aspects of the subject, although I hope I shall be as objective as possible. I am perfectly well aware that it would be quite impossible for noble Lords opposite personally to commit an act of social injustice on others; their lives are greatly taken up with acts of personal kindness and benevolence. But we are faced with the remarkable paradox that in housing matters they support, and continue to support, the Government's housing policy which, in fact, inflicts hardship and misery on the very people they desire to serve. In saying that, perhaps I should absolve the noble Earl, Lord
1112
Albemarle, who appears quite strongly to disagree with the housing policy of the Government. I must say that I found myself in agreement with almost everything that the noble Earl said, and I am glad that we have found such a doughty exponent of planning.
As I see the housing situation, there are three important facts which govern it. First, we have in this country over 6 million families living in houses from 65 to 100 years old; 6 million families without a bathroom, 3 million of them having no separate lavatory, 2 million having no separate kitchen, and as many as 1 million having no kitchen stove of their own. Secondly, as I see it, the only hope—I emphasise "the only hope"—of providing decent living conditions for that big section of the population is through the building of houses and flats by local authorities. Thirdly, in my view, the Government, by legislative and financial policies, have made it increasingly difficult, and in some cases impossible, for local authorities to build at all. It is small wonder, therefore, that this year, for the first time since 1947, the number of local authority houses and flats built in England and Wales will fall below 100,000; and it is equally small wonder, therefore, that the waiting lists are longer than at any time since the war, despite the building programme which has, I think, been quite properly referred to as creditable.
That is the size of the problem, and it is impossible for anyone to be complacent about it. I say that building has become impossible for some local authorities and has been drastically restricted in the way that the figures prove, first, because of the abolition of the housing subsidies for general housing needs; secondly, because of the high interest rates which have doubled the cost of interest and repayments—for example, on a three-bedroomed house, in 1951 the total repayments payable over sixty years, including interest, would have been £3,000, and now they are well over £6,000; and thirdly, because of the 1957 Rent Act, which has increased the cost of site acquisition by at least 25 per cent. Because all these things have made it impossible for people in lower income groups to pay the economic rents that it would be necessary to charge, local

1113
authorities have been impelled either drastically to reduce the number of houses they are building or to cease building at all.
To illustrate the effects of this, and also one or two other points that have been raised during the debate, I should like to discuss the position in two totally different areas with which I am familiar—one a Metropolitan borough and the other a completely rural area. First of all, the Metropolitan borough is the Borough of Shoreditch, which is immediately adjacent to the City of London and of about the same size. Its population, which for a good many years had been decreasing, has been virtually static for some years and numbers about 43,000. It was a badly bomb-damaged area, and all the houses in that borough, apart from local authority building, are about a hundred years old. There is not the faintest possible chance of any private enterprise building there; in fact, the task of the local authority is to rebuild the whole borough. They have been getting on with it extremely well. They have an outstandingly competent housing department, because since the war and up to October of this year this small borough—one of the smallest in London—has built no fewer than 3,160 flats. They have rehoused since the war more than one-quarter of the entire population in new flats. That is a record not merely far and away better than that of any other borough but, comparing populations, four times as good as the next best borough. So we are dealing with an extremely competent local authority in this respect.
In October, 1951, when the present Government took over, the borough had on its waiting list 4,236 families. On October 31 last, it had on the waiting list 4,584 families—an increase of 350 despite the fact that in the intervening eight years 2,500 flats had been built. This, of course, confirms in a particular detail what my noble friend has said, but my point is that there is no question whatsoever that the need is still desperate and that in such areas only the local authority can satisfy it. I do not think that that is disputable.
Consider what this local authority is up against. Because of the subsidy policy of Her Majesty's Government the local authority is confined entirely to
1114
slum clearance. It cannot possibly do anything with regard to the general housing need. Inevitably, that means expensive, high-density building. Yet although it has adopted mixed development, which provides forty flats per acre and housing for 136 persons per acre—and that is a fairly extreme density—every redeveloped estate houses fewer than the number of families on that land before it was developed. That problem exists all over London.
Some noble Lords have suggested that we should go out, but I am going to suggest that one of the most important developments in the Metropolis (and I imagine this largely to be the case in other large towns) over the next immediate few years will be a tendency to come in, because so many problems are solved when we re-build our cities on the sites of the old derelict, ruined ones. The transport problem is solved, for people are near to their work, and we solve many social and community problems. Shore-ditch is a village which basically has not changed for a thousand years. It is still a village to-day, and still the same type of village as it was at the time of William the Conqueror, with distinctive people who do not want to go away and will not go away; and if they do go away they spend the next two years feverishly trying to get back. Let us recognise that fact and deal with it in a sensible manner, as the local authority that I have mentioned has been dealing with it.
But the cost of sites has been enormously increased in this old borough, where many of the areas ripe for residential redevelopment include scattered shop property, licensed premises and other such non-conforming user as factories and warehouses. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, added development value to the cost of acquisition in cases where Part VI claims had been admitted under the 1947 Act; and the Rent Act, 1957, increased rents of residential properties held as investments and thus raised the cost of acquisition of sites by 25 per cent. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has left the Chamber for a short time, for he is familiar with the area of which I am speaking and I know would bear me out.
As a consequence, for some of the worst properties in the worst streets in London, streets worse perhaps than many

1115
of your Lordships have ever seen, where people should have been paid to live, the cost to the council of site acquisition was in one case £64,000 an acre and in another case £49,000 an acre, for the very reasons and the very policies which noble Lords opposite supported and doubtless will say they still support. A site cost of £64,000 an acre for forty flats to the acre works out at £1,600 per flat for land alone, and some of them were only one-bedroom flats. The interest and repayments on the land alone amount to more than 40s. per week, and over sixty years the interest and repayment will total £7,000 for land alone for a single flat. The cost of building the flats, exclusive of site works, varies according to size from £1,400 to £2,000. I know that the noble Lord quoted much higher figures. I will not weary your Lordships with a list, but I assure you that the cost in that large development is, according to size, from £1,400 to £2,000 and is nothing like the figure of £2,800 which has been mentioned.
But the cost of site preparation is extremely high. It is true that there is a slight, though quite inadequate, element of subsidy in respect of exceptionally expensive sites; but that does not take account of the cost of piling. Your Lordships will realise that in digging down in an area immediately adjacent, as it were, to the City wall, which for centuries has been a dumping ground and which covers the sites of old markets and even old charnel ditches, one has to go a long way to get to blue clay or foundation level. The extra cost is tremendously heavy, and I would ask the noble Earl when he comes to reply to say, if he is in a position to do so, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider some element of special subvention for extra costs of piling.
Your Lordships will observe that the people living in boroughs close to the City of London are penalised through their proximity to the City, because the site and other costs are virtually City costs but the wages of the people are in no way related to City incomes. If one takes the site I have mentioned, one finds that for working class flats, for some of the poorest working people in London, the land costs £1,600 per flat; so that the cost of a three-bedroomed flat on that
1116
land, including site preparation, would be £4,000. The economic rent, exclusive of rates, would be at least £6 a week, which is wildly beyond the means of a man earning £12 or £13 a week.
If building in such an area is to continue—and I would submit that social justice and decency demand that it must—the local authority must be given help in addition to the slum clearance subsidy, first in relation to the special costs I have mentioned, and secondly, in respect of rates of interest on the loan. I find it difficult to understand why Her Majesty's Government, having set up the high-level Radcliffe Committee, should have rejected its main recommendations. Certainly it will be a hitter blow to people in need of homes if the decision of the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to local authority borrowing is not reversed, because the existing restriction of access to the Public Works Loan Board has forced local authorities on to the expensive, short-term market.
If Her Majesty's Government now agree to provide long-term capital through the Loan Board at gilt-edged rates, it would mean that local authorities could borrow at a time most convenient and avoid the high cost of competitive borrowing in small amounts. Surely in cases where the Government are still subsidising home building, in slum clearance, and still controlling the level of local authority investment, they should be prepared to finance at reasonable rates schemes of which they approve. I would submit that failure to do so could only mean that they were not as much concerned with providing homes for the people as they should be.
I would also urge that in such areas there should not be the present insistence on the cheapest form of building, because that can be pursued to the point of destruction of amenity; and now that we are at last wiping out the crimes of Victorian builders surely we must not replace them with fresh atrocities. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said on this subject, but I do not think that the advantages of mixed development of flats in high-density building have been sufficiently realised. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in their hook Houses and Flats. 1958, insist that four-storey

1117
maisonnettes are the best form of high-density development. I agree that they are the cheapest form of high-density building, but in our experience they are the worst possible form of development from the amenity point of view, because they allow scarcely any usable space around them; and in an area where people have never had any green grass around them I submit that it is essential that we should take the opportunity of having at least small green plots to create amenity value.
These four-storey flats, according to the book, cost £333 per flat less than six-storey blocks with lifts. Our experience is that with mixed development from six to eleven storeys, where one gets plenty of opportunity for open green spaces and really decent landscaping, the cost per flat is only £50 or £60 higher than with four-storey maisonnette flats. I think that that is a matter which should be carefully considered, and that the provision of flats of this kind should be looked into. A few years ago I had the pleasure of conducting Mr. Duncan Sandys, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, around some of these estates, and he then supported the view we put forward, because these æsthetic considerations must play some part in the redevelopment of metropolitan London. Everyone is affected by his everyday environment, and although it is not economically possible to plan a green city, at least it is imperative that civic design should provide green areas of sufficient size to form a proper amenity. That is the example from metropolitan London.
I should now like to say a few words about a completely different area and the problems of a small rural district council in Somerset. Last week we were somewhat startled by a frank report of the Ministry of Education which said, in giving advice to teachers in rural slum schools, that they should take the children into the open air whenever possible and improvise means of washing—I imagine that means a bucket and a piece of soap. But what the Ministry apparently do not realise is that many of these same children, who when they go to school have to have improvised washing facilities and be taken out into the open air, have to make do with improvised washing facilities in the homes and cottages they live in, and many have to
1118
go out of the cottage to get fresh air. In both cases the cure is new schools and new houses.
The rural area I have in mind comprises 32 parishes, many with very few people in them. In fact, the whole population covered by the local authority is only some 20,000 people. Everything is on a very small scale. The authority's total income from former subsidies was about £20,000 a year, but they are an efficient authority and since the war have built 700 new houses. Now that they are deprived of subsidies for general housing need, losses on rents arising from new building must be made good out of the housing revenue account. The ratepayers make no contribution, so the council can continue to build only at the cost of a general increase in rents. The rents of post-war houses have already gone up by 10s. a week, and of pre-war houses by 8s. a week; and your Lordships must remember that many of the pre-war houses still have bucket lavatories and no tap water. And that, I would submit, is a "bit thick." This local authority have not stopped building. For the present they are fairly well off for sites, and they are building 27 bungalows. But there are 228 families on the waiting list, and at least a third of the families on the waiting list have already been there for more than five years, so obviously they are going to have to wait a long time—or some of them will—before they get proper washing and sanitary facilities.
How can we possibly stop the drift from the land unless we make a reasonable attempt to provide decent housing and ordinary civilised amenities? I would submit that the suspension of general housing subsidies has fallen far more heavily on the countryside than on the towns. Overall, the number of local-authority dwellings has dropped from its peak figure of 202,000 in 1953 to fewer than 100,000 this year in England and Wales. Nearly half of those 100,000 dwellings would be in respect of slum replacement, and therefore mostly in the towns, and it is the case that in rural areas now only one house is being built by local authorities for every five that were built in 1953.
That is general to all rural authorities, but the particular authority that I referred to earlier also has the problem

1119
of families still living in huts. I have some knowledge of this matter, my Lords, as the noble Earl will probably recall, because I helped to put them there 13 years ago—13 years ago, when there were virtually no houses available, and no prospects, when the men were coming home from the Services and had literally nowhere to go. There were empty Army camps, of which some were half empty, and empty hospitals; and without anyone's leave we put them there. Subsequently I went to see the Minister of Housing, and if the accommodation was good enough we were able to get facilities so that it could be made reasonably habitable. I believe that in that one area we rehoused in that way some 700 or 800 families. We thought, of course, that it would be for two, three or four years—indeed, it was the case that a housing officer would come to me and tell me of new sites where I could lead the population to the promised land. We certainly did not imagine that they would still be there 13 years later. I would therefore ask the noble Earl whether some consideration can be given to assistance for those local authorities. They may not be many, and the number of extra houses needed may not be so many now in total; but I think it is about time we got these people out of the huts.
Then there is the question of tied houses. No fewer than 58 of the 228 families on the waiting list I mentioned are living in tied houses—one in four. The fact that they are on the waiting list proves that they want to get out of a tied cottage into a house of their own. I hope that this unsatisfactory position will be cleared up. It is unfair to compel tenants to stay in unsuitable employment because they have nowhere to go. It is equally unsatisfactory to farmers, who have to leave unsatisfactory workers, or perhaps retired employees, in cottages they badly need for themselves, badly need for agriculture, just because they are too decent and have not the heart to turn them out. We all know the position. It cuts both ways: it is about fifty-fifty. But we do know also that we occasionally get the sickening case where someone is turned out on to the roadside with his wife and children.
1120
We on this side of the House admit that there are cases where it is essential, because of the nature of the tenant's job, that he should live in certain property. Such property should be registered with the local authority. The local authority should then have the duty of supplying another house when the tenant is forced to leave, whether through age or ill-health or any other reason which is no fault of his own. I think that would be of tremendous advantage, not merely in the cause of liberty and justice but also to the farmers and the owners of tied houses. But, of course, if this obligation is placed by the Government on the local authority then the Government must give reasonable financial assistance to facilitate the building of the requisite number of additional houses.
In my view, my Lords, there can be no major improvement in our housing situation until the Government set their face against high profits for property companies and high interest rates for financiers. But since at present that seems to be too much to ask, I would most strongly urge that attention should be given to the special problems of the two completely different types of local authority that I have mentioned; that is, the metropolitan boroughs who have to contend with fantastic site costs and special building problems, and the small rural councils whose small-scale operations make market borrowing expensive and who need help in dealing with the replacement of war-time huts and tied houses. Action on these lines will ease the hardships of thousands of families who are very hard pressed at the moment, and I hope that action will be taken.
4.49 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, it is, I believe, in the spirit and tradition of your Lordships' House that when a Member of the House contemplates speaking in a debate he should notify the Minister most concerned and tell him of his intentions. I duly informed the Minister of State for Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. To his regret, and to my regret, however, he is unable to be present to-day, because of public duties in Scotland, and he has asked me to convey to your Lordships his apologies for not being with us this afternoon, which I gladly do. I am sorry

1121
that he cannot be here, but I am sure that he is as sorry as I am.
Like my noble friend Lord Silkin, I prefer to deal with this question of housing in a non-controversial manner. There are some problems which are so great in magnitude that there is little room for quarrelling. We are all, I think, at one in the aim that we have in mind, although we may differ, sometimes considerably, in the method we adopt in order to reach that aim. If I mention what happened last week in Edinburgh, where a six-storey tenement collapsed—a tenement known as the "Penny Tenement", because that is the price at which the owner offered to sell it—and if I mention also a collapse in Glasgow, where masonry fell upon a police constable assisting in rescue work, to his most severe injury, it is not because I want to offer any criticism at all (although they are open to it) of the local authority or the owner of the property. It is only to point out that these terrible happenings are not acts of God but are human-made accidents, avoidable and presentable if the necessary steps are taken in good time.
But my concern, my Lords, is with the housing conditions in Scotland. I do not pretend that nothing has been clone in Scotland to deal with this extraordinarily big and complicated problem. Indeed, a good deal has been done; and, if one dare to repeat just a few figures, I would ask noble Lords to remember that from 1945 up to date some 374,000 houses have been completed, to which might be added about 31,000 prefabs, as they are called, which still remain standing. Noble Lords who may feel that a greater proportion of these houses should have been built by private enterprise as distinct from local authority building, may be interested in some figures. Local authorities have built 278,000 houses; the Scottish National Housing Association have built more than 44,000 houses—and here, if I may, I should like to pay tribute to the very good work which that Housing Association have done towards the partial solution of the problem; the new town corporations have built 9,600 houses, and private builders have built 32,500. That last figure, I know, is a very much smaller proportion in Scotland than in England
1122
and Wales, but there is obviously a preference for houses built by local authorities rather than by private builders.
When one tries to deal with the housing problem, however, one cannot deal with it in isolation. Housing has to be considered in a very much wider context, because so many other elements in the situation are closely linked up with it. I need not remind your Lordships of the many factors which have made that necessary. For example, one of the tragic effects of the two wars, and of the post-war aftermaths through which we have passed—periods during which the whole energies of the nation were devoted to the creation of war defence material—has been not only that the old houses then in existence could not be looked after, but that no new houses could be built at all. To-day, one of the main problems with which we are faced is the fact that there still remain occupied a very large number of these houses which, in ordinary circumstances, should have been demolished and replaced long ago. Another factor is that houses cannot be isolated from the places of work in which people earn their livelihood. It is already a criticism that so much time and so much money must be spent in travelling from one's home to one's place of work and back.
Another of the factors which make it so difficult to deal with the housing problem to-day is that the older industries such as shipbuilding, heavy engineering, mining, and the like, are now giving place to new methods of production, or are giving way to new industries, new products, new methods—and, indeed, a new type of employee, with new skills. These are some of the problems which affect the building and the location of houses. Then there are changes, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has emphasised, in the population structure: marriages are taking place at an earlier age; parents are now having families at an earlier age; people are being grandparents at a much earlier age than previously; and they are living longer and are still capable of enjoying a good deal of the amenities of life away from the somewhat annoying incubus of unruly children. Those are factors which, as I say, are affecting the supply of houses. One can add to these the fact that what used to be regarded

1123
as luxuries in the home are now becoming the commonplace possessions of the population—such things as refrigerators, washing machines, television sets, and so on. These, too, are altering both the nature of the house requirements and the forms of life which our present population wishes and prefers to live.
All those factors, my Lords, must be taken into consideration when we are thinking of the problem of houses to-day. One is tempted to say that it is impossible and unrealistic to imagine a state of affairs in which one could, as it were, demolish at one fell swoop all the buildings, all the houses, that are undesirable, that are not well built, and rebuild a new lot altogether. That would be living in a dream world, completely unrealisable. One has to be at least practical in outlook, and to remember that the population does not remain stationary; that the condition of the houses does not remain stationary; and that the places of industry do not remain stationary. There is a constant movement going on with which we have to cope and to which we have to adapt ourselves if we are to make living really worth while.
My Lords, one of the matters that has brought me to my feet to-day is what we read in yesterday's paper in connection with the overspill problem from which Glasgow is at the moment suffering. As your Lordships will know, Glasgow has an almost insoluble problem in finding accommodation for some 300,000 surplus of population. They have, so far as I understand, entered into agreements with about 29 different receiving authorities. It does not follow that each one of these agreements will ultimately materialise in some kind of arrangement whereby the receiving authorities will take a number of people from Glasgow. Yesterday there appeared in the papers a report of a speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland in connection with Glenrothes. If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to read an extract from a letter which the Secretary of State addressed to the Lord Provost of Glasgow. He says this:
"We are now clear that the new town of Glenrothes, with which your Corporation have already made an overspill agreement covering
1124
the substantial number of 1,800 houses, can in future make an increasingly significant contribution to the serious problem of Glasgow overspill. We and the New Town Corporation are now regarding this as one of the major features of the policy to be followed there both as regards housing and industrial employment. To an increasing extent Glenrothes will thus become a third new town for Glasgow".
I refer to this case particularly because the National Coal Board made an analysis of the coal situation, in which they assumed that a certain number of miners would be attracted from Lanarkshire and Fife, but those figures were found not to work out in practice. There has had to be an admission that the number of houses on which the National Coal Board had first demand has been overstated. I need not go into the reasons for that, because I am not blaming anyone; and in a sense the Secretary of State is now expressing a feeling of relief that these houses can be used for the benefit of Glasgow overspill. But even on the assumption that alternative homes are found for this vast overspill—and, of course, no one pretends that this can be done very quickly—what steps have been taken to avoid the continuing inflow of newcomers to Glasgow as the overspill is decanted into other parts of Scotland? My own impression is that in spite of the number who have left Glasgow, the population of the city still remains the same. There appears to be no control whatever over incomers into a city already sadly overcrowded.
As regards new towns, I also saw in to-day's newspapers that there are hopes that another small town, Lugton, will enter into an overspill arrangement of Glasgow whereby they would acquire a new population and, one hopes, new industries. As I have said before, it is important that the new towns should receive not only overspill but the industries which the occupants of the new houses follow in order to earn their livelihood. At the present time the Local Employment Bill is being discussed in another place and your Lordships will be aware that it is proposed to make provision in the Bill—I will not say, to direct, but to persuade, industry to go into areas where overspill will be sent. I have the feeling that there is a distinct lack of co-ordination between the several Ministries concerned in any major change in population and industry. Instead of allowing every Ministry, with the best

1125
of good faith, to arrive at its own conclusion, there should be constant consultation between the Ministries concerned, in order that the pros and cons of the various Departments can be weighed up carefully and a balance arrived at which, if not perfect, is nevertheless the best kind of solution for the time being. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said about the Ministry of Housing and Local Government having no medical department. That seems almost unbelievable when one realises the close connection between housing conditions and medical supervision.
I have spoken long enough. I have not wished to be controversial, because I think that the problem is too serious to be treated in a partisan way. But I should like to feel that the Government, in their laudable desire to solve this problem, will not move by minute step-by-step methods, but will rather try to think out a comprehensive plan in which all the Ministries concerned would have their say, and in that way perhaps help to produce the kind of housing conditions that we really want.
5.8 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, many aspects of this problem have been developed during the course of the interesting discussion initiated by my noble friend. I wish to confine my attention mainly to the economic aspects of the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred to Schedule A income tax as being an obnoxious tax and detrimental to the provision of housing accommodation; but is it not true that a still more obnoxious and detrimental tax is the local rates which are levied upon houses and which so much increase the cost of occupancy?
I did not happen to have by me last night figures for the whole country, but I had those for a single county—Northamptonshire. Looking at them, I found that a large proportion of houses fell into the category of £19 to £25 rateable value. According to the district, it ranged from one-third to nearly one-half of the houses. I also noticed that in most cases the rate per £ which was levied was well over 20s. If we take a mean value of £22 rateable value, and the moderate figure of 20s. in the £ rates, that is £72 per year which is levied upon the occu-
1126
pancy of these medium-class houses. That is a sheer tax upon housing accommodation. In a sense, I do not disagree very much with the decision to discontinue the general housing subsidy, but it seems to me to be a corollary of that, at any rate, that the rates upon houses ought to be relieved. In the course of the next two or three years there is going to be a general revaluation, because those houses at the present moment are being rated upon a 1939 level of values, and when they come to be reassessed the rates imposed will undoubtedly be much higher; they are bound to bear a larger proportion of rates levied in the district. That is a serious tax upon the provision of housing accommodation. It is really quite ridiculous to continue upon that basis, hoping to improve the housing conditions of the population and at the same time putting this restraint upon doing so.
There is, of course, quite a simple solution to this problem, which unfortunately we have never yet adopted in this country but which has been adopted and tried and endured for many years in other countries—namely, the rating of site values. I hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply to the debate and his colleagues who sit on the Benches behind him are not going to bristle up with prejudices over this, thinking of events which took place in this country fifty years ago and the bitter controversies which ensued over something which, I must say, was really quite different from what I am talking about at this moment. I would point out also that in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and others which have adopted this proposal it has continued under Governments of every political complexion, once it was introduced. So that I hope it will be considered dispassionately. I do not think the noble Lord, Lork Auckland, is present now, but I rather think that the Association with which he is connected, the National Association of Ratepayers' Societies, at a recent conference passed a resolution inviting the Government to consider this matter. That was a resolution passed by a body which he quite correctly described as non-political but which, if it had any political inclination, would, I should think, lean towards the noble Earl opposite and his colleagues.

1127
This has a bearing upon some other matters which have been mentioned during the course of our discussion this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, referred to the difficulty which builders were experiencing in getting land at an economic price; and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, talked about the use for building purposes of good arable land. If you examine the conditions which at present exist in a great many towns in this country, and especially, perhaps, those of moderate size, you will find that there is a large amount of land which has not been developed, or which has not been developed adequately, and that it is not really necessary to encroach upon the surrounding arable land in order to find the space in which to house the population decently.
That fact has been proved by those cases—and they are quite numerous—dating back many years, such as Letch-worth, Wythenshawe, a suburb of Manchester, and so on, where an area has been planned for housing and other purposes on rational lines and has been fully developed without the gaps and imperfect development which so frequently arise where building has been allowed to proceed haphazardly and spasmodically, which is encouraged by our existing system of rating which exempts from local taxation undeveloped sites and positively encourages people to hold them idle in the hope that the growth and pressure of population will in the course of time add to the value of the land and enable the fortunate seller of it to reap an untaxed capital profit.
This also has a bearing upon the problem which my noble friend Lord Stonham referred to, of providing housing accommodation in the central areas of London, or of other large cities where the site value has risen to enormous heights and where the provision of housing accommodation has, upon that account, become extremely difficult because it is so expensive. I do not suggest that it is either necessary or desirable that such a change as a rate on site values should be made at one single blow—although, in fact, it has been done in that way in other countries without any serious trouble or inconvenience—but a gradual changeover from the one
1128
system of rating to the other would help to solve these economic problems which up to the moment have been quite intractable.
There is one more thing I should like to say which has some bearing upon this matter. In London and other places of large size—conurbations as they are called—one of the troubles, quite clearly, is that planning has failed, hitherto at any rate, to control the proliferation of office accommodation in the centres of the cities, and this gives employment to far more persons per acre than does the building of factories, which it has been one of the principal aims of the town planners to control. It is office accommodation in central London which is giving rise to the enormous site values and to the great density of traffic travelling into the centre, and unless some stop is put upon that it is evident that the price of land will continue to rise and the density of traffic will increase until a point will come where the whole thing will come to a standstill, because the increased values of land which are so created make it so expensive to increase the capacity of the streets by widening and improving them. Here, again, I respectfully submit to the Minister and to his right honourable friend that the time has come for a consideration of this problem of local rating, particularly in its bearing upon housing, and that it is becoming quite urgent when the near approach of a revaluation based upon present-day values is going to throw a still higher burden upon housing accommodation.
5.20 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I will say only a few words about this very important subject. At the outset, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having raised this debate. I was struck by the comprehensive way in which he discussed this question and also with his great fairness and complete absence of any Party political bias. I wish merely to emphasise a matter which has been already mentioned by other speakers, namely, the question of whether the Government can encourage private individuals to build houses for letting. I want to make it quite clear that I am making no criticism of the policy of local authorities in building houses for letting. I think that that is a very good work and, indeed, essential.

1129
However, one would like to see a revival of the private development of houses and flats to let, particularly in the central areas of the towns and cities. This is desirable for a number of reasons: first of all, to stem the present trend of development which is towards all dwelling-houses being either owner-occupied or council-tenanted; secondly, to prevent the increasing burden of subsidies upon local and central government finances, and, thirdly, to provide for the mobility of labour in an area where increasing major adjustments in industry and commerce seem inevitable in the near future.
Quite frankly, there are a number of obstacles to the private development of houses to let. Some of these obstacles are the following: first, there is the subsidised competition of council housing and the ability of councils to let houses at less than the economic rent; secondly—and this is most important—the cost of land to a private purchaser as compared with the cost to a public authority acquiring it through clearance order procedure or compulsory purchase, and, thirdly, there is no doubt that we have the absence of confidence in the investor to lend money on mortgage of rented house property. I believe that these obstacles can be overcome. In the first place, stronger action could be taken to oblige councils to charge economic rents, relief being given to the individual of insufficient means—in other words, in future the individual and not the house should be the subject of subsidy. Secondly—and I think this is equally important—local authorities should clear sites by means of clearance orders and then, in appropriate cases with the consent of the Minister, offer them by tender for the private owner to redevelop. The confidence of investors in property mortgages would then tend to revive.
I have been told by numerous people that there is a growing wish among those financially capable of doing so to embark upon development of houses to let, but at the present time, of course, everything is against the private developer in this respect. First, it is impossible for him to compete with subsidised houses, and secondly, it is impossible for him in a great number of cases to buy land at an economic figure. If only local authorities would clear the land and then, subject to the
1130
approval of the Minister, tender it to private developers, I have no doubt that some of these obstacles could be overcome.
5.25 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I apologise if my remarks are rather disjointed, but I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I think we have all learned to mistrust estimates, figures and forecasts. Over the last 10 or 15 years we have had so many examples of figures that have been proved woefully wrong—steel, coal, decline of population, and so on and so forth—that we must tend to believe more in man's fallibility than in his infallibility. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, may be right, and the Ministry, whose figures are a good deal lower, may be too optimistic. In fact, I think I would take the noble Lord's figures against those of the Ministry, because there is a danger of merely counting houses and heads, which is a sort of Moscow method of doing it. It leaves out of account the fact that old people dislike moving out of houses which the Ministry say are too big for them, into other houses, particularly as they will probably have to pay a larger rent for their old age pensioner's bungalow than they already pay in their controlled rent existing house. It is possible that they may not have a bath, and all that kind of thing, but people who have lived all their lives without baths do not seem to feel the same need for bathing as those who have not done so.
I am sure that we have been quite right to encourage the private builder, and Lord Meston's news that there are financial interests prepared to risk their money in building houses to rent is most exciting and, to me, most startling, because that is something against which I should have been prepared to lay very heavy odds for ever. It would be interesting to know what type of tenant they have in view: whether they have in view the building of what used to be called weekly rents—because that is the type of property which I have always considered could never again be built by private enterprise. It is a different matter perhaps for middle-class flats, and so on. There are many of our population who from force of necessity are potential renters rather than buyers. Though they may turn into buyers in

1131
their later years, when they are established in their careers, it is economically wrong for many young people to buy houses, although they have great difficulty in getting anything else.
Local authority building has been stepped up a little, but the local authorities are still pleading financial impossibility. Before one accepts that explanation entirely, one would like to know whether they have scraped the financial barrel, and whether they collect the maximum reasonable rents for their existing housing. I remember some years ago sitting at a banquet next to a very high civic dignitary who led an important Labour council, and we were discussing this matter. He said he only wished that the Minister of the day would give him an order to apply some sort of differential scheme: it was impossible for him, in his position, to carry it out without an order. It may be that those people have now put into operation these differential schemes. The one that I personally prefer, and which I think is the most fair, is the scheme by which a tenant pays an economic rent unless he goes along to the housing officer and says that he cannot afford to do so; and then he is let off a certain amount.
When we continue this local authority building, however, I hope that we shall not forget amenities and architecture. I was with some friends examining some housing estates on the North-East coast a short time ago, and we were all deeply shocked by what we thought to be the bad quality of the architecture and the lack of amenities such as garages, shops and so on. When one compared the standard with that of the new towns the difference was most striking. I hope that the Minister, if he has any control over these matters, will in future see that there is at least space for garages in these enormous great housing estates and do his utmost to persuade the local authorities to employ a really first-class architect for the overall landscaping of these big estates. It was really most depressing to see the result of what I presume was the borough surveyor's effort.
There are bound to be special problems, and the land in our cities is one very special problem. If there is any subsidy to be directed to housing I should have thought that a subsidy
1132
towards the purchase of this city land would be one in the right direction. When we plan big rural housing developments I hope that we shall go more for the bad land than we have done in the past; only too often we have taken the best. My local new town, for instance, Crawley, had it been sited a few miles away, could have been sited on comparatively low-value forest land, instead of on the rich local clay. I also hope that if we are looking for new town sites we shall consider them in relation to future communications. The communications from London to the South, all the southern are, have been fully developed, and the last of them are now being electrified. The future lies to the North and North-East. If there are to be more new towns, I hope that they will be out in this direction and not nearer London than the present ones. In fact I believe that a mistake was made in not sticking to (I think it was) the Uthwatt Committee's recommendation that these new towns should be about 60 miles from London.
I fully expected that somebody would raise our dear old friend the price of money, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has a considerable portion of his speech devoted to it. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it really would not make two-penn'orth of difference if a local authority could borrow to-morrow from the Public Works Loan Board. It would cost exactly the same as at the moment. The Government cannot borrow any more cheaply than the local authorities can, except by printing the money; and nobody would wish them to do that. At the moment there is a free market in money; people are saving money and lending money, and if the price of money should fall there is an enormous queue of borrowers waiting to step in and snap it up.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It would in any case be a considerable added convenience to the local authority if it could borrow through the Public Works Loan Board, at the most convenient time, without extra cost.
LORD HAWKE: I will not argue convenience with the noble Lord. I argue price because there is nothing in the price at all. I believe that it is no solution to our housing problem to suggest

1133
that somewhere round the corner is a sort of dream world of a vast, untapped supply of money for anything we want.
5.35 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I think the House will agree that we are specially indebted this afternoon to my noble friend Lord Silkin for having initiated this discussion on housing. He did so, both in projection and perspective, with a minimum of controversy and a complete absence of any Party feeling. He is admirably equipped to discuss housing, for he was the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council for some six years and was largely responsible for initiating and getting to work the housing machine of the London County Council, which had acquired by 1939 and the outbreak of war a very encouraging momentum and capacity for producing residences, whether houses outside London or flats within London. It is perhaps an unhappy conjuncture that my noble friend, Lord Douglas of Barloch, became the Chairman of the Housing Committee and had the sad and sorrowful duty of slowing down, and indeed almost dismantling, the housing machine of the London County Council because of the exigencies of war. It is, I think, a happy circumstance that these two should have participated in the discussion of this important matter. I must express my regrets to the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, that I was unable to be in the Chamber while he was speaking. I intended no discourtesy to him, as I am sure he will acknowledge.
My noble friend Lord Stonham dealt, with some energy, an energy which I think is entirely justified, with the tragic situation which exists in many boroughs in the County of London, and he matched his knowledge of the problems of the metropolitan boroughs, especially the Borough of Shoreditch, with experience and understanding of the acute problem—too little recognised by us who live in cities—of rural housing; I am sure that his contribution to the debate on that aspect of the national problem was most valuable. My noble friend, Lord Greenhill, dealt, as was expected and is proper, with the situation in Scotland, where in certain of the cities the housing situation is no less than dreadful. I well recall that the first time Lord
1134
Greenhill and I met was at a conference dealing with housing (I think it was in 1935) when the noble Lord was an active and experienced member of the Glasgow Corporation.
In opening the discussion, my noble friend, Lord Silkin, said that housing was "number one" social problem. I think we must all agree that that is the case. After all, the basis of our society is the family unit; the haven of the family unit is the home, and the quality of the home depends upon the housing accommodation in which it is located. Sir Winston Churchill said many years ago when he was Home Secretary that the foundations of national welfare are set in the homes of the people, and I am sure that we shall all agree that that is not less true now than it was then, for the quality pf housing is, as my noble friend Lora Silkin said, an important element in the standard of living.
I was interested to read in The Times of the 19th of last month a report of a survey which has been made by Dr. Mark Abrams as to the pattern, as it were, of living of the people. I quote from The Times. He said:
"During a pre-election survey I found that all the working-class families I approached were not concerned with the Summit meeting, or Nyasaland, but only with making their homes warmer, snugger, tighter, more secluded and private."
Then, dealing with the patina of household expenditure and the like, he went on to say that whereas in the 'forties the greater prosperity of the working classes was mainly devoted to more beer, cigarettes and cinemas, by the 'fifties this had changed to food, housing, fuel and light, household goods, private motoring and foreign travel.
Thus, I think it is incontestable that housing is of the very essence of the social structure of our country, and it seems to me to divide itself into three parts. There is, of course, first of all, the clearance of the slums. It is estimated that there are no fewer than between 800,000 and 1 million slums in this country—that is to say, residences unfit for human habitation. That number is not static. Every day that passes brings more low-standard properties, houses or flats, or both, into the realm and category of slums, and equally in every year that passes the number of slums increases. I think it can be said

1135
that, however active the local authorities are in clearing the slums within the limitations of their facilities and the like, including finance, the number of new slums (if we can use those words) exceeds those which are demolished and replaced. There is nothing which more quickly produces a slum than that a house should be in multiple occupation—that a house built for one family houses maybe two and sometimes three. It is estimated that there are some 2 million persons sharing accommodation or living in inadequate housing accommodation.
It is a little apposite perhaps, but there was in another place last Monday a discussion on housing in Birmingham. Almost inescapably, the discussion ranged wider than Birmingham; but in the course of the statements made in another place it was said that Birmingham, which has pursued a most energetic campaign for the clearance of slums, especially since the end of the war, has 45,000 dwellings unfit for human habitation. Some of them were declared as unfit for habitation in 1918. They are still occupied, and the occupants are still paying rent for them. It was also stated that there is a waiting list of some 70,000 people in Birmingham alone; and there are, of course, thousands and thousands of back-to-backs, those artistic legacies from the Industrial Revolution, the days of spacious ease. In Leeds there are 60,000 back-to-backs.
With regard to the London County Council area, excluding the metropolitan boroughs, the position is that the earlier list which contained some 180,000 applicants has been revised very drastically and a new test has been applied for applicants to get on the list—what is known as the "Basic needs list". The basic needs are these: that the applicant has too few bedrooms, or shares a living room with another family, or has not the sole use of a kitchen with cooker and sink. On this new list there are no fewer than 37,000 persons who qualify on the ground of those basic needs.
Like other local authorities, the London County Council is at the present time doing practically no general housing. Its activities in the field of housing are limited (a) to slum clearance, (b) to overspill and (c) to the provision of
1136
one-room and two-room flats for the aged. It has at its disposal no more than about 2,000 dwellings a year for general housing to meet the revised demand, to which I have already referred, of some 37,000 applicants. Of course, it means that thousands of families are living in conditions which no one could defend and no one of good will would seek to justify. Moreover, in the County of London—these figures come from the census referred to by my noble friend Lord Silkin—one-quarter of the dwellings have no piped water supply, one-sixth have no separate kitchen sink, over one-third have no separate water closet, and about two-thirds have no separate bathrooms.
That is the situation in the County of London. Moreover, the County of London housing activities in the field of general housing are also limited by the circumstance that, if a new road is projected or a road improvement is carried out, or a school has to be built in a certain place, or indeed an open space provided in those boroughs of London where they are so much under-provided with open spaces, it frequently involves the demolition of housing accommodation. It may be that most of it is old, but there is, of course, the obligation that the London County Council have to rehouse; and they have to rehouse, very often, out of residences and dwellings which would otherwise be available for the general list to which I have referred. The metropolitan boroughs at the present time are for the most part concerned with derequisitioning or slum clearance. No new general housing is being done; and that means that the situation is exacerbated with every day that passes.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will not be disappointed by the fact that I do not propose to go into the question of the facilities open to local authorities to borrow money.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, have I convinced the noble Lord at last?
LORD LATHAM: No; I would not, if I were he, carry away that compliment. But I am going to refer to the circumstance, which has been mentioned this afternoon, that private developers have increased the number of houses or dwellings which they have built this year as compared with last year. As my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, however,

1137
those dwellings are not available to applicants who are upon the waiting lists of local authorities in every city in this country, principally because their cost and the amount of the monthly or weekly payments that would be necessary on the basis of a rate of interest of 5¾ per cent. are beyond the purse of practically every one of those who are on the lists of local authorities.
We often hear talk of high earnings, and I believe it is the case that the average is about £12 or £12-plus per week; and there are, of course, a number of people who, fortunately, earn very much more than that. But we cannot overlook the fact that, according to figures furnished by the Ministry of Pensions in connection with the National Insurance Bill, there are 7¾ million people in this country who earn £9 or less per week and are outside the scheme. There are 7¾ million people (curiously enough the same number) earning between £9 and £15, and only 5¼ million people earning over £15 per week. And so, for the most part, as I say, these dwellings are beyond the range of the people who most need them. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, say that the question of the rate of, interest did not matter to local authorities in relation to their housing.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord must have misheard me, for I was not under the impression that I had said any such thing. What I believe I did say was that even if local authorities went to the Public Works Loan Board to-day they would not get their loans appreciably cheaper.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am bound to accept what the noble Lord says, and I do so most willingly; but the situation is that when the rate of interest was 3¾ per cent. the deficiency on a scheme would be £72 per dwelling per annum for 60 years. With the rate of interest of 5¾ per cent. the deficiency is £111 per dwelling per annum for 60 years.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord—and I think it is a fair question, as he has posed those two figures—how would he propose to borrow at the low rate to-day, under present conditions?
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, that is a matter of Government policy. There was a time when local authorities could borrow at lower rates—
LORD SILKIN: There was a different Government.
LORD LATHAM: —and if there be taken into account the change in relation to subsidy and rate of interest, then on the basis of the old subsidy and interest at 3¾ per cent., the rate contribution (and this is where the local authority comes in) was £14 per annum for 60 years. But with the present rate of subsidy and the rate of interest at 5¾ per cent., the rate contribution is £65 per dwelling per annum for 60 years. That has cast, and is casting, a very heavy burden on local authorities, and if it should fall out that any particular scheme did not qualify for slum clearance subsidy—and some schemes do not—there would be an additional £25 per annum to be borne out of the rates for 60 years.
Coupled with that added obligation cast upon local authorities comes the circumstance of the increased cost of land, referred to by my noble friends Lord Silkin and Lord Stonham. I have among my memoranda a paper which shows that in one particular case, while conversations were taking place for dealing with overspill by way of the Town Development Act, it was stated that since the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act this year, the price of a piece of land had increased by five times. My noble friend Lord Silkin said, and my noble friend Lord Stonham confirmed, that the cost of land in London at the present time is just fantastic; and at the present time it is the local authorities who have to bear a substantial proportion of that increased cost. In some cases they have to bear all that increase in cost—an increase which, of course, is very largely created by the activities of the community.
My noble friend Lord Silkin made what I thought was a very admirable suggestion: that there should be an independent national survey of the problem of housing, projecting its survey to, say, 10 years—though it might well be that 20 years would be a better period. Housing is no longer a local matter, capable of being dealt with in the confines of local authority boundaries. It has, in fact, overspilled the boundaries. We have

1139
new towns which are housing activities in a particular county carried out not by the county itself but by the Government. We have expanded towns where arrangements are made between one authority and another for overspill to be taken, and there are now all kinds of arrangements which I believe have made housing inescapably a national problem and a matter of national policy.
A survey which would include the allocation and use of land for housing, for siting of such new towns as might be advised and matters of that kind, would at all events give the Government and the nation a picture of the problem of housing to-day and to-morrow. For, after all, my Lords, the quality and content of our national life depends on good healthy comfortable housing for our people. I hope—and I am sure that most of your Lordships share this hope—that the Government accept this humanitarian point of view and the social obligation which it connotes. I therefore trust that the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, will be able to give us some encouraging indication that the Government appreciate the important situation and the acute problems which still remain in the domain of housing in this country.
6.1 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we are all, I am sure, extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for giving us this opportunity to debate this extremely important subject to-day. We must almost, I think, be ashamed that we have not had a general housing debate in this House for, I am informed, nearly four years, and I am sure it is fully time that this subject should be debated. I want particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the way in which he introduced the subject and for the high tone which he set. This is a subject which in another place is apt to generate perhaps the absolute maximum of heat. It is perhaps fairly easy to understand why, because if our political alignments are for and against Socialism, broadly, there could be no subject on which to hang the arguments more conveniently than the subject of housing. It may be that that is why, when this subject is debated in another place, sometimes housing is lost sight of in the doctrinaire arguments that occur on pure politics.
1140
I do not propose for a moment to embark on any such thing to-day. I propose to follow the example so well set by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and even the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who said he was not quite sure how far he could keep off controversy. I think he made a very good hand at it, and I thank him very much. But, of course, if in replying, and making what I hope may be an objective statement about the situation in housing to-day—which is, after all, what the debate is about—I show that the facts are not wholly disreputable, indeed, if the facts turn out to be fairly good, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will not accuse me of playing politics. After all, one cannot help having so much sympathy with (I think it was) Lord Beaconsfield, who said that one of the great hardships in politics was that when things went wrong people always blamed the Government; when things went right they merely thanked God.
This subject is infinitely complex, especially for a junior agricultural Minister to answer, and I can only hope to pick out some of the highlights. The magnitude of the subject has been outlined by a number of noble Lords. The overall figure of 3,300,000 houses built since the war is a great figure and an immense achievement, but it must never lull us into a feeling of thinking for a moment that the battle is won. In many areas the sharp edge may have been blunted, but the demand is still acute in certain areas, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, with whose points I shall be dealing in a moment.
We talk of houses and of people on lists, and I was interested and glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his opening speech, as well as many noble Lords following him, emphasised that merely to talk in terms of houses and people is not really a sufficient consideration. What we are concerned with here is families, households. I thought it would be worth looking back at the figures of the 1951 census—one has to go back to that census for accurate figures, and the figures since then must be estimates—and it was interesting to see the figures of that census. Then there were 12,400,000 dwellings in England and Wales—I am afraid that here I must refer to England and Wales. There were

1141
13,100,000 private households or families. It meant that we were then 700,000 short. In fact, of course, there was a shortfall of more than 0·7 million. It was more than ¾million, because all the evidence goes to show that that arithmetical figure is not big enough. There are the vacancies and the houses that are empty, and so on, to be considered. That was the position in 1951.
To-day the position is better. To-day we can, of course, use only estimates, but the best estimates I have been able to obtain are 14¼ million houses and 14½ million families. We have now got down to being only 4¼ million short; and I think that the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my figures agree.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, when the noble Earl is giving those figures for the number of families and houses, does he include those families that have more than one dwelling?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am afraid that I must have notice of that question. I do not know whether those figures include families that have more than one dwelling, but I will certainly find out and let the noble Lord know later. The interesting point in all these figures is that households are, according to all the best estimates, increasing faster than the general rate of the population. This has been going on since the turn of the century, and in the next ten years it is estimated that, although the population will increase by only about 2·2 million—
LORD LATHAM: Two hundred thousand a year.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: —the number of individual households will have increased by 850,000. This increase in families is largely due (and this is a point which was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, in particular) to the fact that people now live longer and existing households remain at the same time as new ones appear. One likes to think also that an increasing number of old people are financially able to remain in an independent home of their own and do not have to enter some form of institution or be a burden upon some younger family.
That is why the Government are tackling so energetically the problem of housing for old people. There is the
1142
special Exchequer subsidy of £10 a year for 60 years on every one-bedroomed house that local authorities build. In fact, 25 per cent. of all the local authority house-building—I am talking again of England and Wales—consists of these one-bedroomed houses which are particularly suitable for the old people. Since the war the figure has been running at only 10 per cent. It is now 25 per cent. and we have every reason to suppose it is going higher than that. But I do not want to go into too much detail at this moment.
Perhaps I may restate the problem again, in this very brief review that I should like to make before I go to the points that noble Lords have raised. To start with we have not enough houses; we have a population increasing all the time; we have families increasing relatively faster than that; we have a standard of living rising, and continuing to rise; and we have this wastage of the existing houses by age and by neglect—and that is a point that has been brought out.
I should like to take the last point first: this question of wastage. I do not know whether it would be wholly unfair to say that a city grows rather like a tree: it puts on rings outside. One does not want to take the simile too far, but everyone knows what happens to the centre of a tree—it gets rotten. By the same simile the outside part of a tree is the sapwood—the flimsy bungalows and teashops, while there is a mixture of banks and slums in the centre. I think we must always see, and must take the greatest care, that when the centre of our tree, the good solid heartwood, begins to rot, we infill. We cannot afford to go on and on outwards all the time (the country has only a certain size) and leave nothing in the middle, although we shall then be immediately up against the problem of the very high cost of land in the centre, and that must be tackled—and I hope to show that it is being tackled.
On this question of wastage, I was rather surprised that no noble Lord mentioned anything about the improvement grants that are available to private individuals and to local authorities. I think I should, therefore, in this brief survey, mention them for a moment. The 1949 Act introduced comprehensive

1143
grants for improving structurally sound old houses and converting larger houses into flats: and it is important to remember that half the houses in the country were built before 1919. The estimate is that there are 3 or 4 million houses which need modernising. That is a very big figure: it is equal to all the houses which we have built since the war. Now there is no denying that the 1949 Act did not really get off to a very good start, but we will not go into that. There was a certain amount of prejudice and there was a certain amount of difficulty. Perhaps the rules were too rigid. It did not really take off, perhaps, until 1954, when the Government eased up the requirements and the conditions. Since then, improvements under this Act have been running at 35,000 cases a year—but that still is not good enough.
It was not until the 1959 Act came along, with its famous five standard improvements—the bath, the wash basin, the water closet, the hot water boiler and the food store—that the whole business of these improvement grants really got going. I think that there were two reasons for that. One was that under the new 1959 Act grants are no longer permissive: they are payable as of right. If you add one of these improvements to a house, the local authority must pay you the 50 per cent. grant, of which, as we all know, 75 per cent. is Exchequer subsidy and 25 per cent. is rate-borne. Now there has been an impetus since then to the improvement of old houses, and some of this wastage has stopped: the new grants are available to all pre-1945 houses. Curiously enough, the fact that this new Act has stimulated these specific improvements appears to have stimulated the more general, comprehensive grants under the old 1949 Act, which are running now at nearly double the number that they were before. The fact that the Government have given a very great deal of publicity to this grant aid for improvements may have had something to do with this. There is a very good leaflet which was published—in fact, 50,000 copies of it have been sold at 1s. 6d. a time. I think that is all very satisfactory.
Nobody has to-night either mentioned rent de-control. In passing, I should like to mention that rent de-control has
1144
had an effect in easing up the situation and in getting repairs done which were not done before. For the very low rents which had been fixed before were not only unfair on the owners, many of whom were small people, but were unfair on the occupants, the tenants, because they did not get their repairs done. It would have been absolutely wrong to allow the wastage of old property to go on for that reason.
Unfortunately, of course, there is this large number of houses which are not worth repairing under any scheme. These are the slums which have to be cleared, and the Government feel that this task must now have first priority. There is a special subsidy of £22 1s. per annum for 60 years payable upon new houses built by a local authority to replace an unfit house; and noble Lords will know that it is possible for a local authority to get two grants (I suppose it is possible to get even more than two grants) of £22 1s. That is to say, if you are going to re-house two families out of one slum house, you will get the £22 1s. on each of the new houses that you put up; because it is a pair of new houses for re-housing people out of one condemned slum property. Since the end of 1955, 180,000 unfit houses have been demolished or closed in England and Wales. By the end of 1960, the total should reach 260,000. The target for Great Britain is that 200,000 persons a year should be moved out of slums. That was achieved in 1958, and is likely to be achieved in 1959. Before very long, indeed, many authorities may have seen the end of their slum clearance programmes. I doubt whether the city in which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is interested will have seen the end of it in ten years' time; but some will, and then we can all concentrate more particularly on those which have not come to the end of this intractable though not wholly insoluble problem.
I should like now for a moment to turn to some of the points raised by noble Lords, to see whether I can answer some of the many specific questions that have been asked. I cannot, of course, refer to all the points—it would be impossible to do that to-night—but they will be brought to the notice of my right honourable friend, and everything that has been said will be studied most carefully in Hansard. However, I must refer

1145
to some of the matters which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. He was the first of many noble Lords who raised the famous figures of properties with no baths, no W.C.'s, no sinks, and no stoves. They are well-known figures, and they are incontrovertible. I accept them. We have got to improve upon them; and one hopes that in a few years' time one will be able to have very much better figures.
As to the figure of 300,000 dwellings a year, I should not like to say whether that is the figure we shall always require to have: but it is interesting to note that that average of 300,000 has been reached in these last years and it seems to me that it is about right. But rather than go out on a limb with a figure of that sort, I would say, and I would say on behalf of my right honourable friend, that what we want is a high level of new building. If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will forgive me, I will not at the moment say whether 300,000 is the right figure or not. There is a great difference between need and demand.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the cost of land. He will know that in the housing subsidies it is possible to take into account the cost of developing sites and also such special costs as piling, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the interesting point of whether or not we have come to a stage when a special inquiry by some outside committee ought to be held. That is a matter well worth considering, and no doubt my right honourable friend will consider it. It is not entirely a new point. I understand that it has been raised in other quarters recently and is under consideration, but I cannot tell what will be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, made an interesting speech, as we have learned to expect from him, about old people. I was interested to learn that apparently old people do not linger on in Torquay, but die suddenly. I do not know what the implication of that is, but it is what the noble Lord told us. What he said about old people does go to show that good housing will take away the pressure on hospital beds. That is something we all want to see and something we must do. The noble Lord suggested that some of our difficulties could be overcome if local authorities could be
1146
persuaded to move old people from fourth floors to ground floors. I do not quite know how the Government can assist local authority in this respect. It seems to me largely a matter of tact and of good relations between the local authority and their tenants. I think that it is a good thing, but I do not see how the Government can help in this rather domestic matter.
LORD LATHAM: Rather hazardous matter.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes, rather hazardous, too. I sent for information about another point which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, made and I find that he is right. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government do not have a special medical staff, but I am informed that there is a close liaison between the medical service and the Ministry, and I am sure that the situation is not so bad as the noble Lord may have feared. The noble Lord also referred to the great cost of high flats and asked if there was a special subsidy. Of course, there is. He also spoke of moving people out into the country. In the letter which the noble Lord sent me, and which I received only in the course of this debate, he made a number of points which are well worth considering.
The noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, interested me by his eloquent plea for a land bank and budget, which pleased noble Lords opposite a good deal, and he wound up by pleasing me by saying that he believed wholeheartedly in private enterprise in building. I doubt whether my right honourable friend would feel that a land bank was the solution to our difficulties, but we are always glad to look at points raised by the noble Earl.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, spoke of the difficulties of a young man, like himself, starting off buying a house. He spoke of the high legal charges, the high mortgage interest and Schedule A tax, which he dislikes very much. Although I am replying as an agricultural Minister to a housing debate, I do not think that I will take on the question of Schedule A income tax, which is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and legal charges, which is for the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. But these points will be brought to the attention of the appropriate quarters for

1147
consideration. The noble Lord congratulated Her Majesty's Government on the success we have had in our housing programme, and I am sure that he is right in doing so. He asked whether council tenants ought not to have every encouragement to buy their houses. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that council house tenants should have every encouragement to buy their houses, and the Minister has issued instructions, and I believe shortly is to be issuing more instructions, on this very matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made a powerful speech, as we expect from him. He always manages to bring in Somerset when I am replying. He asked whether there could be special provision for a rural district in Somerset which wanted to move some people out of a hutted camp. That links up with the other point he made about Shoreditch, and the cost of land for housing and the extra cost of piling. Actually there are not special subsidies for these specific matters, but he will know that where dwellings are erected on an expensive site an Exchequer subsidy is available towards the cost of purchasing and developing the site. I am informed that the sort of point which the noble Lord raised is taken into consideration when that subsidy is being fixed. The sort of thing taken into consideration is the purchase price, including legal expenses, the cost of clearing, the construction of roads, extra deep foundations, and piling and retaining walls.
I am not such a greenhorn, though an agricultural Minister, as to be wholly convinced by the noble Lord's use of housing lists. They have been, and always will be, a matter of great controversy. There is the question of whether they are "live" and whether people have put their names on more than one list. But I am not going to get involved in a controversy about this at the moment. One can get an exaggerated and false picture of the whole question by using lists, unless they are looked at very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked me about Glenrothes. He was good enough to give my noble friend Lord Craigton notice of this question. I think that I can give him some assistance on
1148
the points he raised, but as many of them are confined to Glasgow I would rather get in touch wth the noble Lord than weary your Lordships by going into the question fully now. But I should like to say this. As regards the three new towns in Scotland—East Kilbride, Glenrothes and Cumbernauld—it was always anticipated that a great many coalminers from Lanarkshire would be moving into Glenrothes new town. Now, owing to a different situation in the coal mining industry, that may not be so. My noble friend the Minister of State would not wish it to be thought that that gets him out of any obligation for providing for Glasgow per se; that is to say, it may well be that more people from Glasgow can now go to Glenrothes than was contemplated at one time. But my noble friend does not commit himself to whether or not other new towns are needed for Glasgow as a city. It just happens that it is helpful to find that this accommodation is available at Glenrothes, which at one time was not anticipated.
LORD GREENHILL: May I interrupt the noble Earl? As I understood it, this was an accidental outcome of an unforeseen situation; and one of my pleas was that it would be advantageous if, before decisions were taken by a body such as the National Coal Board, there could be this wider consultation, in order that all the facts could be obtained, instead of only a series of facts.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I take the noble Lord's point; and my noble friend will, I am sure, give it the consideration it deserves. We then come to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch.
LORD STONHAM: Before the noble Earl continues, if he will allow me to interrupt, I should like to mention a point on which I am not clear. Do I understand him to say that subsidies will be available to local authorities who want to rehouse people out of hutted camps? And does the same thing apply to local authorities who are prepared, under approved conditions, to rehouse people out of tied houses?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not think the noble Lord means to take me up on this matter. He knows that when

1149
there are expensive or special costs in a re-housing project of a local authority there is an Exchequer subsidy towards the cost of purchasing and developing any special site of that kind. I am told that this subsidy is separate from, and payable in addition to, any subsidy for dwellings erected on the site. This is not a new thing; it is something that exists now. As the noble Lord is well aware, if a housing account is kept, and all the subsidies are put in, these subsidies can come in and help in the general rent situation of the local authority. There is no special subsidy for houses that have been built by a local authority to replace tied cottages, but the noble Lord must be aware that since the war new rural housing in England and Wales has been something of the nature of 400,000 houses; that is to say, one-fifth of all new houses provided by local authorities. I think he will agree that this means there is a substantially larger pool of houses for re-letting to help solve the tied cottage problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, considered rates an obnoxious tax—and I am inclined to agree with him. However, I am not prepared, if he will forgive my saying so, to debate whether rating on site values would be more or less obnoxious. I think that is a matter that we must leave to another day, although I have taken note of the suggestion. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, hoped that private building for letting would continue. The Government would support that absolutely and would be only too glad to see it. Lord Meston's optimism that it was going to continue, or increase, seemed to cause the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, some surprise—and I will leave them to fight that out afterwards. What I do say is that the Government have done what they can to help this good end. The easing up of the rent control situation must surely have done that. Moreover, it is now five years since rent control on new construction was abandoned, which ought to make it easier for building for letting.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, as other noble Lords have done, said that we must not count houses and heads; and he asked that garages should be supplied and that architects should be used. It seemed to me that these were two admirable thoughts. Again, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hawke—because there
1150
seems to be some confusion about that this evening—that the subsidisation of expensive sites does exist.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in, if I may say so, a powerful contribution, again stressed the question of families, a matter on which we all so fully agree. Here he was optimistic, and he quoted the working man to-day, who thinks more about the snugness of his house than about his beer. I hope he is not too optimistic, I think he is probably right. I feel, however, that he is too pessimistic when he says that he fears that slums are increasing faster than they are decreasing, and that new slums are being created faster than old slums are being cleared. As I say, I think that is too pessimistic, and I hope that the noble Lord may be proved wrong.
My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate, and we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, for raising this subject. The last thing I would say is this. We must have priorities in this matter of housing, and the Government believe that the blight of the slums is the first priority that we should have now. We are fully convinced that there must continue to be a high rate of house-building linked with the preservation of older sound dwellings; and there must be a reasonable incentive to encourage people to provide their own homes. We do not think it is necessary, or even desirable, that the local authorities should provide all the new houses. But if the local authorities pool all their various subsidies and use the money to help only those tenants who need help, we feel that they will be able to continue to build a good proportion of the new houses and to let them at reasonable rents. Local authorities finding themselves with unreasonably high rates and rents on all their houses can apply for the special discretionary subsidy, which is up to £30 a house. Noble Lords may be interested to know that already 47 local authorities in the poorer districts have applied for this subsidy.
It remains the most salient feature of this Government's housing policy that private building should continue to rise—as in fact it is doing. The total of 124,000 private houses built in 1958 in England and Wales is a post-war record. But this total will be beaten this year, because in the first nine months of 1959, 126.000 houses were started, as against 99,000 in

1151
the first nine months of 1958. This, of course, has been greatly helped by the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, which took the unprecedented step of providing Exchequer loans to building societies, under proper safeguards. So far, 61 building societies have joined the Government scheme, which means that advances of at least 95 per cent. of the value of houses of moderate size are available to purchasers. But not only the building societies have been helped by the Government; the 1959 Act gave local authorities power for the first time to make advances of 100 per cent. for house purchase.
We have, as I have said, had a valuable debate this evening, and I am sure that enough has been said to convince your Lordships that the Government are not only aware of the housing problems which confront us but are taking bold measures to deal with them. Two principles must guide all our thinking on this matter. First, we must zealously safeguard and preserve the assets we already possess, and we must never let up on adding to the assets by new construction. That must be the aim. And the second principle is that we must not allow any preconceived prejudice or doctrinaire political bias to frustrate that aim. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having originated this debate, and I shall, of course, convey to my right honourable friend the substance of the many and most interesting and well informed speeches to which we have listened to-day.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like him to refer to two matters about which I suppose I should have warned him beforehand. I understand that the Government are pleased with the Registered House Builders' Association and have given their official blessing to it. But can the Government encourage us still further by issuing a certificate so as to make houses which are built of good standard available to help in the moving of population to places where they are going to work?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I wonder whether the noble Earl would forgive me if I communicated with him privately with regard to that question? I want to get the answer absolutely right.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: The other question is with regard to the Greater London plan which has been made, and which is now more or less filled in. But outside the Green Belt another greater Greater London has arisen, which is showing the same signs of sprawl and disorganisation and future chaos as in the old case. Would he ask his right honourable friend whether he would try to achieve the getting together of those five new counties on the outskirts of the fringe who need to have all their needs threshed out between them, so that we do not have a sprawl but work out a Greater London regional plan?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, without having had notice of that far-reaching proposal I could not possibly commit my right honourable friend. But as my noble friend has developed it fully in his speech, and has raised it again now, my right honourable friend will read it and I will communicate privately with him.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I thank the noble Earl.
6.42 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like first of all to express my appreciation of the able and agreeable way in which the noble Earl has dealt with this debate. If he has not dealt with every point completely satisfactorily I do not blame him. The debate covered a wide field, and it is only natural that some points must be left undealt with. I hope I shall not be thought egotistic if I express my own great satisfaction at the way in which this debate has been conducted. I expressed the hope at the outset that we could discuss this vital question in a non-Party spirit, and I think I can say that that has been carried out. Even those who on both sides are accustomed to express themselves in somewhat more violent terms than perhaps I do normally have refrained on this occasion, and every speaker has made a valuable contribution.
I could not have hoped, and did not intend, to cover the whole field of housing. It is a far bigger thing than any one person can do, especially in a speech of 33 minutes, which I am shocked to find I took. If I tried to cover the whole field I should possibly have been 300 minutes. But speakers on all sides have

1153
admirably filled many of the gaps which I left, and I do not think there is much that has been left unsaid. I am very grateful indeed to all those who have taken part in the debate, and for the spirit in which they have done it.
If I mention two things, I hope I shall not be thought to be departing from that spirit. One is the question of rent control. I deliberately did not deal with it because I thought it might be out of keeping with the general spirit of my remarks. I am not to-day complaining of decontrol. What I do complain of, even now, and where I feel there has been a hardship, is in the loss of security. I see that frequently in connection with a block of flats with which I am intimately connected for a time—I hope not for too long—and that is Dolphin Square. Tenants are in constant fear of eviction because the Act has placed in the hands of landlords the powerful weapon of increasing rents to any extent they fancy, and this is creating on those tenants a great hardship which I am experiencing myself. Without wishing to be unduly controversial, I make the point that I hope the Government will not feel too complacent about the results of decontrol. It is in certain cases creating great hardship. I could extend this subject, but I will not.
The other point is on the question of the sale of municipal houses. We on this side all favour home ownership in proper cases, but I think it would be bad estate management for local authorities to sell off odd houses on large estates. No owner of a large estate would do it. You will not find the Sutton Estate, the Guinness Trust or the Church Commissioners selling off odd houses while retaining the bulk. That would be bad estate management and I do not think it is reasonable to expect local authorities to do so. At any rate, if a local authority wants to take a particular section of an estate that they have built and dispose of that to their tenants as a whole, that would be another matter.
Those are the only two things upon which I wish to comment. Except for that, I believe the noble Earl has dealt with this subject in a way which, if he will not mind my saying so, meets with my complete approval. I hope that this debate will not be left simply in
1154
the records of the House and ignored hereafter. So much valuable material has been given that I think it is worthy of consideration.
I know the noble Earl did not take my figure of 300,000 as the last word on the subject. It was an attempt to calculate our needs. I may be mistaken one way or the other, but broadly I think it is right. What I should like to emphasise is that I hope something will be done to create a long-term housing programme, so that we can ensure that within the foreseeable future of ten or twelve years—even twenty years, as my noble friend Lord Latham thinks would be right—these awful housing conditions which are a blot upon our civilisation will end. In order to ensure that we must plan it and provide for it, and we must ensure that we provide a certain number of dwellings per annum until the time comes when the problem has been solved. I am sure the noble Earl will take that point to his right honourable friend and that it will get adequate and sympathetic consideration. If it does, then I am sure that the whole House will agree that this debate will have been well worth while. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DISTRESS FOR RATES BILL [H.L.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate, with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, certain enactments relating to the recovery of rates. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
First Report from the Select Committee, made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.