Sitting of 2 July 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.
  SOUTH WALES TRANSPORT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION) BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Leith Harbour and Docks, presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered on Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think it is my duty to inform the House that as a result of the printing dispute there are very few copies available of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill which I have set down for debate at seven o'clock next Monday evening.
  584
  I have arranged with the Agents for the Bill that Clause 9, which, I understand, is the most controversial part, should be included in their Memorandum about the Bill which will be available in the Vote Office. Any Member who cannot obtain a copy of the Bill can, of course, as usual inspect one in the Private Bill Office or in my Office. I hope that no Member will, therefore, be unduly inconvenienced by this unavoidable shortage of copies of the Bill.
  Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order. Clause 9 is one of the main contentious items in this Bill, but my hon. Friends representing Islington constituencies intend also to refer to several other Clauses, particularly those which abrogate certain provisions in the Epping Forest Act, 1878, which provide for the City Corporation to invest money from the superannuation fund in equities, and it might be inconvenient if hon. Members who desire it could not have a full copy of the Bill.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means: The trouble is that they are not available. There is one which can be seen in my office or in the Private Bill Office, but the printing is out of gear for it, I am sorry to say.
  Mr. Reynolds: If copies of the Bill are not going to be available in sufficient quantities for hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate and who may have to make up their minds which Division Lobby to go into, is it in order for the matter to come up for debate in the House on Monday night?
  Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order for the Bill to come up. Hon. Members must do the best they can with the material which is available. I am afraid there is no way out of it.
  Mr. D. Jones: May I raise a point of order on the South Wales Transport Bill? If I understood the Chairman of Ways and Means correctly, three Bills have been set down for Monday night at seven o'clock. It is quite clear from the interest in the first two that it will probably be an early hour on Tuesday morning before the South Wales Transport Bill can be debated. There is considerable interest in that Bill and it seems to me to be quite unfair to take these three Bills on the same night.
  Mr. Speaker: That cannot be argued at the moment. It is not really a point of order.
  Mr. Sorensen: Arising out of the first point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it impossible for the copies of the Bills to be duplicated?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the Chairman of Ways and Means has probably done his best about them.
  Mr. A. Evans: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). I fear that it will be quite impossible for hon. Members interested in the City of London (Various Powers) Bill to follow the matter as closely as they should unless there are available sufficient copies of the Bill, either printed or duplicated. We shall be placed in a most difficult position in trying to consider the Bill adequately.
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot argue the matter properly now, but it can be raised, if hon. Members desire to do so, when the Bill comes up for discussion on Monday next.
  Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it is possible, within the procedure of the House, to find out when the next Tyne Tunnel Bill is likely to come along?
  Mr. Speaker: Not now.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    School Meals (Plastic Ware)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Education to what extent the use of plastic ware in feeding school children has received his approval.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The use of plastic ware in the school meals service does not require my right hon. Friend's approval. Equipment needed for this service is purchased direct by local education authorities.
    Dr. Stross: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole purpose of feeding
    586
    school children, through his Department, is not only to provide them with food for their sustenance but also to see that they eat it in the best possible surroundings? If this be accepted by him and his right hon. Friend, will he agree that it is a very poor substitution for delectable pottery to offer plastic ware to children?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that the local education authorities ought to be free to decide for themselves whether they buy earthenware plates or plastic ones, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, nowadays, authorities are generally buying earthenware plates rather than plastic plates, although plastic beakers or tumblers of toughened glass are generally preferred for the practical reason that they are less easily broken than earthenware ones.

    Local Authority Employees (Part-time Day Release)
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Education what advice he has given to local education authorities about the granting of part-time day release to their employees.
    Sir E. Boyle: None, Sir. The record of local government in this sphere compares favourably with that of other occupations.
    Mr. Albu: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are local education authorities which do not give part-time release to laboratory technicians who wish to take technical qualifications, and does he not think this very undesirable?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly look into that. In local government as a whole, 52 per cent. of boys and 48 per cent. of girls under 18 were given day release in 1957–58, which is not too bad a percentage.

    Universities and Colleges (Exchange of Teachers)
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the difficulties in the exchange of teachers between universities and colleges of technology arising out of their differing schemes of superannuation; and whether he will consult with the authorities responsible for the Federated Superannuation

    587
    System for Universities, with a view to making the two schemes transferable.
    Sir E. Boyle: The possibility of transfer between the two superannuation systems has been exhaustively considered and found to be impracticable. There are, however, arrangements for integrating service under the two schemes and I believe these are not as widely understood as they might be. I am looking into this matter and will let the hon. Member know my views very soon.
    Mr. Albu: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in order to fill the vacancies arising in the colleges of advanced technology and the regional technical colleges, it will be absolutely necessary for the senior vacancies to go to the universities, but that at the present time the difference between the two schemes is causing many suitable university applicants to turn down jobs as principals and heads of departments in colleges of technology? Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that this arises out of the very substantial life insurance component of the F.S.S.U. scheme after a man has been in employment in a post for about ten years?
    Sir E. Boyle: It is a most important matter. Transfer has been found to be impracticable mainly because the pensions under the F.S.S.U. scheme, which are based on an insurance policy, are different in extent and kind from those under public service superannuation schemes. The arrangements for integration are rather complicated, and I will try to explain them by letter to the hon. Member. I shall, of course, bear this point in mind.

    Secondary Schools, Gloucestershire
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that a number of secondary schools in Gloucestershire urgently needing extensions and improvements have been struck off the list of schools prepared by the Gloucestershire County Council for inclusion in the next two years' improvement schemes by his Department; and whether he will state the reason.
    Sir E. Boyle: The building programme which has been approved for the Gloucestershire local education authority
    588
    for each of the next two years is more than twice as large as that for 1959–60, and about three-quarters of it is for the improvement or replacement of secondary schools. However, the authority submitted so many projects that it was not possible to find room for all of them.
    Mr. Price: Will the Minister give an assurance that when the next list is submitted those schools which have been left out in this way will have a chance of coming on the list and being approved?
    Sir E. Boyle: I can certainly give the assurance that they will have the chance. I think that many of the authority's proposals which have not been included in 1960–62 will find a place in the later years of the five-year programme. I assure the hon. Gentleman of that, but I think that Gloucestershire has not done too badly as a proportion of the whole.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman says that there will be a chance. What are the odds?
    Sir E. Boyle: I would not like to estimate the precise odds, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the rest of my answer to the supplementary question he will, I think, find that I was being reasonably encouraging.

    Latin
    Mr. Leaveyasked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement about the place of Latin in school curricula.
    Sir E. Boyle: This is a matter for the schools and for individual pupils and their parents. The number of candidates taking Latin in examinations has, in fact, increased considerably in recent years.
    Mr. Leavey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that Answer. Last week, his right hon. Friend said that he would be unable to express a personal opinion. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he would express the official or Ministerial opinion? Is he aware that there are many thousands of hours being devoted to the study of the subject which many people believe are precious hours wasted? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will he consider using his good offices with those who have authority in these matters to see that this gross waste of time can be avoided?
    Sir E. Boyle: Clearly, I must walk warily in this matter. There is no doubt that very many pupils in our schools today can gain great profit from the study of Latin, and Latin is still a very valuable basis for the pursuit of many of the important learned professions. What I will add is that some people doubt, and they are quite entitled to doubt, whether Latin has, perhaps, quite unique qualities as an educational subject in comparison with some other subjects. Beyond that, I would rather not go.
    Mr. M. Stewart: In view of what the Minister has just said—while I admit that Latin has a place in modern education—does he think that there is any justification for the special prestige which Latin enjoys as a result of the attitude of the older universities? Is not that something on which the Ministry ought to have an opinion?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that the conservatism of the older universities with regard to their entrance requirements is something which this House should consider seriously because it has very great advantages—[Interruption.]—as well as being, in some ways, open to criticism.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Look at the results here.
    Sir E. Boyle: I will merely add this in answer to the hon. Gentleman—it is a point he often raises—that there are many subjects which can be taught from a more liberal or a less liberal point of view. There is no reason whatever why Latin should not be a subject of real educational value, through careful attention to its literary value as well as to the language as actually used by those who spoke it.

    Religious Education (Free Churches)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education in view of recent discussions, what further arrangements he now proposes to implement in order to meet the needs and desires of Free Church families and representatives in areas where the only available school belongs to the Church of England, or whether such arrangements are left entirely to negotiations between Anglican and Free Church bodies.
    Sir E. Boyle: After discussion with my right hon. Friend, representatives of
    590
    the Free Churches and of the Church of England are examining how they can work even more closely together over religious education generally and in particular over the problem of single school areas. My right hon. Friend will keep in touch with them and give them any help he can.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has any different proposal been made for the representation of Free Church interests on local management committees?
    Sir E. Boyle: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the speech which my right hon. Friend made yesterday in the debate, which covered this whole subject very fully.

    Overseas Students, Essex
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education if he will state the number of Commonwealth, colonial and foreign students, respectively, now attending technical and other colleges for which the Essex County Council is responsible; and, approximately, what proportion of all students those categories represent.
    Sir E. Boyle: Two hundred and twenty-eight, or 9 per cent. of all full-time students in technical colleges in Essex come from overseas. Eighty-nine are from the independent countries of the Commonwealth, 65 from Colonial Territories, and 74 from other countries.

    Public Schools
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education if he will state approximately the number of boys now receiving education in public schools recognised by the Headmasters' Conference whose fees are being paid out of public funds or for whom the public schools have granted scholarships or have given special financial assistance.
    Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available, and I am writing to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister agree that it is of great public interest to know to what extent proletarian juveniles have infiltrated into these privileged schools?
    Sir E. Boyle: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should wait until he receives my letter and then, perhaps, he may care

    591
    to get in touch with me. There are difficulties in obtaining this information in the form in which he asks for it.
    Miss Bacon: When the hon. Gentleman gives the information, will the special financial assistance include those pupils of direct grant schools whose fees are reduced because of the direct grant?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Lady has shown by her question exactly how difficult it is to tabulate this information precisely because it has so many ramifications.

    Bicycles (Maintenance)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Education whether, following the survey carried out by the local education committee, his attention has been drawn to the number of faulty and defective bicycles ridden by school children in the county borough of Tynemouth; what plans he has, in the interests of road safety and to assist the prevention of accidents to children, to overcome this danger; and to what extent he has discussed this problem with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation.
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. Tynemouth Local Education Authority has taken steps to see that defects disclosed by the survey are remedied. My right hon. Friend will continue to encourage authorities and schools to take part in the national scheme for the training and testing of child cyclists in which emphasis is laid on the importance of making cycles roadworthy. My Department is in constant touch with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation on matters affecting the road safety of school children.
    Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend give us any information about whether local authorities in general carry out an inspection? Have there not been many posters encouraging parents to have a look at their children's cycles in view of the very high number of faulty cycles disclosed by the Tynemouth Borough's investigation?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am told that, apart from police checks, Tynemouth teachers supervise children's cycles periodically and talk to the children about defects in their cycles. The authority has recently distributed free to its schools a
    592
    number of copies of the Highway Code, and I am also told that road safety instruction is given in Tynemouth schools. I am paying a visit to my hon. Friend's constituency soon and I will make further inquiries then.

    Dental Service
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Education what action he is taking to improve the school dental service.
    Sir E. Boyle: The main difficulty is the shortage of dentists. This is part of the wider problem of the supply of dentists which was reported on by the McNair Committee and is at present the subject of consultations between the Ministry of Health and the other Departments concerned.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that half the school population of 7 million children have not had their teeth examined at all in the last year for which figures are available? Two out of three of those who were examined needed dental treatment. Does not this mean that about 2 million children ought to have dental treatment but are not getting it? Is not this a serious state of affairs?
    Sir E. Boyle: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that local education authorities as a whole are doing their best to attract more dentists into the school dental service and to make the best use of those who are already employed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not complacent in the least about this matter.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education on what estimate of the proportion of 15 year-olds staying on at school the current school building programme is based.
    Sir E. Boyle: The programme is designed to make possible the improvement of secondary education as described in the recent White Paper, including the utmost encouragement of courses extending beyond the school leaving age. As regards the number of pupils likely to take advantage of these courses, I have nothing to add to the information already given to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Swingler: Has the Ministry, in considering the school building projects to be approved for the next two years, taken into account the substantial rise in the last few years in the proportion of 15-year-old children staying on at school?
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes. The point is that in approving the school building programme we have to take into account such a large number of factors. The size of the building programme is not simply related to the proportion of pupils staying on at school. It includes projects for new schools and improvements and extensions to existing schools, which are needed not only to encourage staying on but also to provide for new housing areas, to relieve overcrowding, to carry out reorganisation, to improve science facilities and to replace obsolete accommodation. All these factors have to be taken into account and it is not realistic to try to isolate one of these factors.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Surely this must have been one factor. In making its plans, the Ministry must have made an estimate of how large this factor would be. What was the estimate?
    Sir E. Boyle: It is certainly one factor, but I cannot give a precise figure because it would not be realistic. We simply cannot form precise estimates. All that we can do is to note with considerable satisfaction the growing number of children beyond the school-leaving age staying on at secondary schools of all kinds.
    Mr. Swingler: That was not an answer.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education what proposals he has under consideration for enlarging the school building programme and extending existing secondary schools in Newcastle-under-Lyme, in view of the overcrowding problem and the comparatively high proportion of 15-year-olds staying on at school.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has authorised two major projects for starting in 1960–61 and two in 1961–62. During the same period the authority hopes to extend three secondary schools.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Newcastle-under-Lyme Education Committee put in for six urgently needed secondary school projects
    594
    in the next two years? The Committee would not apply for more than it urgently needed in taking into account the large proportion of children staying on at school after 15. The Ministry has granted two out of six. Does the hon. Gentleman regard this as fair?
    Sir E. Boyle: During 1960–62 the value of major building projects approved will be as much as during the previous three years. I do not think that Newcastle-under-Lyme has done too badly.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there has been an increase in the number of secondary school children? Does not the Ministry take this into account as well as the fact that in Newcastle-under-Lyme 37 per cent. of children aged 15 are staying on beyond the statutory age? Were these factors taken into account?
    Sir E. Boyle: Certainly they were. That is why the value of major projects to be carried out in 1960–61 will be very much larger than any scheme of projects which has been carried out in Newcastle-under-Lyme in any previous year.
    Mr. Swingler: Very unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education to what extent the secondary school building programme and staffing plan have recently been revised, in the light of information that a rising proportion of 15-year-olds are staying on at school.
    Sir E. Boyle: The increasing proportion of 15-year-olds staying on at school was one of many factors that my right hon. Friend took into account in reaching his recent decision to provide 4,000 additional training college places. No change is contemplated in the size of the school building programmes for 1960–61 and 1961–62 which were settled last December.
    Mr. Swingler: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that local education committees know well how many secondary school places they will require as well as how many additional teachers they will require as the bulge develops with an increasing proportion of children of 15 years of age staying on at school? How can the hon. Gentleman justify the Ministry receiving a list of projects and cutting it by two-thirds and saying that this is fair?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that easily the biggest programme of building projects in his constituency is unsatisfactory news, but it is always an extremely difficult task to allocate the total building programme among 146 local education authorities. We do this as fairly as we can. We are going all out for what I think the whole country regards as a worth-while scheme of £300 million on major building projects for the five years 1960–65. On present form, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can say that his constituency has had an unfair share.

    Physical Training and Recreation
    Mr. D. Howellasked the Minister of Education how far the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, is being implemented; and what facilities have been provided under this Act in recent years.
    Sir E. Boyle: Under this Act, as amended in 1944, my Department makes annual grants to certain national voluntary bodies concerned to promote physical training and recreation. Grants are also made towards the capital cost of premises and equipment provided by local voluntary bodies. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the grants paid since 1952.
    Mr. Howell: I thank the Minister for that information, but is it not the fact that when one reviews the national progress in recent years one finds that the one black spot that has developed is in recreational and sporting facilities—particularly swimming baths? Is it not time that the Act was brought from the deeper recesses of the Ministry and given the prominence it deserves? Will the Government do something about it?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for 1958–59, which are very substantially higher than those of the payments made in previous years, he will see that the progress is encouraging.
    Following are the details:
    Details of the annual grants to national voluntary bodies and of grants to local voluntary bodies towards the capital cost of village halls, community
    596
    centres, playing fields, swimming baths and other recreational facilities for adults are as follows:

    Year

    National Bodies

    Local Bodies

    Total Payments

    £

    £

    £

    1952–53

    …

    36,893

    171,032

    207,925

    1953–54

    …

    36,276

    81,349

    117,625

    1954–55

    …

    44,771

    72,618

    117,389

    1955–56

    …

    49,458

    86,808

    136,266

    1956–57

    …

    51,939

    177,996

    229,935

    1957–58

    …

    58,033

    273,915

    331,948

    1958–59

    …

    142,050

    284,981

    427,031

    NOTES:
    (1) The large increase in the grant to national bodies in 1958–59 is mainly due to the fact that the whole instead of only part of the grant to the Central Council of Physical Recreation was paid under this Act. Formerly part of it was paid under the Social and Physical Training Grant Regulations, 1939. The amount paid to the Council under the Act and included in the figures given above was £33,912 in 1957–58 and £119,385 in 1958–59.
    (2) Until 1st April, 1959, capital grants were made to minor local authorities as well as to local voluntary bodies. By virtue of the Local Government Act, 1958, capital grants have been restricted to local voluntary bodies since that date.
    (3) Annual grants are paid to the Central Council of Physical Recreation, National Council of Social Service, Council of Social Service for Wales and Monmouthshire and the English Folk Song and Dance Society. In addition small annual grants are paid to certain athletic associations towards the salaries and expenses of national coaches.

    Local Education Authorities (Finance)
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Education if he will state the overall sum requested by local education authorities in England and Wales in each of the educational building programme years 1960–61 and 1961–62, and the amount of money allowed to them by him for these projects for each of the programme years specified.
    Sir E. Boyle: £117 million for 1960–61 and £97 million for 1961–62, compared with £55 million and about £60 million as given in paragraph 22 of the recent White Paper.
    Mr. Fitch: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware from representations which he has received from different local education authorities that there is profound disappointment with the building programme for the next two years?
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not believe that that is true of the whole country. If, as I sincerely hope, we complete these programmes in the time allocated to them, an enormous number of children will benefit. It is no good starting work on too many schools and then finding that the building programme gets hopelessly cut of phase.
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Education if he will state the total amount of money requested by local education authorities in England and Wales for their minor projects under the educational building programme, and the amount which has been allowed to them.
    Sir E. Boyle: The total allocation to local education authorities for minor works for the current year is about £16 million. As explained in Circular 342, authorities were not on this occasion asked to put in formal requests, but informal consultation suggests that they would have liked to be free to undertake work costing rather more than £20 million.
    Mr. Fitch: In view of the policy outlined in the Government's White Paper "Secondary Education for All", will not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that local authorities are deeply disturbed that this new policy for building schools has fallen lamentably below that?
    Sir E. Boyle: We are talking about minor works. I would add that a further £2 million has been allocated for non-local authority education purposes, that is to say, for aided and special agreement schools and corresponding special schools. It is no good having too big a figure for minor works for any one year because that would impose a great strain on county architects and all those responsible for planning. It is much better to strike a slightly more modest figure and complete the work in time.
    Mr. M. Stewart: It does not appear from the last four Answers that local authorities are enjoying the measure of freedom which they were led to suppose they would enjoy when the Local Government Act was introduced, does it?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that there was
    598
    never any doubt when the Local Government Bill was going through this House that control of investment and of the educational building programme was to be maintained by the central Government. Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government nor myself in any way misled the House about this, and therefore I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has a fair point.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: So the Conservative Party believes in controls?
    Sir E. Boyle: Successive Governments since the war have always had to maintain a measure of control over the total size of the public sector, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the size of investment in the public sector today in real terms is substantially bigger than ever before in our national history.

    Cornwall
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Education what answer he is giving to protests from the Cornwall Education Committee to his cuts in their proposals for new schools to be built in 1960–61 and 1961–62, respectively.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has received no such protest.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that he will be receiving a protest, which will probably include the question of why the committee's request to build 12 schools in the coming two years has been cut to seven? Will he take into account the high unemployment rate in Cornwall and restore the cuts?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly consider very carefully any protest that I may receive and will pass it on to my right hon. Friend, but that is all that I can say at the present time.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Education why he cut out of the school building proposals of the Cornwall Education Committee for 1960–61 and 1961–62 a new infants' school for Falmouth and another for Camborne.
    Sir E. Boyle: Because these projects were less urgently needed than the seven projects which my right hon. Friend has approved in the authority's large programmes for 1960–61 and 1961–62.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that in my constituency only three new primary schools have been built in the last 45 years; that one was to replace a school burnt out in the First World War and the second to replace a school bombed out and destroyed in the Second World War? Surely he can appreciate the great need there is for these new primary schools in my constituency.
    Sir E. Boyle: I can well remember an extremely happy afternoon that I spent in Cornwall, when I opened no fewer than 10 secondary schools at one single ceremony. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we will consider any representations made, but when he looks at the size of the programme approved for Cornwall in 1961–62 I do not think that he should feel discouraged. The figure for 1960–61 is £436,000 and, for 1961–62, £376,000.

    Burnham Committee
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the alarm aroused, both among local education authorities and teachers, by his intervention in the proceedings of the Burnham Committee; and whether, in view of the importance of recruitment to the teaching profession, he will make a further statement calculated to dispel this alarm.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Stewart: In view of the public letter from the national secretary of the National Union of Teachers, is it not rather surprising that the Parliamentary Secretary is not aware of the alarm? Will he deal with a further point? He will have seen the suggestion in the columns of The Times Educational Supplement that the Minister's intervention was a put-up job between himself and members of the Burnham Committee at the expense of the people whom they are supposed to represent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Can the hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that that suggestion is false?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am well aware that my right hon. Friend's statement to the Committee has been subject to severe criticism in some quarters, but it seems to me that criticisms on grounds of principle are here quite unfounded. My right
    600
    hon. Friend has not sought to interfere with the Committee's discretion to make any recommendations it thinks fit, but since my right hon. Friend is ultimately responsible for approving or rejecting the Committee's recommendations, surely it is only sensible that he should give it, in good time, his view on points of major public importance.
    Dr. King: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the local authorities and the teaching profession are outraged by the fact that the Minister has not only named the sum that he is prepared to grant for salary increases but has actually interfered with the very details of the salary structure, for which the Burnham Committee is responsible?
    Sir E. Boyle: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at my previous reply, because it is surely only sensible that my right hon. Friend should give his views in good time on a matter of public importance, particularly when one considers the time of the year. To take up the original Question, I think that there would really be cause for alarm if it were suggested that it was not part of my right hon. Friend's function as Minister to concern himself with this very important matter.
    Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very wide interest there is outside the House in this question, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the first possible opportunity.

    Secondary Schools (Selection of Pupils)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Education whether he will institute an inquiry into the methods of allocation of children to different types of secondary school.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Stewart: Has the Parliamentary Secretary noticed recent events in Devizes, from which it appears that influence and social position seem to have almost as much weight as intellectual attainment in deciding the allocation of the children to schools? Is that a matter worthy of his right hon. Friend's attention?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly look into the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I would rather not state a view without carefully reviewing the evidence. In answer to the original Question, I may say that we have discussed the matter very exhaustively on numerous occasions in this House, and I do not think that an inquiry of the kind suggested would serve a useful purpose.

    Parents and Guardians (Agreements)
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the fact that some local authorities operate agreements between the parents or guardians of children attending secondary schools after having reached the statutory school-leaving age by which provision is made for the payment by such parents or guardians of an agreed sum in the event of the pupil ceasing to attend such schools before the date fixed by such agreements without the consent of the authority concerned, he will consider issuing a circular with a view to achieving uniformity of practice in this matter throughout the country.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think it necessary for him to issue such a circular.
    Mr. Macmillan: Since the educational authorities obtained, or failed to obtain, authority for these agreements—it was all done in a somewhat haphazard manner—would my hon. Friend at least try to ensure that those local authorities that do have agreements administer them consistently as between one and another?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly bear that in mind. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not wish to encourage the general adoption of school-life agreements, but at the same time he does not think that he would be justified in interfering with those authorities that already make use of such agreements. I do agree, however, that too much variety of procedure here is a danger and I will certainly look at it.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fishing Industry (Committee)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the
    602
    progress of the Fleck Committee, now inquiring into the fishing industry, indicating what its interim proposals are; and when he expects its final Report.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): The Committee has now received written and oral evidence from most of the interests concerned but it is not yet possible to say when it will be able to report. The Committee has not made any interim proposals.
    Mr. Hughes: Though it may not be possible for the Committee to make an interim Report, does the Minister realise that the issues before the Committee are of the utmost importance to the fishing industry, the members of which are anxiously awaiting the Report, so as to know what the Government's programme will be?
    Mr. Hare: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the issues before the Committee are of the utmost importance to the fishing industry, but I would say that where such important matters are being considered it is not in the public interest that the work of the Committee should be cut short.

    Pigs
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the light of the falling pig population, as shown by the recent censuses taken by his Department, what forecast he has made of the numbers of pigs to be marketed in Great Britain during the next nine months; and how this compares with actual marketings during the same months of 1958–59.
    Mr. John Hare: The total number of home-killed pigs marketed in Great Britain in the nine months July, 1958, to March, 1959, reached the exceptionally high figure of 7,573,000—considerably more than in the corresponding period of the previous three years. In view of the recent decline in the size of the breeding herd from the record level reached in May, 1958, some reduction in marketings is in prospect over the next nine months. It is difficult to forecast what the reduction will be, but it may well be in the neighbourhood of one-eighth.
    Mr. Willey: That is a disappointing reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware

    603
    of the concern that has been caused by the statement made in authoritative Danish quarters that the British Government have decided to withdraw the 10 per cent. protective tariff on bacon? Will he, therefore, take an opportunity of denying this statement?
    Mr. Hare: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General has already made it quite clear that the Anglo-Danish talks are entirely exploratory, and will be resumed next week. On the more general point, I told the hon. Member—I think, last week—that I see no reason why the curing industry should not get a fair share of the pigs available, and I would remind him that last year's high figures were achieved at a very high cost in subsidy and imported feedingstuffs.
    Mr. Turton: Although the Danish talks may still be at the exploratory stage, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable anxiety amongst the bacon curers and pig producers lest concessions to the Danes may make the position of the British pig industry more serious than it is at the moment?
    Mr. Hare: Naturally, I have listened with attention to what my right hon. Friend has said but, as I have just said, the talks are exploratory, though all these matters are being borne in mind during the talks.
    Mr. Willey: Will the Minister at any rate give an undertaking that no such statement will be made unless there has been full consultation with the British industries?
    Mr. Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the talks being exploratory there is no possible opportunity for me to make any such statement as he asks for.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Cornwall Branch of the National Farmers' Union about the pig industry in Cornwall.
    Mr. John Hare: I have had no direct representations from this branch of the National Farmers' Union, but I have this morning received a copy of a letter they have written to my hon. Friend the
    604
    Member for Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper). I shall consider their views carefully and reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that fluctuations in the policy of his Department in recent years have caused great concern both to farmers and bacon curers in Cornwall, particularly to bacon factories in my constituency? Will he also take into account that there is a very high rate of unemployment in the county already which is also causing concern?
    Mr. Hare: I cannot accept the implications of what the hon. Member has said. The figures up to the end of June this year show that more bacon has been produced in the first six months of the year than in the corresponding periods in the last two years. I do not think the hon. Member's question is a fair one.
    Mr. D. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only are the talks causing great concern to farmers in Cornwall and elsewhere but that, according to newspaper reports today, equal anxiety is being felt by the Danish agricultural interests?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think that that arises on this Question.
    Mr. Marshall: Ridiculous. It is in the letter.

    Bacon Curing Industry
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage of the production capacity of the British bacon curing industry at present being used for bacon production.
    Mr. John Hare: The most reliable figures show that the production of bacon factories in Great Britain during the months of April and May this year was 67 per cent. of the highest output ever attained; and for the first three weeks of June, it was 64 per cent.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industry regards his figure as most misleading, that in fact in 1954 the bacon curing industry was encouraged to expand its capacity, and that, therefore, the Government have some responsibility towards this industry which is now, according to his own figures, working to only about 40 per cent. of capacity?

    605
    Will he also bear this in mind during the discussions with the Danish Government?
    Mr. Hare: I have tried to give the House the most reliable figures I can. It is practically impossible to assess what is the potential capacity of these factories, for the basis of the estimate varies. It may be slaughtering capacity, cooling capacity or tank capacity. I have tried to give the House the most reliable figures available to me.
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Swindon area regarding the critical position of the British bacon caring industry; and what reply he has made.
    Mr. John Hare: I have the letter and enclosure which the hon. Member has sent me and he should now have had my reply. I propose to discuss tomorrow, with the British Curers' Federation, the representations which they have made to me on behalf of their industry.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware of the very great anxiety among people in and around Swindon, who are exceedingly proud of the Wiltshire bacon curing industry and who feel very strongly on this matter? Will he look at this aspect of the problem very carefully?
    Mr. Hare: I am sure that the members of the Federation will make this very clear in the talks tomorrow.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Arts Council (Grant)
    Mr. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of his refusal to increase the grant to the Arts Council for the current year, except for special provision for opera, he has now told that Council that there will be no increase for the next two years, in spite of the inadequacy of the present grant available for the support of the theatre and the rising costs of production.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): The Arts Council were told in January, 1958, that its grant would remain at the level fixed for 1958–59 (£1·1 million) in the following two
    606
    years. This was done to stabilise the Exchequer grant and to indicate, in accordance with the known wishes of bodies operating in the Arts field, the level of assistance they could expect from the Government over a period of years. The level of the Arts Council grant has been changed this year only to the extent necessary to put the financial assistance to Covent Garden on a new basis.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Financial Secretary aware of the needs of the theatre, where production costs have gone up just as much as in opera and are just as great as in opera, and that the £70,000 given last year to the theatre is wholly inadequate? Will he, therefore, consider that in the present year there should be no standstill, as appears to be arranged at the moment, which prevents any additional grant being given to the theatre in the next two years, since the theatre's case is as strong as opera's?
    Mr. Simon: The allocation of the grant among particular bodies is, of course, a matter for the Arts Council, but my right hon. Friend did increase the grant by over 10 per cent. to bring it up to the figure of £1·1 million, and that supervened on an increase in the previous year of over 10 per cent.

    Victoria Cross (Annuity)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present purchasing value of the annuity of £75 provided for holders of the Victoria Cross, as compared with what it was when fixed by the Royal Warrant in 1950.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): About £55.
    Mr. Hynd: Will the hon. Gentleman bring that to the notice of his colleagues who, we understood yesterday, were reconsidering the whole basis of this grant?
    Mr. Erroll: I am sure that that information will be available to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Shinwell: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult the Secretary for War with a view to promoting some amendment of the Royal

    607
    Warrant so as to ensure that those who apply for the £75 annuity and who have a reasonable claim should have that claim met?
    Mr. Erroll: I should explain to the right hon. Gentleman that questions regarding this annuity should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is here and will undoubtedly have heard the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
    Mr. Shinwell: Questions have been addressed to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What we are concerned about is some amendment of the Royal Warrant. Can there be some co-ordination on the Treasury Bench to ensure that those people who have undoubtedly been responsible for some acts of gallantry should not be left in dire poverty?
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to a Question on Tuesday that he would look into the whole question.
    Dame Irene Ward: Would my hon. Friend kindly draw from the cheers from both sides of the House the correct conclusion that this House wishes action in this matter? Can we have an assurance that action from some Government Department or the whole Treasury Bench will be taken?
    Mr. Erroll: I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have been satisfied by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday.

    Companies (Political Expenditure)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals have been made to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue over allowances against taxable profit of company expenditure on political campaigns.
    Mr. Simon: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are not the appellate authority on questions of this nature.
    Mr. Allaun: Then will the Financial Secretary now tell the House whether or not this expenditure is being allowed? Since this concerns not individual concerns but a general principle of tax law, is it not deliberately flouting the House
    608
    of Commons to refuse it this information?
    Mr. Simon: I have already explained on a number of occasions that expenditure of a political nature is prima facie not allowable and that in any case of doubt Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes challenge the expenditure and leave the taxpayer to make the case on appeal.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could now or at some other time say whether the amount spent on this purpose and exempted has been increasing recently?
    Mr. Simon: I think I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put that question down.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Consumer Protection (Committee)
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the membership of the committee to consider the question of the protection of the consuming public.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): There is one more acceptance to be received and I hope to announce the full membership next week.
    Mr. Willey: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that this is encouraging news? Can we now assume that the committee will be called and will meet before the Summer Recess?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think it is Mr. Molony's wish to have a meeting before the end of this month.

    Dakota Aircraft
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade how many Dakota aircraft have been sold to Russia since he removed them from the strategic list published last October.
    Sir D. Eccles: None, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised at that? Did he notice that last weekend the TU 114 flew from Moscow to New York in 11 hours, a distance of nearly 5,000 miles? Does he still expect to sell Dakotas to Russia? Will he not try to get out of this Cocom

    609
    agreement, which is putting him into America's hip pocket, and begin to think of the interests of this country?
    Sir D. Eccles: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman.

    Belgian Moquette Fabrics
    Mr. Hirstasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the importation of Belgian moquette fabrics; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what reply his Department sent to the Furnishing Fabric Manufacturers' Association Limited concerning the importation of Belgian moquette fabrics;
    (2) if he is aware of the adverse effect of the importation of Belgian moquette fabrics on the woollen industry of Keighley; and what action he is proposing to take;
    (3) if he will increase the tariff on imported Belgian moquette fabrics.
    Sir D. Eccles: Concern has been expressed at the effect of the import of Belgian moquettes on the home industry in Keighley and elsewhere. An application for increased import duties on moquette fabrics is under preliminary examination in the Board of Trade. The applicants have been asked for additional information to enable the matter to be considered further.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these representations to the Board of Trade have been going on for a long time and that it is not really very satisfactory that this has reached only this stage at present? Is he further aware that existing legislation appears to be singularly ineffective? When will teeth be put into it to protect the home market from unfair competition?
    Sir D. Eccles: I do not agree that legislation is ineffective. It has been effective in several cases, but we must have the information. I can assure my hon. Friend that if the industry concerned gives us information on which to make a judgment we shall not delay.

    British Films (Export)
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to assist in increasing the export
    610
    of British films as a result of his recent meeting with the British Film Producers Association.
    Sir D. Eccles: I had a most useful discussion with the film producers and am considering if I can help them on certain problems to which they drew special attention.
    Mr. Rankin: While I appreciate that there are foreign curency difficulties with certain countries and restrictive practices in the case of others, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that, with the almost inevitable fall in home sales, it is necessary, if we are to keep production in a reasonably healthy state, that we should do something to increase our export of film products?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have that in mind We are making a special approach to the German Government and we are also considering whether something can be done in Argentina.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Kafue Flats
    Mr. Stonehonseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the proposed development of the Kafue Flats in Northern Rhodesia.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): As my hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) on 14th April, 1959, the pilot scheme is still in its earliest experimental stage. The future development of the area cannot be decided before a fair assessment of the results of the pilot scheme is available.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a most exciting prospect of economic development in the Protectorate and that most of the capital resources required are available within the Protectorate itself? Will he consider in the development of the scheme the importance of co-operative farms and set up a public corporation to assist these developments?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will look at those various points. It is an interesting scheme indeed, and we should be grateful to the Rhodesia Selection Trust which, through a subsidiary company, is financing the pilot scheme.

  NYASALAND

    African Graduates
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many African graduates were resident in Nyasaland at the time of the declaration of the state of emergency; how many of them have been arrested; and how many are still in detention.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Twenty-two, twelve and eleven, respectively.
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the fact that such a large proportion of the educated leadership of the African community has been arrested, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give an assurance that as soon as the Devlin Commission's report is published he will either formulate charges against those who are still in detention or release them to go back into the service of their fellow-Africans?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will do all I can to help to restore conditions of normality as soon as possible. I regret that those who have had these special opportunities have not yet realised that the best way to help their country is to co-operate with the Nyasaland Government which shares so many of their aspirations.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is comments just of that kind which alienate African opinion? Is it not somewhat improper that before the Devlin Commission has even reported, the right hon. Gentleman should utter expressions of opinion of that kind?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not. I do not think that there was anything improper in the reply. If answers are to be given to Questions, the question may arise whether the Questions should be asked and not whether answers should be given.
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

  POLITICAL HONOURS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister what is the nature of the duties of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This Committee was instituted in 1923, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Honours, to advise the Prime Minister of the day whether individuals whose names are to be submitted for honours for political services are fit and proper persons to be so recommended.
  Mr. Hughes: Would the Prime Minister say why membership of this Committee is confined purely to members of the House of Lords? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has any evidence at all that this Committee has met and done its job of scrutinising and vetting during the last five years? Is he further aware that there is an opinion in Scotland that the best way to political honour, to a knighthood or a baronetcy, is to be a deaf and dumb member of the Scottish Grand Committee?
  The Prime Minister: The Committee, which consisted of Lord Templewood, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Lord Thurso, commanded general respect. On the death of Lord Templewood, Lord Crookshank has been appointed to take his place. The Committee reports every time there is an Honours List and all names are scrupulously sent to it. The last report that I received was on 12th May this year.
  Mr. Shinwell: As a matter of interest, could the right hon. Gentleman define what is meant by the term, "honour awarded for political services rendered"?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Report of the Royal Commission of Honours of 1922, Cmd. Paper 1789, he will see that it sets out with great skill and clarity all the different kinds of honours that are given in the different ways. I think that Prime Ministers have found this Committee one which serves them, and I think that all Prime Ministers since that time have scrupulously observed the regulations which were laid down by Order in Council.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am very sorry, but this is a matter of public interest. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the simple question of what is meant by the expression, "honour awarded for political services rendered"? What are the political services?
  The Prime Minister: I would hesitate to try and summarise in a single sentence the 34 paragraphs of this Report, but if the right hon. Gentleman does not have a copy with him at the moment I will see that one is sent to him and that his attention is drawn to the particular paragraphs that try to make this definition.

  GOVERNMENT POLICY (STATEMENTS)
  Mr. G. Brownasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct Ministers not to make statements concerning important changes in Government policy to outside bodies before making them to this House.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think any formal instruction is required. These matters have been governed for many years by our traditional practice.
  Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider whether this does not need his attention, in view of the curious episode with the Defence Minister last week? That right hon. Gentleman made a speech and, in making such an announcement, used the not inconsiderable resources of his public relations department to put it out far and wide and then used the same resources afterwards to assure everybody that it was not serious and should be regarded as a joke. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the effect of such a remark to foreign attaches was only to convince them that it was a serious matter?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend used this phrase:
  "The decision which we have not yet taken has already been firmly announced in the newspapers."
  This was, of course, a joke, which I agree is a dangerous but not yet an unconstitutional practice.
  Mr. Brown: The previous sentence is:
  "I am having a meeting in the next few days to decide an important question of weapon policy."
  Is the right hon. Gentleman clear which part of that sentence is a joke, and does he not think that the expenditure of public money on putting this out, if it was a joke, was a gross waste of public money?
  The Prime Minister: I can give the right hon. Gentleman an explanation, but I cannot give him a sense of humour.
  Mr. Gaitskell: That offensive remark cannot be allowed to obscure the issue. The question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked was whether the statement that there would be an important decision on weapons policy was or was not regarded as a joke, or is it serious? Has such a decision been taken? If not, is it going to be taken?
  The Prime Minister: At any rate, it was not any kind of leakage, for if there was such a decision my right hon. Friend did not say what it was. All he said was, in a jocular way, of course, that the newspapers had already announced it.
  Mr. Brown: May I ask the Prime Minister seriously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I should have thought that the expenditure of public money and the use of a public service to put out hand-outs of this kind is a matter that should engage the attention of the House. Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of what it cost to distribute this far and wide and afterwards the retraction to say that it was not serious?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I will try and find the right hon. Gentleman a sticky label and look into it.
  Mr. Gaitskell: What was the idea—
  Mr. Gordon Walker: What is he hiding?
  Mr. Gaitskell: Why is the Prime Minister hiding the truth from the House in this matter? What is the idea of the Minister of Defence solemnly putting out in a hand-out a statement that an important decision on weapons policy was to be made and shortly afterwards denying that he meant anything serious by it?
  The Prime Minister: I can only repeat that if the right hon. Gentleman would read the speech as a whole, he would see that it was one of those jocular speeches which are made from time to time. I do not think that any great disservice has been done to the security of the public, or to any other public interest.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 6TH JULY—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Committee. Debate on the Dispute in the Printing Industry.
At 7 o'clock, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration.
TUESDAY, 7TH JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Committee stage of the Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1957–58.
WEDNESDAY, 8TH JULY—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.
Debate on Foreign Affairs, with particular reference to the Geneva Conferences, will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY, 9TH JULY—Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by 7 p.m.
We shall then consider the Schemes and Order relating to the Herring Industry and the White Fish Industry.
FRIDAY, 10TH JULY—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill; the Weeds Bill [Lords]; and the Dog Licences Bill [Lords].
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the grave possibility that most of the national Press will cease publication on Monday, we feel that it would be right to choose the subject of the printing dispute for debate to enable the Minister of Labour to give a fuller statement than could have been obtained by Question and Answer, and to enable the House to discuss the matter? However, if, as we all
616
hope, there is better news by Monday, and the Press is not to close down, then we shall wish to substitute another subject for debate, namely, the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, relating to the Airways Corporations, on the appropriate Vote.
Mr. Butler: In the interests of the House, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has named an alternative subject so that Members can note it in case the business is changed, because it would not be otherwise possible to give any notice of the business. May we take it that we shall hear from the Opposition in due course on their decision about that debate?
Mr. Gaitskell: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It is impossible for us to decide now, in view of the uncertainty in the printing dispute, but we will let the right hon. Gentleman know at the earliest possible moment.
Dame Irene Ward: Did I hear my right hon. Friend aright when he announced that the Schemes and Order for the herring and white fish industries are again to come before the House after some other business on Thursday? Does he not remember representations having been made from both sides of the House year after year about the debating of these Schemes and Orders at so late an hour? Does he think it fair to one of our great industries, or is it that he expects that the other business will be completed so early that we shall have time for a full debate at a reasonable hour?
Mr. Butler: The business was arranged so that we could have a debate on the herring and white fish industries at a reasonable hour, namely, after 7 p.m., and I trust that that will happen. I do not think that my hon. Friend will find 7 p.m. too late for a discussion, since some of our most enlightened discussions have taken place at that sort of hour.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Leader of the House not realise that this is not the first time that the question raised by the hon. Lady opposite has been raised, and that every time a fisheries debate comes before the House the business is so arranged that the subject comes on

617
far too late for a proper debate to be held? Will the Leader of the House look into that, with a view to providing more time for this very important subject?
Mr. Butler: I should have thought that although the hour in question may be late for my hon. Friend, it would not be too late for the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that it is quite a reasonable hour. It is our intention that there shall be a proper discussion.
Mr. N. Pannell: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been directed to a Motion in the names of 100 hon. and right hon. Members from both sides of the House about the flying of flags from public buildings on St. George's Day?
[That this House is of the opinion that St. George's Day should be designated an appointed day for flying the National Flag of England on Government buildings.]
If he cannot find time for this Motion to be debated—and I can quite understand if he cannot—will he draw the matter to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, on 14th May, said that he would be guided in his approach to this problem by the interest shown by the House?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have reason to believe that my right hon. Friend is sympathetic to the idea, but I must limit the discretion in this matter to England, as I think that it would be undesirable if we were to spread it much wider. However, I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend and in the event of there not being time to discuss the Motion, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Reynolds: In connection with the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means for 7 p.m. on Monday, is the Leader of the House aware that there are not enough printed copies of the Bill available for hon. Members who require them? Does he realise that it will be virtually impossible for hon. Members properly to discuss the Bill unless they have a copy? At present only four copies are available in the Vote Office. Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of the House, provide a sufficient number of printed Bills, without which it will be impossible to conduct business properly?
Mr. Butler: My researches, recently undertaken, have revealed that there are exactly that number of Bills in the Vote Office at present. I have made inquiries and we are trying, through the usual channels, to obtain more copies for the benefit of hon. Members.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend given further thought to the proposal which I put to him last week, that we should have a debate on the Commonwealth Education Conference before we rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Butler: I have given a great deal of thought to that request, but I have not been able to find the time for such a debate.
Mr. D. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that three Private Bills have been set down for debate on Monday. Since the first two are London Bills, which will take a considerable time in view of the interest shown in them, is it reasonable that the third Bill, the South Wales Transport Bill, which concerns a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, should come on at a very late hour on Monday or early on Tuesday morning? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as fair to the people interested in that Bill?
Mr. Butler: I have to answer for a great deal, but I do not have to answer for the Chairman of Ways and Means, to whose discretion it must be left. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman would be right to put his representations to him.
Mr. Tilney: Has my right hon. Friend seen a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by more than 100 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the House, calling attention to the plight of some colonial and ex-colonial civil servants?
[That this House draws the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the wide differences between pension scales paid to retired colonial civil servants by Her Majesty's Government and those paid by certain Governments of both dependent and independent territories within the Commonwealth; and urges Her Majesty's Government to use its influence with the Governments of the territories whose scales of pensions fall below present standards to make compensating increases.]
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the importance of that subject.
Mr. F. Noel-Baker: May I remind the Leader of the House that a whole series of pledges was given earlier in this Parliament concerning the intention to legislate to give effect to the Gowers Report on the railways? Many of us suspected that that was not, in fact, the intention, but only a few months ago the pledge was repeated. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has happened? Are we to take it as a foregone conclusion that nothing will be done about the matter during the lifetime of this Parliament, and that the Government have no intention of doing anything, which is what many railway workers and others connected with the industry now believe to be true?
Mr. Butler: There are two aspects to this. First, speaking from memory, an Amendment was moved to the last Factories Act to include locomotive sheds in the operation of the Act. That deals with part of the problem. Secondly, as I understand the position, the British Transport Commission is taking steps administratively to improve conditions.
As for the third leg of the problem, namely, further legislation, I cannot make a further statement.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1957–58
Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air grants for the year ended 31st March, 1958, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants or that year, upon Tuesday next.
Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments [presented 29th January], referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Heath.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered, That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60

  CLASS VI VOTE 5. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER AREAS
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a sum, not exceeding £2,807,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for financial assistance to undertakings in development and other approved areas. [£800,000 has been voted on account.]
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Legh]—put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

SCOTLAND

  Industry, Employment and Roads
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House takes note of the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland and Scottish Roads, 1958 (Command Paper No. 706).—[Mr. Maclay.]
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: The debate this afternoon is a continuation of the one we started a month ago. Before referring to that debate, may I remind the House that a year ago I had the opportunity of opening a similar debate? On that occasion I came in for a considerable amount of criticism from some back benchers opposite, criticism, let me say, that was not repeated either by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  In the debate a month ago attention was called to the increase in unemployment in Scotland, where the figure had

  621
  risen from 55,000 in 1957 to 77,500 in 1958. During the debate the President of the Board of Trade said that this increase was part of the price that we had to pay for steadying prices and for steadying the £. Having done that, we could now look forward to an expansion in industry and a corresponding fall in the number of unemployed.
  Since then we have had the benefit of two speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One was delivered at a garden fete in Elgin. This speech was not regarded as being in very good taste by either the Scottish Press or the Scottish people. The right hon. Gentleman described us as being a rather expensive part of the community, but one that he was prepared to tolerate. We thought that was carrying his humour a little too far. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to consult the opinions of the Scottish people on his speech, I recommend him to read the leader in the Scotsman of the following day. I am sure that that will leave him in no dubiety about how Scotland felt about that rather patronising speech.
  Mr. James Stuart: I listened to the whole speech. If, like a right hon. Member the hon. Gentleman opposite at Question Time to-day, the hon. Gentleman has no sense of humour, it is a pity.
  Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman may have thought that it was humorous, but the Scottish people did not regard it as a good speech; and the Scottish Press took the same view. If the right hon. Gentleman himself had been able to deliver it he would have been just as bored with it as he was with one of his own on a previous occasion.
  The Chancellor then made a further speech, in this House, when he was dealing with the unemployment figures. That speech was not so much a speech of information as one made for the hustings. It was a speech which followed one delivered by the Minister of Labour at the Tory Women's Conference last week. In the course of his speech the Minister of Labour said, "Was it not awful that unemployment should be used for political purposes?" Having said that he went on to do exactly that, to use unemployment for political purposes.
  622
  We are getting a little tired of this confidence trick of the Minister of Labour who thinks, or wants people to think, that he is really clever because he forecasts a tremendous increase in the figures of unemployment, higher than anything we have had before, and then thinks it is clever if he is proved to be right. The Minister knows that he will be right before he starts, because these figures are the result of the Government's policy. The President of the Board of Trade made that quite clear when he said that that was the price we had to pay for steadying the £ and restricting the cost of living. Unemployment is rising as a direct result of the Government's policy.
  There might be some credit for the Government if they had restricted the cost of living, but they have not done so. Since the Government came to power the cost of living has gone up to the highest point that it has ever been. Having got it to the highest point, apparently they think that they ought to take some credit for keeping it there.
  What a contrast there is between the programme presented to the electorate and the Government's performance! It was in Scotland that the Home Secretary delivered his speech at the hustings, saying that the Conservative Party would not reduce subsidies on food until it had decreased the cost of living. I leave it to the people to judge.
  The Chancellor now seems to be indulging in the same sort of trick. Speaking in the House on Monday he said that unemployment in Scotland had been reduced by one-third since its peak. He seemed to regard this as an achievement. I would ask the Secretary of State: who put the unemployment figures up to their peak? This tremendous incease in unemployment has taken place under the Conservative Government.
  Let us look a little more closely at the figures which, apparently, give the Chancellor so much satisfaction—a satisfaction which is not shared by the Scottish people. What are the figures he is boasting about? Between 1957 and 1958 unemployment in Scotland rose by 22,500, and in June of this year the figure stood at 85,296. Even worse, from a Scottish point of view, is the fact that 9,000 of that increase is represented by men of 18 years of age or over. The

  623
  Chancellor is seeking to convey to the people that we are making great inroads into this problem, and that there is a period of great prosperity ahead, but the Government's policy leaves Scotland with 10,000 more unemployed than there were twelve months ago.
  Today, unemployment in Scotland stands at 4·4 per cent.—the highest in Great Britain. For every person unemployed in London and the south-eastern area, four people are unemployed in Scotland. The hard fact is that with one-eleventh of the insured population of Britain, Scotland has one-fifth of its unemployed. These are appalling figures, and I wonder whether any of those hon. Members opposite who were so anxious to belittle this situation a year ago would care to rise today and justify what has happened during the last twelve months. These figures may give joy to the Chancellor—and they may give an opportunity to the Minister of Labour to deliver a slick speech—but I can assure the Secretary of State that they bring the greatest dissatisfaction to the Scottish people.
  Bad as these figures are, there is one other matter that we must take into account when considering the problem, namely, the number of people registered as employed. Even on the 1958 figures, 48,000 fewer people were employed in Scotland than was the case in the previous year. Since then there has been a further decline, of considerably more than 200,000, in the number of people insured for employment in Britain. These figures were given both by the Minister of Labour and by the President of the Board of Trade. If Scotland's share of that works out similarly to what it has in the past, it means that Scotland will have 50,000 fewer people available for employment than she had a year ago. Although the Government have got the unemployment figures down to 4 per cent., 100,000 fewer people have become available for employment in Scotland in the last two years. That is a very serious position, and the Secretary of State had better take note of it before it goes too far.
  As if that were not bad enough, we have since had some news which does not encourage us to think that Scotland is sharing in this so-called recovery. Last week, Scottish Aviation told 400 of its workers that they would be receiving
  624
  notices of dismissal. I am told that those notices were received today. This is not unskilled labour; it includes technical and administrative staff. That does not spell future prosperity for that part of Scotland.
  In addition to that, Standard Maclean Limited is to close down part of its Lanarkshire factory. The firm issued notices on Friday. This factory, which is in Hamilton, makes window frames, and is part of a bigger combine in England. Notice has been given to 250 male workers, but that is the minimum number. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade knows, in all probability the figure will rise to 350 by the end of this or the following week.
  Not very long ago the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had no information that large English firms were taking action to close their Scottish branches and to concentrate on their English production.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers) indicated assent.
  Mr. Hoy: What happened about this firm? Only three weeks ago the Board of Trade said that it could go ahead with its extension, but instead of extending its factory it is giving notice to at least 250, and perhaps 350, of its men. The unemployment figures given by the Chancellor on Monday are already out of date, since another 750 men in Scotland have received, or will receive, notice.
  This cannot go on. We must remember that the heavy industries, upon which Scotland has been so dependent, are in a state of decline. Let hon. Members consider what is happening in the mining industry, in heavy engineering, and in shipbuilding. In all those industries there is a decline. In my constituency, which has had a splendid record in labour relations, and where the shipyards have turned out ships for all parts of the world, to the satisfaction of all their customers, men who were not unemployed even in the black 1930s are now signing on at the labour exchanges. If there is any further decline in these basic industries, what other employment opportunities will be available for the people of Scotland?
  We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State what is being done to meet this

  625
  situation. The position has been admirably summed up by the bulletin of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). I shall quote from it, because the Secretary of State had many nice things to say about its chairman in a similar debate a month or two ago. I do not claim that the points made in the bulletin are original; indeed, they are points which have been put by my hon. and right hon. Friends over the years.
  The bulletin says:
  "The absence of the more rapidly growing industries and the inevitable contraction of some established industries account for the intractability of the Scottish employment problem It will not be solved by short-term or limited measures.
  The successes of the last two decades demonstrate what can be done by a combination of forceful voluntary effort and resolute Government action. On the Scottish Industrial Estates 66,000 new jobs have been created. Completely new sectors of industry have been founded—by existing companies, as in the Scottish Electronic Scheme, and by importation, as, for example, the office machinery and earth-moving equipment industries. It is clear, however, that the official policies and provisions as they now stand, and the voluntary endeavours to promote industrial development and a balanced economy in Scotland, despite their considerable successes, do not meet the present and continuing need for expansion of employment in Scotland."
  That sums it up. It is what we have been attempting to say over the years. We have not had very much response from the Government. My mind goes back to the days when the late Sir Stafford Cripps was battling with industrial estates to persuade people to build the factories which were then being built. Scotland should be for ever grateful to that immediate post-war period which laid the foundation for the 66,000 new jobs which are filled today. We must have that type of action if we are to overcome our present difficulty.
  The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) also made certain suggestions to the Government, and it has submitted them to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We agree, broadly, with those suggestions. They are suggestions which have been made from this side of the House times without number, and in the course of many visits during the last Christmas and new year Recess the Scottish Industry and Employment Group of the Parliamentary Labour Party was hammering those very questions with the Scottish Council, with the Scottish
  626
  Board for Industry, with the Economic Committee of the S.T.U.C., and many others.
  What does the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) ask for? It asks for new and advance factories. The Minister will say that they have given us one factory as a trial. Scotland's days for trials are past. We have had plenty of factories without trying them out. We want factories. It has also suggested restricting factory rents. We had to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade the policy of restricting these rents if we were to encourage new industry to come to Scotland. It asks for investment allowances and for an acceleration and expansion of road programmes. It is still asking what is to happen to the graving dock at Greenock.
  Cannot decisions be made about these matters? This is the programme being asked for. It is the programme we have attempted to stimulate over a long period, but it has taken the Government a very long time to decide what they will do.
  I turn to another important suggestion which will help Scottish industry. The Scottish Trades Union Congress suggested to the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) that it should send a delegation to Russia to see whether further trade could be stimulated between Russia and Scotland. I know that the Scottish Council has replied that it is agreeable. It agreed in principle, but it did not think that a delegation could be sent before next winter. But next winter may be too late.
  In pre-war days the port of Leith, which I represent, carried on a considerable trade with the Baltic countries, and there was a considerable trade with Russia in both directions. Since the war there has been trade with Russia: ships have been arriving carrying timber and grain. There used to be a lucrative and regular trade between the port of Leith and Russia. We are told now that, as a result of the recent trade delegation to Russia, London and Hull have been nominated as the ports to handle the trade.
  If that is true, we want to know now whether Scotland has been by-passed once more. Is a port such as Leith, with

  627
  its fine record, to be ignored? Those running the business of the port of Leith have done their best to create trade between the two countries, but if action of this kind is to be taken all their efforts will be in vain.
  In view of the considerable trade which took place between Russia and Scotland—a fair amount of it is going on today, because there is an agreement between the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society and certain other firms and Russia—we are asking for Government assistance to attract trade to our country. We should like a reply as to what arrangements have been made about the carrying of this trade. We are not the only ones asking for some Government assistance. I ask the Government to think about all the assistance which has been asked for by private enterprise.
  During the last debate it was made clear not only by my hon. Friends, but by hon. Members opposite—although I am sure that many of them did not like to have to admit it—that Scotland's economy can be restored and her future assured only by Government action and money. I do not think that anyone will demur from that. I remind the Government of all the help which has been asked for in the form of Government money, whether it has been by Colvilles, the Cunard Company, or anyone else.
  Even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), who professes to be such a rugged individualist, wanted Government money and asked for it for private enterprise. In the debate on unemployment three and a half months ago the hon. Member said:
  "There is not enough capital in Scotland to make a quick change in the diversification of industry. We have too few companies in Scotland with millions of pounds to expend. We have to do two things with State money. We must go South, and, by presenting a picture of profit, helped by State money, we must induce two or three of the English giant businesses to expand in Scotland—the electrical industry, the motor vehicle industry, and the consumer goods industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 508–9.]
  That statement leaves no room for any ambiguity. The State, and the State alone, apparently can provide the solution to our problems. If that is so, it is not too much to ask that the State will have some say in the direction of these industries and of their policies.
  628
  I suggest that the case made by my hon. Friends a month ago, which will be supported by those of them who speak today, to which I have had the privilege of lending a few words of support, is the only one which can provide a future for Scotland. The suggestions I have made must be carried out if Scotland is to have a secure economic future. Around the strip mill and in the plastic industry new works must be built. Employment must be provided for the Scots of the future. That is the least that Scotland can ask. Anything less than that can only spell failure. If it is failure, I dread to think what will happen to the people of Scotland. If the Government cannot do this, let them clear out and make way for a Government who can.
  4.10 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Before I turn to the main burden of my remarks I would say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) that some of the principal points of detail which he raised will be referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he winds up the debate tonight. My right hon. Friend particularly asked me to say that he will make reference to the problem of shipping from Russia and the Port of Leith, to which the hon. Member made such special reference. A further point is about the unemployment figures, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which, in detail, will be commented upon by my right hon. Friend.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Cannot the Economic Secretary give us information about areas in Scotland where there has been an increase in unemployment between May and June? It is of the greatest importance that we should have the information now, for the debate.
  Mr. Erroll: I could not do this straight away, but I will see whether it is possible for the hon. Lady to have the figures before the end of the debate.
  All the evidence published in recent months shows that Britain has made a substantial economic recovery and that a period of steady economic expansion is now under way. The hard fact remains, however, as was made clear not only by

  629
  the hon. Member for Leith today, but also by those who spoke in the debate a month ago, that Scotland has not shared in this recovery to anything like the same extent.
  Nevertheless, I think that there are hopeful signs. I was agreeably surprised to see the tone of the Glasgow Herald supplement, "Industry and Commerce" which was published on 1st June. While giving full prominence to the dark spots in also included headlines such as:
  "A change of mood: All set for expansion".
  "Exports: Scotland's broadening range".
  I do not want to make too much of that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but I am entitled to point to some of the favourable as well as to some of the unfavourable features. I will not burke the unfavourable features. I will refer to them fully, but I am entitled to refer to the favourable ones.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has referred only to headlines. If he had read the article I think that he would have found that the headlines referred to the position in Britain.
  Mr. Erroll: I was careful not to quote the headlines which referred to the position in Britain as a whole. There was one on the front page, but I saw that it referred to Britain as a whole and not to Scotland, so I deliberately did not refer to it. I do my "prep" as well as the hon. Gentleman.
  I do not want the House to get the impression that the Government are in any way complacent about the position in Scotland. Far from it. We are disappointed that Scotland has not shared fully in the general return to economic prosperity, and I shall suggest why this has been so and will outline the Government's attitude.
  Although industry as a whole has benefited from the economic expansion of the last six months, the fact remains that there are still certain industries which have not fared so well. This has a special relevance to Scotland. The production of motor vehicles, for example, and consumer goods, domestic house building and light industry generally have been increasing, and indeed, for motor cars, in particular, waiting lists are beginning to appear once more.
  630
  In heavy industry the position is much more uneven. There has been some recovery in the steel industry, but the heavy end of the industry is still working well under capacity. Shipbuilding has not recovered, although the big yards have a large number of orders on hand. The demand for coal remains sluggish. Certain sections of the capital goods industries are still working well below capacity. This pattern is accentuated in Scotland owing to the preponderance of heavy industry in relation to light industry, which is such a well-known feature of the Scottish scene.
  I should remind the House that light industries in England have had their bad as well as their good times. Only two years ago the motor car industry was going through a very difficult time. I am sure that it would be wrong, even if it were possible, to try to base Scotland's industry entirely on light industrial manufacture, because Scotland would then be even more vulnerable to swings of the economic pendulum than before. The right objective to pursue is to strive to maintain Scotland's heavy industries while, at the same time, securing much greater diversification by the introduction both of light industries, some of which could use the products of the heavier industries themselves, and of more commercial firms.
  This is not a new problem for Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as I am sure many hon. Members would agree. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have heard that before."] At least the House is hearing a different voice saying it, so that is something. It has been a Government problem for the last thirty years, and successive Administrations have done their best to solve it. I have many figures which might be quoted, but I will refer only to the figures of employment provided by new factory building in Scotland since 1945. Almost 100,000 additional new jobs had been so provided up to the third quarter of 1958. Taking the two periods of six years 1945–51, and 1952 to the third quarter of 1958, about 50,700 jobs were provided in the first period and almost 49,000 in the second period. And, of course, more jobs have been provided since the third quarter of 1958 and in the first part of 1959.
  This shows that both Administrations since the war have shared equally in the

  631
  task, and in the success achieved, in providing additional jobs.
  Between those two periods there has been a change of emphasis. During the first period, 20,000 jobs were privately financed while, during the second period, the figure was 31,000. I regard this as a very good sign. We want privately-financed industry to develop in Scotland as well as industry financed by the Government. It would be a sorry day for Scotland if no one were prepared to develop there without some form of Government assistance.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade uses his powers under the Distribution of Industry Act, and the Town and Country Planning Acts, and the help of his regional officers, to steer industries away from the south-east part of England and the congested Birmingham area into those parts of Britain where such new industry is needed; and in the context of today's debate I have Scotland particularly in mind. His policy, as he has explained on many occasions, is a firm one, but, short of compulsory direction of industry, and, therefore, of key workers and managements, it must rightly remain a policy of persuasion.
  The hard fact remains that some industrialsts are reluctant to set up light industries in Scotland because they feel that, apart from the local Scottish markets, they are a long way from the large consumer markets, such as Lancashire, Yorkshire, London and Birmingham. We are doing our best to get over this difficulty by pointing to the number of successful Scottish enterprises the goods from which, made in Scotland, are household words all over England. If I may quote one or two examples, which I am sure will be familiar to hon. Members, there are Penguin biscuits, Timex watches and clocks and Remington shavers, among others.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Is that all?
  Mr. Erroll: I did not want to make my speech a dull one, with successive quotations from long lists, but I picked out one or two which struck me particularly.
  Furthermore, the introduction of the new British Railways overnight freight services, such as the "Condor", will
  632
  greatly improve the opportunities for Scottish manufacturers to place their goods on sale in the big consumer markets in London and the surrounding suburbs.
  I should like to remind the House in more detail of what British Railways are doing to provide improved freight services from Scotland. It is an impressive list. The "Condor" service, in particular, is a remarkable one. The service started on 16th March this year and provides one service each day in each direction. A new method of charging has been adopted whereby British Railways hire a container to the customer at a flat rate and the customer can put in what goods he likes provided they do not exceed a maximum weight.
  All that the customer has to do is to put the goods into the container which is taken on one day for delivery in London the following morning at a flat rate. That is a very useful development. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has not been late once."] I hear an hon. Member saying that it has not been late once. There is also an extension of the "Assured Arrival" service now to Newcastle and Gateshead from Edinburgh and Glasgow. There is also an export express service between Glasgow and Liverpool Docks giving an arrival the following morning; and a rather specialist new train, the "Blue Spot Fish Special", which consists of specially fitted vans having roller bearing axles, which runs between Aberdeen and London, giving an earlier arrival in London.
  There are other improvements in the service which are too detailed to mention now. All this shows that British Railways are doing a big job to make it possible for manufacturers in Scotland to bring their goods rapidly to consumer markets in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands.
  Similarly, the major road reconstruction between Glasgow and Carlisle referred to in the Scottish Roads Report will greatly improve the movement of long-distance lorry traffic which is such an important part today of our internal distribution system. The parallel development of roads in England will provide excellent facilities for both east and west coast traffic from Scotland with interchange via the Birmingham links.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: It will not.
  Mr. Enroll: The hon. Member may say that it will not, but I am assured that it will. The hon. Member had a good chance to make points in the earlier debate. I beg to differ from what he says.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the works programme for this particular road, announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland before the last General Election, has not yet been started?
  Mr. Erroll: It is going on as fast as it can.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: But it is not good enough.
  Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—he hardly can be, because he is not familiar with this subject, but some of us actually live on this road—that the part of the Glasgow—Carlisle road which goes through industrial Lanarkshire and my constituency has had no work done on it and that all the work between Lesmahagow and Carlisle will only speed up traffic going into the bottleneck between Larkhall and Glasgow?
  Mr. Erroll: It is always difficult to effect a road improvement in a heavily built-up area. My constituency is one of those and there is great difficulty there about bottlenecks in Altrincham and Sale.
  That should have been done before, but at least it is being done now. The point is that not only will this improvement of opportunities for fast road transport of goods from Scotland link up with parallel roads in England, but it will provide excellent facilities for both east and west coast traffic with the interchange via the Birmingham links. These transport facilities, both by rail and by road, are an important matter, because they will go a long way towards removing the so-called geographical handicap which—wrongly, in my view—has held back a number of industrialists from going to Scotland to set up new factories.
  There is one important new development to which I should refer. That is
  634
  the new strip mill which is being built at Ravenscraig. I need hardly remind the House of the number of consumer industries which require steel strip and sheet. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade I had something to do with the siting of the new Pressed Steel plant near Swansea. We were responsible for persuading the company to go to West South Wales to a site near Swansea, and one of the factors which influenced the company was that it would be able to draw upon adequate supplies of steel from the nearby strip mills of the Steel Company of Wales. Obviously, I cannot go into the precise economics of this particular project, but I can say that this advantage went some way towards offsetting the additional cost of transporting the finished products to the main areas of consumption.
  Now that Scotland will be able to offer, in the relatively near future, abundant supplies of steel strip and sheet, I feel confident that the Board of Trade will be able to persuade companies wishing to expand to look favourably on setting up in Scotland in much the same way as Pressed Steel was persuaded to set up in West South Wales. Indeed, one company is already showing how successfully refrigerators, for example, can be made in Scotland. I refer to the Astral Company of Dundee, which rented a Board of Trade factory in 1948 and which, with a further extension now nearing completion, will have expanded just over fourfold. In addition, building work has now started on a large new factory for this firm which with existing capacity will give a total production space thirteen times greater than that with which it first started in Dundee.
  What one company has done so successfully I am sure other companies will be able to do with the added stimulus of locally available supplies of strip. As the improved transport facilities—both road and rail—which I have mentioned, become better known, the old geographical handicap, so to speak, should greatly diminish in importance.
  Nor should we forget—although I know that this is traversing familiar ground—that a considerable amount of quite new industry has already been introduced to Scotland. The hon. Member for

  635
  Leith referred to the manufacture of office machinery at Dundee and Greenock and to earth moving machinery. There are the firms of Caterpillar and Euclid, in North Lanarkshire and such varied products as those made by Playtex, at Port Glasgow, and the Sunbeam Electric Company, at East Kilbride. This effort on the part of the Government, industry, the Scottish Council, and others, has, regrettably, not been enough to reduce Scotland's level of unemployment to that which now prevails in England as a whole. We accept the need for more effort, and we are working as hard as we can to bring new industry to Scotland and to expand existing ones.
  The objective remains the same, namely, to ensure a continuing high level of activity for heavy industry while, at the same time, diversifying the Scottish industrial scene by the introduction of a widening range of light industries. While it is proper that we should concentrate on the provision of additional manufacturing industry, it is important to remember the increased amount of employment which is provided nowadays by service industries and offices. By using the telephone and other modern methods of transmitting information over long distances there is no reason why more office work, for example, should not be done in Scotland rather than in the congested areas of London and the Midlands.
  It is not easy to persuade firms whose employment roll largely consists of office workers to consider hiving off a substantial portion of their routine work to a different part of the country. Of course, as I must remind hon. Members, the Government have no powers in a form similar to the industrial development certificate to help in bringing about a changed outlook in this matter.
  Mr. Hoy: The Government certainly have power over their own offices. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for Britain was sited at East Kilbride because of the action of the Labour Government. Cannot he take similar action with regard to that other type of work?
  Mr. Enroll: The Government have a fairly good record of decentralisation. It
  636
  has large offices at Newcastle and further offices at Blackpool, so there is a considerable measure of decentralisation from London. We may not have been able to get as much to Scotland as we should have liked, but we have a good record compared with private industry in this matter. I hope that we shall be able to see more office work being decentralised into Scotland.
  This development of office work is worth paying increasing attention to because it is not without significance that unemployment in Edinburgh, with relatively little heavy industry, has, over the years, generally been lower than that of the surrounding industrial districts. I suggest that some part of this must be due to the many head offices of Scottish insurance, banking and investment trust companies which operate there and contribute very substantially, no doubt, to our invisible export balance.
  Edinburgh's favourable position is also doubtless due to the employment created by the tourist trade. Time will not permit me to say much about that industry, but it is growing in size and importance every year and Scotland is getting its full share of that growth. It will bring additional employment not only in summer, but also in winter; and, in fact, the severity of Scotland's winter may prove in its own way to be something of a tourist attraction as more and more people begin to realise the possibilities of winter sport, which I think hon. Members will accept is an attraction to people to go there in the winter.
  Mr. John Rankin: It is not an attraction for us.
  Mr. Enroll: The visitors themselves need to be serviced and looked after and all that helps to bring employment.
  We do not want to think only of manufacturing industry. I know that that must be a main feature, but we want to look at the other subsidiary sources of employment which can all help to make their contribution to a high level of prosperity.
  I should like to remind the House of the action which the Government had taken in the field of public investment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the debate on the Address on 3rd

  637
  November last that a review of public investment was held during the course of last summer and this resulted in
  "a series of specific but limited relaxations designed to stimulate employment during this coming winter, particularly in those areas which were suffering most heavily from unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1958; Vol. 594, c. 641.]
  In the case of Scotland, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out on 10th March, these measures were expected to lead to the expenditure of nearly £10 million of additional money by local authorities, Government Departments and other public bodies in Scotland, the expenditure to be incurred by 31st March, 1960.
  Perhaps I should mention how the figure of additional expenditure is made up: schools, technical education, etc., £2,800,000; housing. £2,100,000; hospitals, £1,150,000; electricity boards, £1 million; trunk and classified roads, £310,000: miscellaneous local government services, £600,000, and a number of other items, bringing the grand total to £9,675,000. This additional expenditure should produce a useful stimulus to employment.
  Nor is this all. The total of public investment in Great Britain for 1959–60 is £1,607 million. Many of the programmes included in this total cover the whole of Great Britain and the Scottish share is not known—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with sufficient precision to make a comparison. Of those which can be separated, such as electricity, roads, local authority housing, water, sewerage, education and hospitals, the Scottish share is about one-seventh. This does not seem unreasonable in view of the fact that Scotland's share of the population is nearer one-tenth.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Rubbish.
  Mr. Erroll: It is not rubbish. I am saying that Scotland has a good share on a population basis of public sector investment.
  I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been rather pleased, but it seems that I find myself in some difficulty in this debate, because when I say something which is obviously to Scotland's advantage hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to dislike what I am saying. I should have thought that
  638
  it would have been something that would have pleased hon. Gentlemen opposite. At least, it ought to be regarded as a helpful direction in the allocation of resources.
  Mr. Willis: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what percentage of research expenditure we are getting and what percentage of expenditure on defence services we are getting? Will he tell us some of the things that are not so very favourable to Scotland?
  Mr. Erroll: The defence services would not come under the heading of public sector investment. I was dealing here with public sector investment, because that represents civil expenditure on the public sector by Government Departments and local authorities, which I thought was a fair way of doing it.
  I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking this afternoon because there is one matter for which the Treasury has direct responsibility—one form of Government aid—and, therefore, I want to say something about the financial assistance provided by the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, and to bring the figures up to date. Since our last debate, on 3rd June, the number of applications and the number of approvals has continued to rise. Up to 30th June, 106 firm and eligible applications had been received in respect of Scotland, 27 of these have been favourably recommended by the Advisory Committee, 8 have been rejected, and 71 are still being examined. The total value of assistance offered in the 27 successful applications is £774,520. Apart from £7,750 provided by way of annual grant, this assistance took the form of loans at moderate rates of interest, repayable on terms tailored to suit the individual needs of the applicant.
  This should help to produce almost 1,000 new jobs of a permanent character for Scotland. The loans offered range from as little as £220 in one case to £400,000 at the other end of the scale. I should like to have been able to give the House more exact and precise details concerning individual applications, but these applications are made in confidence and, for reasons which I shall give in a moment, it is most important that we should maintain the confidential

  639
  relationship between the individual borrower and the Government, who are the lenders. I shall try to explain it.
  Dealing with the unsuccessful cases first, the firm or individual whose application for assistance is turned down often feels very sore at not being given any reason for the rejection of his application. Quite frequently, the Member of Parliament concerned is brought in, and he, too, quite understandably, feels frustrated when I am unable to make available to him the Committee's reasons for rejecting the application.
  The principal difficulty is that we would have to be prepared to give the reasons in respect of every application that had failed. In some cases, the standing of the firm might be in question and it would be embarrassing to have to explain this. To refuse could be equally embarrassing. In other cases, the commercial prospects of the firm might be considered less favourable than the applicant imagined. D.A.T.A.C. has to form a view on this, and disagreement with the applicant on such a difficult subject could only lead to further argument of a fruitless character. If we were to give the reasons in some cases and not in others, it might be inferred, wrongly perhaps, that in those cases where the information was withheld there was something known against the applicant which could not be made public.
  Hon. Members may ask why we should not at least make available information about applications which have been successful. After all, they, at least, passed all the tests, and, it may be said, as those applicants are receiving assistance from the Treasury, surely Members of the House of Commons should have the right to know all about them. I mention these matters in some detail, because the subject of D.A.T.A.C. aid was referred to a great deal in the debate a month ago and I know that it is something about which a large number of hon. Members are concerned.
  It is the fact that, in some cases, successful applicants make known the assistance they are receiving, but there are others—these others are important, too—who wish to keep the matter confidential for good reasons of their own. They may not wish to draw attention to
  640
  their financial position, or they may not wish their plans for expansion to be made known to their competitors until the last possible moment.
  Were it to become the general rule that details of all successful applications would be published, then some firms, I know, would not dream of applying for assistance. In fact, I know of more than one firm which was doubtful about applying because it felt that its plans would become known to a wider circle of people. It was only when the confidential nature of the scheme was fully explained to it that the firm decided to go ahead with its application.
  I should like to tell hon. Members more about the details of the scheme, and I know that there are hon. Members who would like to have more information about individual cases in which they are interested, but I do not think that it would be right to jeopardise the chances of even one successful project, just because we insisted upon information being made available in all cases. We should not be at all pleased if we knew that, let us say, 50 or 100 men had remained unemployed in a particular locality, simply because a firm which would have gone there preferred not to apply because it feared that its commercial development, its financial standing, or other private information would become public property.
  Mr. T. Fraser: This may be a very interesting part of the Economic Secretary's speech to some hon. Members, but I am not aware that hon. Members on either side of the House have been pressing the Government to disclose this kind of information about individual applications for D.A.T.A.C. advances. I have never heard this demand expressed in our debates.
  Mr. Erroll: I would have referred to one case in particular, a case put forward by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), but as he is not in his place today I thought that I would not refer to it. Also, other hon. Members have approached me privately or have put Questions and supplementary questions about individual applications. I thought that this would be a useful opportunity to explain the reasons for our attitude. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T.

  641
  Fraser) is not aware of the point. It is, I a matter which, I know, interests many hon. Members, because they have approached me, and I thought that a minute or two devoted to the subject would be time well spent.
  However, I can speak in fairly broad general terms without any risk of a breach of confidence. I can tell the House that rather more than half the present total of Scottish applications and appreciably more than half the total approvals relate to undertakings in the Highlands and Islands. The number of applications received from the Highlands and Islands up to 30th June—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will know this—is 58. Of these, 19 have been approved, and six rejected. The remaining 33 are still being examined.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Can the Economic Secretary tell us the value of the money offered by D.A.T.A.C. to the Highlands and Islands?
  Mr. Erroll: I am just coming to that. I had anticipated the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, which is not altogether shared by other hon. Members on those benches.
  The total of assistance offered in the 19 successful cases is £174,300, of which £7,750 is in the form of annual grants. This assistance is likely to produce 425 new jobs in the Highlands and Islands.
  Mr. Rankin: As many as that?
  Mr. Erroll: Yes, 425 new jobs in the Highlands and Islands.
  The aim of the Act is expressly to help to relieve unemployment and not particular industries, and the assistance which has been offered is, therefore, not classified according to the amount given to individual types of business. The Act has been framed to allow assistance to be given to all kinds of trade or business which will help to relieve local unemployment. The assistance offered to Scottish businesses covers a representative range of activity including fish marketing and processing, tweed weaving and textile manufacture, joinery and building, a sawmill, tailoring, light engineering, hotels and tourist amenities, and a garage.
  Over the period of rather less than a year during which the Act has been
  642
  in force, the results suggest that it has a useful function to perform in Scotland, and particularly in the Highlands and Islands. The assistance provided helps to ensure that sound projects capable of relieving unemployment locally are not shelved because of inability to raise capital from the normal sources of finance. Of course, I must point out that the Treasury can give assistance under the Act only if applicants produce sound proposals which meet the statutory conditions for assistance. We expect a little response from those who are to benefit.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, with the help of his regional officers, is doing a great deal to make known the assistance which is available. A leaflet describing the scheme has been very widely distributed and all responses and inquiries are followed up rapidly.
  Mr. T. Fraser: One would think that this was a new scheme. It has been in operation since 1945. All that the Act passed last year did was to extend the facilities to high unemployment areas outside Development Areas.
  Mr. Erroll: If the hon. Gentleman had studied it in more detail, he would have seen that it did very much more than that. It enabled assistance to be provided for all sorts of businesses and industries which could not have benefited under the 1945 Act.
  Mr. Fraser Mr. Fraser indicated dissent.
  Mr. Erroll: Yes it did. The results which I have been stating go a long way to prove how valuable this extension of the old Act is proving to be. While the scheme is wide enough to finance large and spectacular projects, I believe that its main achievement—a very valuable one—will be to help small and medium-sized projects, mainly situated in remote localities, whose unemployment, although not very great in total, represents a large percentage of the local population.
  I thought it worth taking up the time of the House for a few minutes to explain the workings of the scheme in full detail and to show, particularly, what great use has been made of the scheme in Scotland. It is an important measure of help which has not hitherto been

  643
  available in the form in which it is now available, and it provides added evidence to show that the Government mean business in what they say.
  Mr. Fraser: Business?
  Mr. Erroll: Yes, we mean business. I say quite frankly that nobody can pretend that it is easy to raise the level of employment in Scotland to the level we should all like to see. Successive Governments have had this difficulty. But we are quite sure that it should not be impossible. Diversification of employment and industry remains our continuing policy. We are prepared to introduce new methods where we think they are appropriate, as exemplified by the D.A.T.A.C. scheme. We believe that a judicious combination of Government assistance and private enterprise can make our policy a success.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: It is now almost eight years since I became a Member of this House and each year since then I have listened to this annual debate on industry and employment in Scotland. When I first came to the House and started to put Questions to Ministers I was told that one could question a Minister only if he was responsible for the matter to which the Question related. Therefore, I assume that the Government are responsible, and accept responsibility, for industry and employment and for the social and economic conditions of the people of Scotland. That is a very big responsibility.
  For a number of years now we have had an extension of the process, started under a Labour Government, of encouraging and assisting industries in this country. While some expansion was taking place in the south, we never had assistance in Scotland and Wales which suffered badly between the wars. It seems that now, fourteen years after the end of the war, we shall have to create throughout Scotland and Wales National Assistance Board local offices with two entrances, one for the ordinary citizens and one for private enterprise. That seems to be the pattern. The extraordinary thing is that in the eight years during which the Government have been in office, on balance, more industry has moved out of Scotland than has come
  644
  in. Let us be fair about this. We are concerned, especially in Scotland, with economic activity whoever may be responsible for it. But there has been a retreat of economic activity from Scotland and a good deal of it has been withdrawn by the Government.
  This Government have sponsored the removal from Scotland of economic activity. They have taken the Royal Ordnance Factory at Dalmuir. All the work which was done at Dalmuir is now done in the south. It is no use telling me that another Scottish company has taken over, because this transfer of economic activity is happening within Scotland. It is not bringing in new activity.
  There is the case of Rosyth and the torpedo factory at Greenock. The new activity there represents a transfer within Scotland. It is not a case of bringing in new economic activity. In fact, as fast as these transfers take place, some industry goes out of Scotland, and the rate of disinvestment is tremendous. I have here a list from July, 1958. I could produce a much bigger one, but I have this list which dates from July.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Read it.
  Mr. Bence: It is a terrific list.
  Mr. Willis: Never mind, read it.
  Mr. Bench: There is the Blacknes Engineering Works at Dundee; John Honeyman & Company, Cupar; Sanquar Brickworks; Clyde Paper Company, Milngavie, and the railway workshops at Inverness. This is all disinvestment from one organisation to another. It is all work being taken out of Scotland. Wick-man Hillington have gone back to near Coventry. J. and E. Hall, Limited, will take over Thermotanks in Glasgow. W. D. Marcus, Hawick, has been taken over by Boardman Mander. What is to happen there? Those of us who have spent our lives in industry know that when one company takes over another, especially a weaker company, it is in order to wind it up. If the other company is stronger, there is an amalgamation.
  I understand that the Burntisland Shipyard is closing down. According to my information Glasgow Railway Engineering has been taken over

  645
  by Beardmore Axles to be wound up, and Beardmore Axles is controlled by Beardmore's.
  My information is that Yorkshire Tar Distillers is making a bid to take over Scottish Tar Distillers and to concentrate all the tar distillery work in York shire, near Leeds. I understand that the chairman and vice-chairman of the Scottish Gas Board are directors of Scottish Tar Distillers and if the deal goes through, I have no doubt that they will become directors of Yorkshire Tar Distillers. Here we have a Government in office—
  Mr. George Lawson: Has my hon. Friend finished his list, because I have here the case of Hurst Nelson and Company, at Motherwell, employing more than 600 men, which was taken over by Charles Roberts and Company, of Wakefield. It was said at the time that they would make a better firm of it, but it is now closed down.
  Mr. Bence: I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned that case. It is the last but one on my list. I have eliminated a lot and I was proposing to eliminate that one, because I felt sure my hon. Friend would mention it if he had an opportunity to speak in this debate.
  There is the Crown Cork Company of Scotstoun. That has gone, with 600 workers redundant. So we have the extraordinary picture that during the last eight years this Government have tried, by legislation and all sorts of inducements, and by extending the activities of the National Assistance Board to investors, to get industry to come to Scotland; while at the same time they have been watching industry go out of Scotland. As I have said once before, we have never had such comings and goings in the history of this country since the grand old Duke of York marched 10,000 men up the hill and then marched them down again.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member is making an interesting speech, but I think it would be useful if he made clear whether what he is saying is based on speculation or fact. Some of the things he has said are facts, but is not some of this speculation? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is speculation or fact?
  Mr. Bence: There are variations. In some cases, as the result of a take-over,
  646
  there has been redundancy. In other cases firms have closed down, and the machinery has been removed. I said that. I do not wish to go through it all, but I have here details of companies where in some cases there were redundancies. In one case they amounted to 140. In another the factory has closed completely. The cases vary, but every case represents a decline in economic activity, and that is the point. Not one of these firms is expanding. They are all declining and redundancies are created. The economic activity is being reduced.
  I could mention the Inverness Railway Workshops as another case. I have a statement here which was issued by the general council of the railway trade unions. At the top of the second page appears this sort of statement by the British Transport Commission:
  "Railway workshops will continue to be used for the manufacture of equipment and components for which they are laid down."
  Many of these workshops are in the same condition as they were a hundred years ago. In other railway workshops and establishments in the south of England modernisation is going on, but apparently in Scotland these workshops will be maintained as they are now laid out. In such condition they are hopelessly inadequate to carry out the repairs, maintenance and servicing, and the manufacture of modern railway equipment. It seems to me that the British Transport Commission is going in for modernisation down south and "paralysation" in the north. If we retain what has been in existence for over a hundred years we shall certainly paralyse the show.
  After eight years in office it is fantastic for the Government to say that they are doing everything they can to induce more economic activity in Scotland when their Parliamentary institutions are failing to do anything to expand economic activity and in fact are allowing conditions to persist which may result in a decrease in economic activity.
  Quite honestly, I do not believe that the social and economic problem in Scotland can ever be solved by private enterprise as we understand it. In speech after speech, hon. Gentlemen opposite continually emphasise—they may as well admit it—that they have come to the realisation that private employers or private industry associated together under

  647
  the company laws do not operate for the purpose of solving social problems but for the purpose of making money legitimately. I admit quite frankly that engineers, scientists, chartered accountants and financiers may get together and form a limited liability company out of which they make money and that by so doing they may make a contribution to social welfare and well-being. But one cannot expect private enterprise to establish itself primarily for the purpose of solving a social problem. That is primarily the responsibility of the Government and not of private enterprise.
  Many of the problems with which we are faced have admittedly arisen out of the laissez. faire system of the nineteenth century. There is the imbalance of population in different parts of the country. All the economic forces tend to compel private enterprise to make that imbalance worse.
  Is there any hon. Member with money to invest who would invest it in Scotland in preference to investing it down South?
  Mr. Michael Noble: I would.
  Mr. Bence: The hon Gentleman is different from a good many other people. He has his heart in the Highlands. He has some of his money in his sporran, but the vast majority of bankers and financiers in Scotland have their money not in their sporrans but in the hip pockets of a pair of striped trousers in Lombard Street, London. I am not blaming them for it. Naturally, that is how they work under commercial law, and now they come along for help through the National Assistance Board which we are setting up for private enterprise. We want them to solve the social problems which they have created and we give them National Assistance with which to solve it. We tax them and everyone else to get the National Assistance to give to them, and as fast as they go up to Scotland others come out and the problem is as bad as ever.
  This is a chaotic system. Obviously the only way in which we can solve the social and economic disequilibrium in the country is by public investment in those areas which are suffering from it.
  I know one manufacturer, I know him very well, who is established in London. His company is to build a factory in Manchester. Here is the terrible dilemma
  648
  in which the company finds itself. It has speeded up production in its London factory, but what it gains by its new techniques it loses by the choking of the railways and roads in the London area. When the company's production engineers work out the processes in the Manchester branch they discover that, owing to the high density of population here, for that plant to be economic it has to be sent back to London. That means that after having had a job to get it out the company has another job to get it in again. That is the problem with which we in this small island of 50 million people are faced.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that a great asset to Scotland is its hard weather. Is he thinking of full employment for plumbers and snow shifters on the roads in winter? Is he hoping to help Scotland by heavier snowfalls and more frost?
  Mr. Erroll: I am very sorry that my little joke went rather astray. Apparently my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had similar trouble at Elgin. All I was pointing out was that the hard winter which is normally a disadvantage was in the best interest of the tourist industry, which I think is something that should be developed.
  Mr. Bence: God forbid that tourists should be attracted to Scotland at the great disadvantage of the rest of us who live there. It may be all right for the hon. Gentleman to go skiing in the Cairngorms, but not at the expense of my having to dig myself out of my bungalow.
  To return to a more serious note. Members of my own union are affected by this problem. Many engineers will have to go south. Thousands of them in the last five years have been forced to leave Scotland to work for various enterprises down south, from London down to Plymouth and Portsmouth and up as far as Manchester, Northampton and Bedford. I receive letters every week from engineers who have been forced out of Scotland.
  I could go on for a long time pointing out some of the many ill effects on Scotland which though not felt today may be felt in twenty or thirty years' time. When economic activity falls in a given area the facilities for training the technologists of the future fall as well. They

  649
  decline within the industry itself. I do not say that they decline in the educational institutions—they certainly do not—but we get a decline within the industrial institutions when there is a decline in economic activity. Many of us in the engineering industry experienced this between the wars.
  I know that some people in Scotland, and no doubt some in this House, think that the Secretary of State has not been trying within the Cabinet. I would not say that he has not been trying. I think that he really tries. But most of the Scottish Members are howling. The Scottish Industrial Council for Industry is howling. All his fans in Scotland are howling at him. They are like the fans at a football match. They do not howl for the centre forward to be dropped because he is not trying to get goals, but because he has not scored any. That has been the position of the Secretary of State and of his predecessors since 1951.
  Mr. Grimond: He has been transferred.
  Mr. Bence: I do not think that he has been transferred. Although I am not a Rugby fan, I know more about it than about Association football, and therefore I am not au fait with the terms.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Transferred at the end of the season.
  Mr. Bence: Whether it was a free transfer or a sale, I do not know.
  With all due respect to the Secretary of State as a person, I must say that, despite all his efforts and those of the Department in Scotland, and even of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister as well—reading the Glasgow Herald, the Scotsman and other papers one would question whether or not they had achieved the necessary economic activity in Scotland—that activity today is less than it was ten years ago. The number of employers is smaller. Indeed, the industrial capital which has gone into Scotland in the last fourteen years has been, in the main, American capital. It is certainly not British.
  In the last debate which we had on this subject the Secretary of State said that a good deal of this trouble in Scotland
  650
  must be solved by the people of Scotland themselves. I could not agree with him more. But which people? Can the ordinary man in the street solve the problem? Surely the Secretary of State meant the financiers, the heads of big insurance companies and the big business chiefs in Scotland.
  He must have meant those who take more savings per head of the population in Scotland then any others in the British Isles. But do they invest in Scotland? Of course not. They invest as little as possible there. The rest comes south. These are the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman appeals, but they have only to get a take-over bid from Firth Brown's of Sheffield or some other great concern down here to get out and take their profit, notwithstanding the fact that Scottish industry may go out of existence.
  After eight years of this annual ritual—as I now regard it—this academic debate on industry and employment in Scotland, we still have this attempt to create the idea that private enterprise can redress the social imbalance in the different parts of the United Kingdom. The idea that one can get near-full employment in Scotland only if there is over-full employment in London and the Midlands is not good enough for me. I am a Welshman who comes from England.
  Why should we in Wales and Scotland have to depend on there being 30 men after 100 jobs in England before we can see 20 jobs for 20 men in Scotland? To have to depend for full employment in Scotland on over-full employment further south makes us second-class citizens. It also lowers the opportunities our children have of different forms of occupation and training. It means that we have a standard entirely different from that enjoyed by people south of the Border.
  London is a terrific magnet. With the fall in employment in Scotland, the people there take that single ticket from Glasgow Central Station, or Waverley Station, Edinburgh, and come here. They find that the wages are better, and they never go back. The problem gets worse. The gulf between the two employment standards is wider in 1959 than it was in 1952. D.A.T.A.C. does its best—we know some of its difficulties—but we shall not narrow the gap by financing people

  651
  to go back north. As the gap widens, those people will demand an ever-bigger price to help solve the Government's problem of this social disequilibrium.
  I know that it is a waste of time to appeal to a Government who have come to the end of their term of office. They will go out of office soon. After all, they have had eight years of it, and have failed completely. They know the social and economic problems just as well as we do, and they know that private economic enterprise cannot solve them. They know that it can be done only by the use of the resources of the whole of the community—of the taxpayers.
  They are now weakening a little and are calling on the taxpayers, but they should have thought of all this years ago. They should have had these ideas long ago, in which case we might not now be facing this problem. For this Government, it is too late. All I hope is that when we take over—as I think we shall in the very near future—we will at any rate make a start to redress the frightful economically and socially unbalanced society in which we live at present.
  5.15 p.m.
  Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said, and that was when he stated that he was satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland did at least try. My experience is that my right hon. Friend tries very hard, and not just in a vague and general way. He takes up individual points with full knowledge, and I wish to take advantage of that fact to raise this afternoon, very briefly, one or two points that affect my constituency. I am quite confident that he will know the problems that are involved, and I very much hope that he will be able to give me a reply.
  First, as he will know, I represent East Lothian, and the town of Dunbar is in East Lothian. I do not ask for any special preference for the town—I shall not pitch my note so high. All I shall do is to ask the Government not to make Dunbar's problems more difficult than they are. We have been trying to attract industry to Dunbar, and it was thought that it might be possible for the town
  652
  council to buy the Castle Park Barracks as a possible site for new industry. Negotiations for the purchase were entered into with the War Office, but it proved difficult to come to terms. I have now heard, to my concern, that the War Office may dispose of this site to the Scottish Office, and that the Scottish Office may use the site for a new home for juvenile delinquents. A detention centre is how I would describe it.
  I do not say that such a place is not very necessary somewhere. We all want to do the best we can to try to correct young people who have gone astray, but when we are debating unemployment one must take into account the effect that such a place will have on the employment which Dunbar is able to provide. Very prominent amongst the forms of employment there is that connected with the entertainment of holiday traffic. It must be obvious to my right hon. Friend and to anyone who considers the matter that it is not at all a good attraction to a holiday town to have within it a juvenile delinquents' detention centre. When parents are thinking where to take their children for a holiday, they do not want to go near a centre of that kind.
  It is difficult to over-rate the difficulties that will arise. I do not suppose that the juvenile delinquents would escape, but this site is in the centre of a town and quite near to the harbour and to the swimming pool. This is not at all a good way to encourage the holiday spirit in people, nor is it at all kind to the juvenile delinquents. It is not kind to put in close proximity those enjoying their holiday—laughing, and swimming and splashng about in the swimming pool and enjoying themselves generally—and those who are suffering strict discipline. I think that I have said enough to let the House and my right hon. Friend know that there is a good deal in what I say, and I ask my right hon. Friend now not to go so far as to have a public inquiry but to give a decision on this project before it is too late.
  There is another and more general matter that affects all who represent constituencies that may not be in the depressed areas. In saying that, I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and her hon. Friends will not think that I do not

  653
  fully appreciate the difficulties in those areas where there is great unemployment, and where pits have gone out of commission. One pit has closed down in my constituency, but the problem there is no so severe as in other areas. In this matter I urge the House to keep a sense of balance.
  All areas in Scotland want to develop new industries. If it is made too clear that the only places where a new industry can be given preference or any advantages are those in Development Areas, and that no advantages at all will go to places outside Development Areas, it will be very difficult for a county like East Lothian to attract its share of new industry. It might be said that that is as may be, but let us bear in mind that the Scottish Office has, rightly I think, because I voted for it, produced a Bill to allow the overspill population of Glasgow to be distributed throughout Scotland. Haddington is one of the burghs which has agreed to take some overspill from Glasgow.
  I would say to my right hon. Friend that provided that employment goes with the overspill population of Glasgow, well and good, but I hope that at all costs he will avoid sending the overspill people from Glasgow into Haddington before we are quite sure that industry will be there ready to give them employment. It must also be industry which has a very good chance of continuing for a number of years, and not one which there is the slightest danger may break down and cause these people, who have shifted their homes to another place, to be unemployed and unhappy outside their former surroundings.
  I am speaking very briefly, because I see on both sides of the House a large number of hon. Members who want to speak. Having been a Scottish Member for a long time, I wish that we could get back to the old system on Scottish Supply Days, when we all agreed to make short speeches, as a result of which we were all able to take part. It was much better for our constituents and also for ourselves.
  Let me mention another town. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will know this problem, too, as will his Joint Under-Secretaries. It is the fishing town of Elyemouth in Berwickshire. I know that
  654
  fishing is not specifically among the subjects that we are debating today, but employment is, and so is unemployment. My right hon. Friend will know that although Eyemouth is a most suitable port in almost every way, there is one very serious snag, which is that the harbour cannot be used for 24 hours out of the 24.
  At certain low tides, it is not possible to get either in or out, and this is a very serious shortcoming, which I am sure modern engineering can perfectly well overcome. Great efforts have been made to find a plan that would be satisfactory. The Scottish Office has a plan now, and the Harbour Trust has approved it, although there are still details to be gone into before it is completely agreed between the two bodies. At the end of the day, of course, it will be expensive, and I cannot pretend to my right hon. Friend that it is not so.
  Suppose a new harbour is built. Suppose we get a harbour capable of use every hour of the day, both in and out. It certainly will make fishing boats use the harbour more than they do at present, and that could have repercussions on the town itself. It might give us a greater chance of a freezing plant, fish meal factories, and perhaps also canning, and might allow a certain coastal trade to develop. I do not want to put the claim too high, but it is clear that this would be a good plan. It is quite clearly a plan in which there is nothing new, with nothing extraordinary about it. It is obvious to everybody that the town would be better for having a 24-hour harbour.
  One hears a lot of schemes put to the Government by hon. Members on both sides hoping, and rather pretending, that they will be very effective. This is a scheme which will absolutely certainly do some good. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend, since he knows that Berwickshire is a county with a small population, a small rateable value, and is hard put to it to keep pace with modern administrative costs, to give the most sympathetic consideration to that scheme for Eyemouth harbour.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Taylor: I will not comment on what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray), except to say that I

  655
  think he is optimistic in imagining that another port is likely to open for general traffic on the east coast of Scotland so near the existing port of Berwick, and with Leith just round the corner, so to speak. His hopes will be just as likely to be dashed as were my own in the other part of the county, West Lothian, which I represent, when I tried to save Bo'ness docks from extinction.
  The one fact which arises at this stage of the debate is that, in spite of all the efforts which the Government are making—and it would have been a most astounding situation if, in Scotland, any Government of the day had made no efforts at all—to bring new employment, we are still confronted with the fact that our unemployment rate is double that of the United Kingdom. This situation has grown chronic. It is a disease to which we have almost become accustomed, but we must ask, as so many hon. Members have asked so many times, whether we must always continue to be in this drastic and inferior position. Can we be content with the grim fact that for every unemployed person in England there are at least two in Scotland, at any time, slump or boom? Must we be content always to shrug our shoulders and say that it is a pity, but that, owing to Scotland's preponderance of heavy industry, it is just one of those things which, like the weather, cannot be helped, and that what cannot be cured must be endured?
  The time has come when we must say "No" firmly and definitely to all these questions, because there is no logical reason or justification for this condition of double disability for Scottish workers. If it is really true, and I doubt it very much, that it is the preponderance of heavy industry in Scotland which causes this situation, then clearly the Government should take action to adjust the industrial balance.
  In my opinion, what is wrong is not the over-reliance on heavy industry, but mainly, simply and clearly, the lack of sufficient industry of any kind to provide full employment for the Scottish people. There is just not enough industry in Scotland. That is the problem. We have a laissez-faire economy in the United Kingdom at the moment which produces this astounding spectacle—this really crazy state of affairs—in which areas around London are chock-a-block with
  656
  factories and firms are fighting for space to build more. We have local authorities in those areas at their wits' end to find room for the houses, the schools and the hospitals to cope with the ever-growing numbers who flood into their areas to work in those factories.
  At the same time, in large areas in Scotland, we have stagnating industry, derelict factory buildings, a gradual but relentless slowing down of the pulse of industry and a growing number of gaunt, empty, silent and ugly industrial establishments, crumbling monuments to a decade of lost opportunities—lost because of the Government's failure to plan our national resources.
  That is not an over-painted picture. There are areas in Scotland where this is happening. There are hon. Members opposite who well know this; indeed, we have just listened to a speech from one who has admitted that his area is not severely affected and who rather apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), recognising that the problem in her constituency is vastly different. The only complaint which the hon. and gallant Gentleman could level at the moment was by entering a caveat against the use of barracks as a home for juvenile delinquents. I agree with him. I do not think a former barracks is a good place for juvenile delinquents. That was one of a number of comparatively minor problems of that nature which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned. But take a constituency like mine in which there has been no industrial development at all for ten years. On the contrary, there has been and is at the moment industrial decline and decay.
  Due to what I can only describe as the stubborn stupidity of the Treasury—and I am sorry that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has now gone from our midst—the shale oil industry has been forced to contract to half its former size and continues to exist only by a near miracle. In a neighbouring constituency, coal mining is a contracting industry. The viewpoint of those still engaged in it is met, on the whole, with a cynical unconcern, particularly by many Ministers who ought to view with alarm the waste of manpower and skill consequent on the decline of a once great industry on which the industrial strength of our nation has so long depended.

  657
  This week in my constituency the dock and harbour of Bo'ness has closed down. As one who once earned a precarious and laborious living as a dock labourer, I cannot convey to the House the feeling of sadness and desolation engendered by the knowledge that a once busy harbour has reached the end of its service to the country, that the cranes will no longer rattle their loads in and out of the holds of the ships, that ships will no longer cross the harbour bar, that the dock will silt up, be stripped of its equipment, its buildings left to the rats and to decay, and that the dock gates will be closed and strapped so that no vessel will ever pass between them again. I had intended to go to Bo'ness on Tuesday to attend the last rites, but at the last minute my heart failed me. I thought it would be too sad a spectacle.
  Also in my constituency we have a lively and enterprising engineering industry, but it has to scour the world for orders in a never-ending struggle to maintain continuity of employment, and it is still never able to guarantee to its workers that they will have full employment all the year. It is never confidently free from that kind of hidden unemployment known as short-time working. There are derelict pottery and moribund hosiery factories. All these circumstances, and others which I could mention, of a general and gradual decline in the major industries as well as in some of the minor ones have been taking place over the last ten years. Tradesmen and shopkeepers of all kinds are alarmed because of falling receipts over the counters, and overall there is a general atmosphere of industrial ebb tide.
  In those circumstances, I cannot enter this debate today or consider the Government's White Paper with any detached equanimity. I cannot be expected to listen to the Government's propaganda in the Press, on the radio, on posters and in this House with anything but cynicism, if not anger. For many of my constituents the claims of prosperity and boom are a fraud, a sham and a lie. Local authorities, notably the county council and Whitburn Burgh Council, have joined with me in trying to persuade and urge one Ministry or another to co-operate in reversing this decline, and trying to get across the message that there exists a special responsibility to
  658
  avoid the creation of a graveyard area. All these endeavours have hitherto been fruitless.
  Now the county council has decided to build factories, if it can find tenants for them. Once more I urge the Government, in this enterprise, to try hard to help the county council to find the tenants, to give a helping hand with more urgency and to steer industries into this and surrounding areas, for not only my constituency but neighbouring constituencies are similarly affected.
  We are asked in the Motion to take note of the Government's White Paper. The one fact of which I can take note is that it gives no indication that there is any policy for tackling such problems as exist in my constituency and those similarly situated, those which have a declining industry with no alternative employment and no immediate indication that there will be such alternative employment in the future. I am not advocating that we ought to buttress artificially industries of past generations whose products, operations and methods are being by-passed in the current technological revolution. I am not advocating that a dying industry should be kept alive if there is no further need for it, but it is my submission that in these days of change the Government have the duty so to arrange matters that no area becomes an industrial graveyard.
  Old industries should be replaced before they die, and some regard should be had to the ancillary and human problems created by permitting derelict areas to develop. The ancillary problems are those of shopkeepers and others who depend on local industry. The human problems are those of the families of industrially displaced persons in areas with no alternative jobs to offer them hope of a restart in life. I will not dwell on the human problems because it is so difficult to remain objective in one's approach if the emotions of compassion or indignation are roused. I have every right to feel indignation at the way my constituents, and others like them, are being treated.
  I would mention in passing the financial aspect of this matter. Surely in the long run it is cheaper to incur the cost of steering new industries and building advance factories than to have a large

  659
  section of the community drawing unemployment benefit and National Assistance, and drawing on public funds of one kind and another, apart altogether from the fact that if we find jobs rather than National Assistance people's human dignity is preserved. I recognise that the Government have no power except that of persuasion, but I urge that this power of persuasion is used with extra vigour and urgency in areas of this kind.
  The D.A.T.A.C. yardstick of 5 per cent. unemployment over a period is all very well, but in small industrial communities where there is often a large group of small towns, such as in my own constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, an employment exchange does not serve only the population of the town in which it happens to be. There is a hinterland of residential and agricultural population which is included in the total number of employed persons in the area, and to register a figure of 5 per cent. in a town it is necessary to have 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. in the town that is affected. Therefore, this yardstick is not always fair, and some regard ought to be had to the communities as communities, rather than areas and districts.
  May I refer to another point which is germane to the debate? It is the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had representations from the Scottish paper-making industry in the last few days. This industry is alarmed at the possible effect on the industry of the proposed Free Trade Area agreement. Because of the circumstances which I have outlined, I am naturally very much concerned that there should be no additional unemployment in my constituency, particularly in industries which hitherto have been fairly steadfast in their employment potential. Any additional unemployment of any kind naturally fills me with alarm, even in prospect.
  There are three well-known paper-making firms in my constituency. The factors which those firms have brought to our notice—and I think that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House—are that the products of the Scandinavian paper and board factories would remain subject to duty in the six Common Market countries but would be freed from duty in the United Kingdom. The result of this would be a considerable
  660
  increase in imports of paper and board to the United Kingdom and a consequent decrease in indigenous production.
  Industries likely to be adversely affected by such treaties have been told in earlier debates that they should adapt their buildings and plant to other uses, but the plant and machinery of a paper mill cannot be adapted for any purpose except that of making paper or board, and that advice is therefore useless in their case. If mills in my constituency are so affected, there is no alternative employment in the area for the people displaced. The mills are extensive users of coal and such other materials as chemicals, felts and machine wire, and the effect will be widespread over many other industries in Scotland.
  Their case, therefore, is that the result of such an agreement will not be freer trade but restricted trade for the paper-making industry, which is so extensive in Scotland. I understand that representatives of the industry are to meet the Paymaster-General next week and I have no doubt that they will put their case to the Government, but perhaps I may express the hope that the Secretary of State will impress upon his Cabinet colleagues that this industry is important in Scotland, and not merely in my constituency, and that there is a need for such safeguards in any agreement or treaty as will avoid serious effects on an industry of such value and hitherto of such pride to Scotland, because we have always been proud of the high quality of the products of our paper mills.
  I content myself with that, because there are obviously many other hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate. I make a plea, again, for extra, urgent and carefully detailed attention to those areas where the industries are in danger, where employment is less than it was and is steadily growing less every year, and where no alternative work is available. I think that such areas merit additional, careful and urgent attention, and I hope that it will be given to them as one of the results of the debate.
  5.43 p.m.
  Sir Thomas Moore: It has been very interesting to listen to the first three speeches from the Opposition. First, we heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who painted a

  661
  broad picture of industrial conditions in Scotland but became so exaggerated and so grossly distorted in his picture that he ceased to carry any conviction. Next, we heard from the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who was more concerned to concentrate on an attack on private enterprise, ignoring the fact that it is only through the vitality and success of private enterprise that we can maintain our high standard of living.
  Mr. Rankin: Heaven help us.
  Sir T. Moore: At times the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East did not seem to be fully aware of the facts.
  The third speaker was the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor). His was an entirely different type of speech. The impression which he left on me was one of sympathy for his constituency and for those who were feeling the effects of and fall in employment and the halt in industrial expansion. I propose leaving it to my right hon. Friend to deal with other speeches and, after some years of comparative quiescence on the subject of Prestwick Airport, to address my few observations to that subject. I hope that the House will be patient with me in dealing with it once more.
  I do not propose to refer to the question of the tunnel versus the loop road in connection with the main runway, since that is both confused and controversial, and in any case it will have little effect on either industry or employment in Scotland. I will, therefore, concentrate my remarks on the present position of Scottish Aviation Limited.
  As the House is aware, or, at any rate, as Scottish hon. Members are aware, this company is the only design and manufacturing unit for aircraft in Scotland. It was created by our former colleague, the Duke of Hamilton, and his friend, David McIntyre—the first conquerors of Mount Everest—just after the last war, when their operational enterprise in Scotland and elsewhere had been crushed by nationalisation. Through the fortunate acquisition of a brilliant and imaginative designer they produced the Prestwick Pioneer, a single-engined machine, later followed by the Twin, which, as its name implies, has two engines. These machines had at the time of their design and manufacture the unusual advantage of being
  662
  able to take off and land in practically their own length. They were and are, therefore, particularly suitable for use in jungle, forest and desert operations, or wherever no airfields of any kind were available.
  I know that I am repeating what is old history to hon. Members, but I want the House to appreciate the background to my final few remarks. After many set-backs, these aircraft achieved recognition by the Aeronautics Board and were also accepted by the Ministry of Supply, as suitable for the Services. Since that time 44 single Pioneers and 70 Twins have been manufactured and sold, some to the R.A.F. for service in Malaya, Borneo and elsewhere, some direct to colonial Governments and some even to foreign Governments.
  As a consequence, the number of people employed at Prestwick by Scottish Aviation Limited rose to 2,400; and what appeared to all of us to be a flourishing industry had been established, a fact of which Scotland was properly proud. Here I want to pay tribute—even though this may not be palatable to the Opposition—to the Government and their predecessors, in particular the Treasury, the Ministry of Supply and the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the constant interest, encouragement and tangible assistance which they gave and have continued to give to the company.
  Unfortunately, sad times have come upon this gallant little enterprise. It is difficult precisely to state the reasons, except that other manufacturers have recognised the unique advantages of the Pioneer. Therefore, possibly through strong competition or possibly through the untimely death of that amazing personality and salesman, David McIntyre, orders have fallen off to such an extent that this company has now only two aircraft in production and only seven on order. The tragic and, I suppose, inevitable result is that 600 employees, as the hon. Member for Leith said, have already been put off and this very day 400 more are due to receive their notices.
  I would impress on the House, although no doubt some hon. Members already know it, that among these men are some of the most highly skilled craftsmen in the industry, whether in

  663
  Scotland or England. At first, when orders began to fall off, which was about a year ago, it was possible for men to find equivalent employment in England. Although, naturally, they were deeply distressed at having to uproot themselves, with or without their families, many went south of the Border. Today, unhappily, owing to a general recession in the aircraft industry, even that avenue for their further employment has been closed. The ultimate result is that our only native industry of its kind in Scotland, excellently managed as it is, with first-class industrial and labour relations and a splendid team of workers, designers, engineers and draftsmen, is in danger of extinction.
  What can be done about it? Steady orders for two machines a month would be needed to keep even the reduced staff fully employed. With the original number of employees the capacity was four machines a month, and orders for that number—one a week—would be required if the firm is to get back to its old standard of employment and output. It is not a great number with the world as its market, but it means a lot to Prestwick and Ayrshire and, indeed, to Scotland as a whole.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies has done much to bring to the notice of the territories over which he has authority the advantages of the Pioneer for use in those countries. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has also done the same with regard to the countries with which he has contact. The Minister of Supply has proved a most helpful channel for the Services, while the Secretary of State for Scotland—and I should like to pay a special tribute to him here—has been a tower of supporting strength, although he has been somewhat circumscribed in his efforts by the statutory tentacles which were spread over B.E.A. in Scotland when nationalisation first came into operation.
  These, however, are all individual efforts by individual Ministers and Departments. I cannot help thinking that if all these eager, ardent spirits in the Government were brought together in a Government committee presided over by the Secretary of State for Scotland, plus, possibly, the Board of Trade, and they could meet regularly and actively with all the authority of the Government behind
  664
  them, they would find a field or fields in which the sale of this aircraft could be stimulated and guided. If they could find a way of furthering the sale of these machines they would, I am convinced, save this pioneer company and its Pioneer planes. I believe that it is within their power to succeed, and if they did they would certainly earn the deepest gratitude of the people of Scotland including, I venture to say, that of the hon. Member or Ayr.
  I therefore beg the Government to give us some hope in this matter.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), and even more with the workers in the aviation industry whose difficulties he has described, but if the hopes of the workers in the aviation industry in Prestwick depend on the ardour and eagerness of Ministers then the hopes of the hon. Gentleman are not likely to be fulfilled.
  I must also say that one of the compensations for sitting through debates on Scottish industry is the eternal spectacle of all hon. Members opposite—the apostles of private enterprise on the political platforms outside—coming here and, in speech after speech, explaining, I believe irrefutably, that the only hope for their constituents and for the prosperity and full employment of the areas which they represent is increased Government intervention and much more Government planning. These debates prove, if they prove nothing else, that the Socialist case in Scotland should be accepted by everybody, no matter what they declare their own political allegiance to be.
  It has been said by the Economic Secretary that Scotland's difficulty is that employment continues to run at twice the United Kingdom level. The Minister rather gave the impression that this was something which had continued evenly, whatever Administration was in office. I think that there are two misconceptions about this which the Minister did not make completely clear.
  First, although unemployment today in Scotland is still running at about twice the United Kingdom level, it is at a far higher level than it was during the period of the Labour Government. We have had the spectacle of the Chancellor

  665
  giving us what is now the Tory theme tune, namely, that Scottish unemployment has come down by one-third in recent months. Everyone in Scotland is supposed to cheer this, but what has happened is that the Tories have put up unemployment in Scotland deliberately a very great deal and are now trying to claim what credit they can out of bringing it down a very great deal less.
  I got into trouble with the Secretary of State for Scotland, during a previous debate for suggesting that the Government were trying to accustom people to a considerably lower level of so-called full employment, but the events of the last few months tend to prove that what I said then was right. I do not think that many Scottish people are deceived by the Government. I certainly do not think that the 25,000 Scottish workers today signing on for the dole who were in jobs under the Labour Government will be deceived by them.
  Secondly, although unemployment runs at twice the United Kingdom level, this conceals the fact that there is a steady and gradual but inexorably widening gap between the living standards of Scottish people generally and the living standards of those in the Midlands and Southern England. There is also a steadily and gradually widening gap in their job opportunities. This is the big problem which hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies must face. This widening gap is due to deep-seated and historic economic forces. There are two main forces. The first is that the old coal-and-iron basis of our economy which gave Scotland its supremacy in the twentieth century is disappearing. This is leaving the heavy industries of Scotland in a particularly vulnerable position.
  The other point is this. In the words of the distinguished economist, Mr. Colin Clark, himself of Scottish descent, there is the unmistakable fact that in the industrial world in which we now live there is a strong tendency for populations to be highly concentrated in certain limited areas. This phenomenon is not confined to our country.
  It is a world-wide phenomenon, but we see it particularly in the United Kingdom. More and more, the development of industry becomes concentrated
  666
  in the great industrial belt which runs from London, up through the Midlands and into the southern Lancashire-Yorkshire area. I am told that the economic geographers call this a coffin because of its shape on the map. That is a most appropriate expression as far as the isolated fringe areas like Central Scotland, South Wales and Cumberland, are concerned, because the more that these forces develop, the more they spell the death knell of the hopes of people in Scotland for a decent future and for what I regard as the elementary right of every Scot, to expect that he and his children should be able to live out their lives in Scotland with decent jobs and prospects.
  The question is: what can we do about this? We must not underestimate the strength of these forces. They should not be underrated by the Front Bench, either on this side of the House or on the Government side. First, there are the ordinary market forces and the fact that competitive transport costs and the like make it difficult to establish successful industries far away from the big markets of the south.
  There are, however, other less economic factors, the human factors which provide severe obstacles. There is room for a student of economics to write a learned thesis on what might be called the "Economics of Convenience," the first chapter of which might well be entitled, "The influence on the location of industry of the managing director's wife." There must be a number of industries that might otherwise have come to Dundee, Greenock, or North Lanark which have not arrived there because, for some peculiar reason which I cannot fathom, the managing director's wife prefers to live in Stratford-on-Avon or Henley-on-Thames, rather than in Dundee or Greenock.
  There is also the practical problem that the big industries are like the big fleas which attract other fleas to live upon them. Big industries set up a whole complex of ancillary firms which are of great practical convenience in providing spare parts and accessories. It is much easier to lift a telephone and make a local call in Birmingham than to try from Dundee to get refrigerator handles from the Midlands of England. These are difficulties which must be faced.
  I want to suggest some or the ways in which these forces can be overcome. I will illustrate them by examples from my own constituency, partly because I am anxious to draw attention to these things, but also because they are reasonably representative of the kind of problem that we find in running an effective distribution of industry policy. Clearly, the basic problem is to get a big enough stick and a sufficiently juicy carrot. We must have a vigorous Government effort to stop industries going up in the congested areas of the south and a big enough incentive to attract them to the other areas. The background of this must be a climate of steady economic expansion.
  I have never believed that there was any danger of our returning to the sort of slump of the 'thirties, but so long as we have a Conservative Government we will go on having the slightly more sophisticated and more humane boom and slump of recent years. This by itself makes it difficult to encourage industrialists to come to the Development Areas. It is for this reason that I put as my first suggestion to the Secretary of State that a much more vigorous effort must be made to stop the rot in the existing industries in the Development Areas.
  It is much easier in some ways to save existing jobs than to create new ones. I think particularly of the jute industry of Dundee, which, fortunately, is now enjoying more prosperity. It is, however, a precarious prosperity. If at any moment the Government took a further sudden step in removing Government control from the jute industry, there could be immediate massive unemployment in that industry. The Government obstinately refuse to put the jute industry out of this agonising uncertainty. This side of the House has made a firm pledge that when we are in Government, we will continue the protection of the State to ensure continuity of employment in the jute industry and the voters of Dundee will shortly make their choice between these two positions.
  I want to refer to another of the basic industries in a number of the Development Areas, and that is shipbuilding. In Dundee, the local shipbuilding yard—the Caledon Yard—is still one of the biggest employers of labour. It has now laid its last keel, there are no further orders on the order book and unless
  668
  something happens during the months immediately ahead there will be steadily increasing redundancy in the shipbuilding industry in Dundee which will more than cancel out the modest increases in employment that have been obtained by Government effort during the last twelve months or so. I plead with the Government to do everything they can to stop this. If it is possible for Dundee to have its fair share of new naval orders, the fact that Dundee has this unemployment problem should be borne in mind by the Government.
  I think, also, of the fact that the Government are considering making a big capital donation, a piece of lavish National Assistance, to the Cunard Company. If £100 million, or whatever it is, is to be given to the Cunard Line to assist it to build the new liners, I hope that this money will be regarded as an instrument of economic policy and used to spread jobs to those parts of Scotland where they are needed. I hope that it will prove practicable that some of the subcontracting on these liners might be done by some of the smaller yards in Scotland, including the Caledon. There are, of course, others and in Fife the same situation exists. This is a much better justification for that kind of Government assistance to the Cunard Company than simple questions of national prestige. National prestige in great ocean liners comes down in the end to subsidising the first-class fares of American millionaires and British businessmen. I hope, therefore, that something can be done in that direction.
  Then there is the question of encouraging the traditional industries in the Development Areas with Government help to diversify themselves. For some time, I have urged that the jute industry should go into the paper bag business, since this is its principal competitor. I notice that two jute firms in Dundee have now decided to take my advice, but in a somewhat embarrassing and astonishing form. They have decided to set up a paper bag factory with Dundee and some Swedish capital, apparently somewhere in England. This is a good example of how some of the people in private enterprise in Scotland exercise their patriotism.
  I want to know from the Government whether a serious effort has been made by these firms to get the Board of Trade to

  669
  give them the necessary help that would have allowed this undertaking to have been set up in Dundee, so that the capital which has been made out of the efforts of the Dundee people should be used to provide new jobs for the Dundee people. If this has not been done, what are the Government doing about any application for an industrial development certificate for this kind of undertaking down in England? This raises important issues that could, no doubt, be found also in other constituencies.
  Communications should not be underestimated as a means of attracting industry to difficult Development Areas. In Dundee, I refer particularly to the improved road communications by means of the building of a Tay road bridge and to a regular air service between Dundee and London, from Leuchars or Errol airports. These are not simply constituency points, although I make them with all the force I can command.
  I think that it is generally agreed by all who have studied these problems that road communications, in particular, are a vital element if we are to keep transport costs competitive. When it comes to air transport, most firms have to maintain their sales offices down in London and it is a serious occupational hazard for an industrialist who is tempted to come to Dundee to find that he has to face two nights of travel in sleepers if he wants to conduct his business between his London and Dundee offices. These two transport factors could do a great deal to overcome some of the handicaps that Dundee faces.
  Finally, there is the whole question of a really vigorous effort by the Government to overcome the general handicaps inherent in a Development Area. All the Government Departments and agencies ought really to be on their toes about these, and there is no sort of evidence that there is that sense of urgency felt by the Government. It is probably unreasonable to expect them to have it because the whole Development Area operation is completely contrary to their whole philosophy.
  I would mention one small example of the kind of thing I have in mind. There is to be a new refrigerator factory in Dundee, and its construction has been started. It is a £500,000 building project. I understand that the contract for the project has gone to English building contractors although at least one of the
  670
  Dundee firms which submitted tenders for the contract put in a tender within £3,000 of the English figure—within £3,000 on a £500,000 contract. I am not suggesting that these contracts should be given locally if public losses were to accrue in consequence, but I think that in a situation like that the benefit of the doubt ought to have been given to a local contracting firm, so that the maximum amount of employment and the maximum amount of purchasing power arising from this kind of project could have gone to the area itself.
  I mention this not because anything can be done about this case, but because we have another big factory about to come in for the National Cash Register Company. I hope that when the tenders for that are being considered by Scottish Industrial Estates it will bear in mind the necessity of having a distribution of industry policy which is being fought on all possible fronts.
  We have got to have vigour all round all the time. Our main charge against the Government is that what little they and doing now is too little and too late. They have vacillated in all these policies. It is only a year or two ago that Lord Bilsland was saying in another place that the Government had made the Distribution of Industry Act virtually inoperative.
  The gap we are discussing between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom is fundamental and enduring. It does not merely occur and disappear and recur but is always there, and it does not appear that the Government have ever realised this. It has been said that we have been having these debates year after year and that we always say the same things. We are coming to an end of these debates, and coming to a time when we can have real hope of getting action by the Government—but not this Government. In a short time we shall have the opportunity of turning them out of office and of putting into power a party which, as part of its basic economic philosophy, believes in the planned distribution of industry and of the good living conditions which go with it.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) will forgive me if I do not

  671
  follow him exactly, because I want to draw attention to some different points. First, I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) in wanting a general survey of industry in Scotland and of its prospects. I believe that some such review would indeed be useful.
  Mr. Rankin: It could have been useful if thought about seven years ago.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: I was not in the House seven years ago.
  The body charged with making this survey should be the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). It is a highly respected and efficient organisation, and if it has not sufficient staff, outside people of the highest quality can be co-opted and some additional funds made available.
  Mr. Willis: The Scottish Council has already presented a report and suggestions to the Government, and, of course, has expressed its disappointment at the Government's reception of them. The fact is that the Government did not do anything about them. Would there be any guarantee that the Government would do anything about this proposed survey by the Scottish Council?
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: The survey which it has made so far is not along the lines my hon. Friend was suggesting in a previous speech.
  There are some aspects which I should like to mention. All of us tend in our speeches, inside the House and outside it, to say, for example, that transport costs are things which militate against industry coming to Scotland. Are they? Railway freight charges are higher in certain instances, but sea transport around our coasts is perfectly good. We have Aberdeen, Dundee, Leith, Glasgow. All these are nearer likely areas of development in Scotland than the Midlands of England are to the coast. I should like very definite facts and figures on how much transport costs really interfere with industry coming to Scotland, or expanding.
  I should like, further, to see a competent review by experts of the difference between local rates in Scotland and in England, building costs and several other matters. If we can have a table showing the pros and cons then we shall
  672
  have absolutely definite data upon which we can build future suggestions and ideas.
  It seems to me that Scotland has several aces in her hands. They must be played properly. For example, we have pure water, pure air, space, first-class labour, much better food than England, electric power readily available, massive possibilities for recreation and sport. All these things can be used, and they must be of interest to industry generally. So let us have all these items tabulated, and then, on that, we can base our suggestions for the future.
  I have one other point to make which concerns the trading agreement between the outer Seven nations and how this may affect industry in Scotland and particularly the paper industry. We all want to see an expansion of trade. I certainly do, but I must sound a note of warning on this matter. Reduction of the tariffs would help certain industries—for example, engineering, motor cars, chemicals—but all those are doing pretty well at the moment. I cannot really support a policy, or regard it as sensible, which aids some industries which are already doing well and is likely to knock other industries around a bit, particularly paper, which is going to feel the draught of competition very much.
  I would remind the House that in Scotland the paper industry is concentrated primarily on very high quality paper and papers for industrial use. There are 55 mills. They employ 15,000 people, use 1½ million tons of coal a year and provide extra employment in the chemical and transport industries. The first mill was established over three and a half centuries ago.
  The Swedish people have already caused great difficulties to the industry with their competition, particularly in respect of newsprint, and our exports have suffered. The Swedes have several advantages—timber, pulp and paper on their doorstep. They have very cheap electrical power. What the industry in Scotland fears is further integration on the part of the Scandinavian mills and much heavier competition all round. One trump card which they have is that they control all the pulp we need. Those are the facts which give rise to misgivings among the paper manufacturers in Scotland.

  673
  There is the further point that if the Swedes are faced with increased tariffs in the Common Market countries they will be more eager to export to the United Kingdom, and they will go in not only for newsprint but for high-grade paper as well. It may be suggested that our industry can make financial arrangements with the Scandinavian industries or have bigger combines or some sort of cartel. That sounds very nice, but it is not practicable because the Swedes have everything in their favour at the moment and they need not worry about any representations from us or any moves by our Scottish companies.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to study this matter extremely carefully and to discuss it with his colleagues in the Cabinet. I hope that he will listen most carefully to the representations which are to be made next week. The answer may be freer trade up to a point, based on the value or tonnage of trading over the past few years and the application of a quota, or it may be to reduce the tariff very slowly over a number of years. I do not know, but I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will not be bitten by this free trade bug which has seemed to affect the Treasury and the Board of Trade from time to time. I am glad to say that I have never been a member of the Liberal Party and I do not really believe in free trade. I repeat that I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully to the representations that will be made to him.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I have some trepidation in entering into the debate and also some pleasure. It will be the last time that I shall speak in the House of Commons about my constituency. On the other hand, I have a wonderful feeling that this time I shall be free of any suspicion of making a political, vote-catching speech. I shall not be personally affected in any way by the result of the General Election, apart from party feelings.
  I had hoped that I should be able to take part in the debate, because my constituency has the largest rate of unemployment in Scotland. It has been said several times today that the employment situation in Scotland is twice as bad as it is in England, but in Coatbridge
  674
  and Airdrie it is six times as bad as the Scottish average. My people—and I must apologise for using the personal pronoun for I am very far from being a Moses—register at Coatbridge and Airdrie Employment Exchange. We have heard a great deal about the decline of the mines and their closing. It may be my fault or it may be yours, Mr. Speaker, that I have not caught your eye often enough, but we have heard very little about the decline of heavy industry, and that is what primarily affects my constituents.
  I had hoped that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would have been able to shed a little light on this dismal problem. I had hoped even that he might have been able to say something about the experimental factory and the other factories which he has intimated will be coming to Coatbridge. Instead, he talked about the importance of the tourist industry. In Coatbridge we regard the tourist industry, and I do so particularly, as an industry of great importance and as one of prestige.
  We are very proud of Scotland, very proud that all its beauty should be known world-wide. But it was with some humour, mixed with depression, that I read that the noble Lord the Minister of State for Scotland, addressing the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel, had announced a new chief for the Highlands, a superman.
  The noble Lord announced that Mr. Hugh Fraser was to devote his attention to the problems of the Highlands. He said:
  "He is a man of action and is already working on the problem."
  I wonder whether he is following the example of others who work on Scottish problems. I understand that he is the chief of 60 businesses in Scotland, and has now included the Glasgow Herald, the Glasgow Evening Times, and the Glasgow Bulletin and all the subsidiary newspapers attached to that firm.
  It might be said that Hugh Fraser himself may be the cause of a great deal of Scotland's unemployment when one man can look after so many jobs. That is not all. He travels to Carlisle as well. He goes up Sauchiehall Street, down Buchanan Street, and along Argyll Street to Carlisle where he has Binn's, and

  675
  he supervises, in addition, John Barker, Derry & Toms, and Pontings, to say nothing of his exertions to get hold of Harrods.
  "The Highlands are not a dying area"
  according to the noble Lord the Minister of Sate,
  "but are brimful of opportunities waiting to be seized"
  The noble Lord has appointed the right man if it is a case of seizure. Are the Highlands to be subject to a take-over bid? One wonders how long it will be before the House of Commons itself will be taken over. I would say to my colleagues and friends, whom I hope are on both sides of the House, "Watch, therefore, that your lamps be kept trimmed and burning, for you know neither the day nor the hour when the House of Fraser cometh."
  The tourist industry is important. Scotland has great versatility and a great potential. It not merely attracts tourists and has the finest scenery in the world, but it has had a record United Kingdom output in the basic industries. I can remember that when my party was on the opposite side of the House I received a reply at Question Time of which I was very proud, to the effect that the Clyde was responsible for 38 per cent. of United Kingdom shipbuilding. For heavy industry the figure was 28 per cent. We were then on the up and up.
  I am sorry to say that that is not now the case. Officials in Coatbridge have prepared some information for me. I am greatly indebted to them for working overtime on this subject and for often meeting me after hours, even on a Sunday afternoon, and always being available to help me at any time. I am sorry to say that the present position is not very hopeful. Hon. Members will remember that a year ago we were reaching the peak of depression and we had deputations to Edinburgh and to London, and so on. We were promised factories.
  I now compare the figures for the end of June with the dreadful figures of last year. By the end of June last year, the unemployment figures had soared from a total of 1,025 to 2,070, but by this time last week they had reached 2,126. In building and civil engineering alone, the unemployment figure for last year had
  676
  soared to 146, but in June this year it had reached 277. In Airdrie the position is worse, the figure for building and civil engineering being 156 compared with 110 a year ago.
  In tube manufacturing in Airdrie it is still rising, 76 last week against 70 last year. The wholly unemployed in steel sheet rolling showed an increase of 100 per cent. with a decrease of 50 per cent. in those temporarily stopped. In the heavier steel industries, steel manufacture and rerolling. May's figure was 272 against 293 last week. In Airdrie the corresponding figure was 142 last week compared with 97 in May.
  I met some of the employers, although some of them would not meet me. Some of them, like Sr Andrew McCance, who have the ear of the Prime Minister and representatives of Stewarts and Lloyds are coming to meet me. I know that Stewarts and Lloyds are not exceedingly busy, but they are busy in Corby and not busy in Coatbridge, as the figures show. I understand that the reason is that the firm makes smaller pipes in Corby while in Coatbridge they have always made very large pipelines and were affected by the events at Suez. They are still in the doldrums. Other employers such as Anderson Bros., and the heavy engineering firm of Morrison Leith Ltd., blame the shipbuilding depression and say that they are suffering the effects of shipping being in the doldrums.
  I do not know the answer and we do not appear to have an answer. Mr. Parker of the Scottish Coal Board has said that there will be jobs for all the miners displaced in Scotland, but the jobs are probably for men of the wrong age and are in the wrong places. I do not see even that ray of hope for the heavy industries of Coatbridge.
  If I were asked whether we were not benefitting from the steel strip mill, I could only quote Sir Andrew McCance, who has said that he can offer no hope for Coatbridge and Airdrie and that Motherwell and district has a sufficient reservoir of labour for his firm's requirements.
  It is with some regret that I say that this kind of speech must be my last speech about my constituency. Some of my constituents are bitterly disappointed that I have intimated that I am to retire. To get me to reconsider my

  677
  decision, some of them have told me that I am leaving them with this problem. I am very depressed at the thought of that. I am glad that my constituency was chosen as the site for the experimental factory and very glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that two other factories are to be built and that two more are in prospect. I hope that we shall hear some encouraging details about these factories. How soon is the experimental factory to be built? What are the prospects?
  Coatbridge has a population of 50,000 and is dependent on heavy industry, with a history of unemployment going back to 1931, when our unemployment rate was the highest in Scotland, actually reaching 56 per cent. It is natural that we should have grave doubts about the future and that we should be very anxious to see that some hope is given for the future, some diversification of industry which will bring about that end which all men and women want, a purpose and work. I hope that I shall hear a reply which will bring that hope to my constituency.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Maitland: I am particularly happy, as I am by profession a journalist, that it should fall to me to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) who has just made her farewell speech, because one of the many characteristics of her speeches, which both sides of the House have always enjoyed, is her infallible instinct for the headlines. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say with absolute sincerity that we shall miss her very much.
  The unfailing courtesy of the hon. Lady is common knowledge. Her endless good humour which taunts us on both sides of the House, her tremendous humanity, her pleadings from the bottom of her heart about all the people in her constituency have moved us and made her, as she rightly said, a friend of Members on both sides of the House. I, for one, shall always miss what I shall call the mellifluous tones of her voice which have particularly endeared her to hon. Members.
  Speeches from hon. Members opposite in the debates today and a month ago have been something of a litany about the degree to which the State could or
  678
  should intervene in industry and the degree to which it should enjoy a position of control. I do not want to labour this aspect but to come on to matters which I believe to be less sterile and more constructive. It is, however, fair to ask how far the Labour Party during six years of office took charge of Scottish industry. How far did it plan Scottish industrial resources, and how far, if it did so, did it bring satisfactory results?
  If Scottish industry is controlled, at the end of the day its life would still depend on access to overseas markets. How far would State control of Scottish industry, by whatever means, assist those industries to conquer markets overseas? I reckon that the calculation that I have made many times is substantially sound. For every £1 million worth of overseas orders for capital goods received by this country there is directly created about 1,000 jobs for a year, and indirectly, on the principle of Keynes' multiplier effect, many more. I do not know how State control would stimulate Scotland's capacity to do better in overseas markets. Certainly the example of one nationalised industry which has given to us a tremendous example of disinvestment is not much of an advertisement for State control. The National Coal Board's disinvestment has been substantial and is not, in itself, a great justification either for State control, or for the capacity of a State-controlled enterprise to control markets at home, let alone oversea.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: State control is not on trial at the moment. In Scotland private industry has had 150 years to prove itself. The charge that has been made today is that, whether or not it is due to private industry, the fact is that private industry is not able to provide work and prosperity for the people of Scotland. So far every hon. Member opposite has been asking for assistance for private industry. It is not for us to say anything about State control. If the hon. Gentleman believes in private industry, he should tell us how it will work; otherwise the prospect is very black indeed even if the hon. Gentleman's picture is correct.
  Mr. Maitland: That point at issue is how far Government investment in private enterprise should be accompanied

  679
  by a measure of Government control. That was the issue that was put with some force and vigour by the Opposition in the first of these two-day debates. My view is that the Government's attitude is right. It is that when private industry needs this, it should be assisted on a loan basis without Government control, because I do not believe that State control facilitates the conquest of markets oversea.
  I wish to join with others in paying tribute to the imaginative approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart). There is a strong case for a special study to draw up a five-year plan or programme for Scotland. I believe that because Scottish conditions are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe it because the present D.A.T.A.C. policy, and the present application of the distribution of industry policy, is a United Kingdom and not a Scottish policy. I believe it because if special treatment is possible for Ulster, the same should be possible for Scotland. I believe it because the present application of the distribution of industry policy does not take account of the problem of depopulation and the consequential ruin that goes with it.
  The opening paragraphs of the Report that we are invited to take note of today refer to population and employment. In the language that we are accustomed to in these reports we are always told that population is rising, and we may sometimes be told that employment is rising also. Of course, we are not told that this year. But, above all, we are not told anything about depopulation in some areas. That is my first criticism of the Report.
  In the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee we are accustomed to talking about the depopulation of the Highlands. Those of us who represent Lowland constituencies are accustomed to hearing this theme discussed ad nauseam. While we are constantly being reminded of the needs of the Highlands, and it is admitted by the Government that there is a case for trying to steer industry to the Highlands; we are not told—and the Government do not seem to recognise this and never have, on either side of the House—of the need to
  680
  try to steer industry to the Lowland areas.
  I have a great deal of sympathy for the gallant battle fought by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) who has sat as an Independent in this House for some time. I have much sympathy with his courage and independence because I have sat as an Independent Unionist myself and it takes some courage to do so. I am sorry that he is not here at the moment but I hope that he will come back to the party soon and pull his weight with the rest of us.
  What are we to do and what is being done about the depopulation of the Lowlands? In a document that was circulated in time for the first of these two-day debates, I notice that the Scottish Council made a point about the need to relate assistance to industry to the problem of depopulation. On page 3 of this Memorandum it says:
  "The Council accordingly recommends that more extensive official facilities, defined blow, should be provided in the following areas."
  The Memorandum mentions a number of counties in various parts of Scotland and adds:
  "Areas of persistent high employment or rapid depopulation."
  I have mentioned this problem of depopulation year after year in what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to as these "ritual debates". One of the tragedies of these debates is that we seem to make the same speeches year after year. The only difference is that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor), who I am glad is still in his seat, this year had to recite a sort of solemn requiem about Bo'ness, whereas in previous years he was still pleading for the place to be kept alive.
  I have mentioned Leadhills in the debates year after year. It has been losing population. Tarbrax is another place that was almost completely depopulated. If there were no American soldiers in Scotland the houses there would be virtually unoccupied. The village of Forth, which is known to hon. Members opposite, has lost some 300 families in the last six years. That might well amount to something like 1,200 people. The landward area which I represent—the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire—has lost something like

  681
  fifty families a year for the last ten years. Finally, we have Douglas which has been losing one-third of its population and half its employment within a matter months.
  In the light of this problem of depopulation, I agree with the Government's broad overspill policy which I must in fairness say was not originated by this Government. It was a development of the Clyde Valley plan contrived by the Government of hon. Members opposite, but I heartily support the principle of this essentially bi-partisan overspill programme.
  I only regret that in paragraphs 38 to 41 of the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland there is some glossing over of the difficulties. It is true that a number of town councils and one or two new town Corporations have made overspill arrangements with Glasgow, but even with the East Kilbride Development Corporation there are puzzling delays in regard to the conclusion of an overspill agreement. We all know that, in general, county councils are holding back from concluding these overspill agreements, and it is certainly the case that the Lanark County Council, despite an urgent plea from the District Council of Douglas, is holding back from concluding one. This problem of the holding back of county councils is not faced in the Report.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire) rose—
  Mr. Maitland: I am sorry. Time is short, and others want to speak. I have a good deal to say. I did not interrupt anybody in our last debate and I am sure that the hon. Member will forbear.
  Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement. He said that Lanark County Council was delaying the conclusion of an overspill agreement.
  Mr. Maitland: No. I said that the East Kilbride Development Corporation had not concluded such an agreement, and that there was some delay. I understand that the Lanark County Council is holding back completely from the very idea of an overspill agreement.
  I say that it is important for my right hon. Friend to face the fact that this overspill policy will work only if efforts are made to convince local authorities
  682
  —primarily county authorities—that an overspill agreement does not mean importing unemployment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take steps to that end.
  The distribution of industry policy, which has been the principal subject matter of this two-day debate, is touched upon in paragraph 25, which gives us figures in respect of new factory building and extensions. For the whole of Scotland, the difference between 1957 and 1958 is only 80,000 sq. ft. In 1957 the figure was 4,046,000 sq. ft. and in 1958 it was 3,968,000. That is for the whole of Scotland, but in respect of the Development Areas there is a sharp decline, amounting to 15 per cent., from 3,013,000 sq. ft. to 2,548,000. There has been a fall off of nearly 500,000 sq. ft. in new building in the Development Areas. In part, no doubt, that reflects the recession—and none will deny that there has been a recession, even though it is normal for the Opposition to try to blame us for it in a pre-election period.
  There is no doubt that Scotland has been suffering because of a hesitation on the part of American industry to invest over here, owing to the doubtful position of the United Kingdom in relation to Europe. I have discussed this question with American industrialists, who have told me that owing to the breakdown of the project for a European Free Trade Area, to gird the Common Market with another trading area, there has been a great deal of holding back on the part of American capital in the last year.
  Now although the paper interests in Scotland make the case they must make, in self-defence, about the difficulties that threaten them with regard to a trading area with the Outer Seven, I hope they will not speak too loud too soon, but will first view the whole thing in perspective. If the project for the Outer Seven matures, it might be easier to get some new American investment in Scotland, to our general advantage.
  There is one other facet of the difficulty of securing development. I should like to illustrate it by referring to a particular case, although I do not want to name anybody, for good reasons. It sometimes happens that industrialists or investors are deterred from developing a certain project by political considerations. I can think of a case of a firm which was distressed

  683
  and disappointed at the quite unfair and unworthy criticism which which was made of it locally in Carluke, in regard to its reopening of factory premises which it had been using as a store. Narking, critical remarks may just make the difference between the company saying, "All right, we will open up that factory", and saying, "We will keep it as a store". That is a danger which has occurred in Scottish affairs more than once in the last year or two, and is no doubt to be expected as a General Election approaches and people's tempers rise. But it is a factor in the encouragement of investment which we should do well to watch, in the interests of all our people.
  The figures for factories for 1957—of 3 million sq. ft. in Development Areas and 4 million sq. ft. overall—are not good enough. The annual Survey of the Clydesdale Bank for 1958, referring to the volume of factory building, says:
  "It appears likely that if existing factories are to be replaced and provision made for an expansion in industrial employment in Scotland as well as for some transfer of population from Glasgow to other centres, the completion of new factory buildings will have to be sustained at, if not exceed, the annual figure of close on 5 million sq. ft. that was recorded in 1957."
  In its Memorandum, the Scottish Council estimates that a yearly figure of 6 million sq. ft. rather than 5 million sq. ft., should be the target.
  This brings me to a serious question concerning our general distribution of industry policy. I wonder whether it is rightly conceived. There is a very apt comment upon it in the editorial of the June issue of Town and Country Planning. The leading article is headed, "Work to the Workers?" It is concerned with the D.A.T.A.C. scheme to try to stimulate new employment in areas of high and persistent unemployment, rather than space it more widely, and it says:
  "The general goal of 'bringing work to the workers' continues to possess a potent appeal, but the details of its application are slowly changing. The latest Government measure proposes help for all areas whose unemployment rate is judged excessive. … In all of this there is much that is wise, but some things, too, that are short-sighted. In the first place, the need for achieving a healthier balance of growth between the main regions of Great Britain still exists and has great importance. … It would certainly be wise to make renewed efforts to encourage industrial growth in Northern England, Scotland and Wales. … And any subsidisation devoted to this
  684
  purpose can reasonably be regarded as some offset to the heavy though often concealed subsidisation (on costlier public services, higher public salaries and wages, cultural subsidies, etc.) provided for London. … It does not follow that 'work to the workers' is invariably a sound principle. It may seem politically rewarding to try and mop up pockets of unemployment wherever they occur, and this no doubt explains the renewed and closer attention paid to the subject by both main parties. But it is still more important to locate the new industries in places where they can operate efficiently and where their workers can enjoy good living conditions and healthy surroundings. This is not possible if new employment is pumped into already closely congested areas such as Merseyside or Clydeside. … It is time to review the development area programme, and its recent modifications, from the viewpoint of creating really satisfactory regional economies. By considering the region, rather than the localised zones of unemployment, it is possible to find the best growing-points for industry and population, and to plan transport improvements, public services, and other matters accordingly."
  Yet, the entire distribution of industry policy which the present Government inherited from the Labour Government of 1945—I appreciated the intervention of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)—is now cramped and limited, as I understand it, by the criterion established for the D.A.T.A.C. schemes.
  No doubt my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will recognise his own words which I wish to quote from a letter of 8th May which he wrote to me. He said:
  "Many places in Development Areas now have a lower rate of unemployment than that of places outside the Development Areas."
  Of course, but, we are talking about depopulation, which I contend is a consideration we should have very much in mind. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade wrote to me on 8th May:
  "I am afraid we must stand by the decision that priority must be given to areas which at present are unfortunate enough to have high unemployment."
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not mind my quoting from his letters. He seemed to put it succinctly in a letter of 29th May in which he said:
  "It is contrary to Government policy, in view of the new Act specially introduced in 1958 to deal with local unemployment, to make use of the Treasury powers under Section 4 of the 1945 Act to give assistance for reasons of unemployment in places which do not qualify for assistance under the 1958 Act. I can hold out no hope of a reversal of this policy in the case of Douglas."

  685
  That letter was in reply to a letter of mine drawing attention to the powers under the 1945 Act, for the Secretary of State to make grants and loans for basic services and for the Treasury to give financial help to industrial undertakings and for the Board of Trade to build subsidised factories.
  I concede that the Government have come a little way toward breaking down the limitations of their D.A.T.A.C. definition. I appreciate the replies which I received on 14th May and 2nd June. I had asked whether D.A.T.A.C. assistance would be given to firms which established their undertakings outside what is technically defined as a D.A.T.A.C. area. On 2nd June I was told
  "… applications for financial assistance by any firm would be considered, provided it would offer employment to workers in an adjacent D.A.T.A.C. area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1959; Vol. 606, c. 19.]
  That represents an advance. But I must also draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that it was a step back from the Answer given to me on 14th May when he said:
  "Such applications would be fully considered if they would help employment in the adjoining D.A.T.A.C. areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 1411.]
  There is an important distinction here. Suppose a factory is established outside a D.A.T.A.C. area and draws its employees from people living outside the area. That may well be a help to employment inside the D.A.T.A.C. area, because the people now travelling to the D.A.T.A.C. area to work would be able to work at home and thus more jobs would be created inside the D.A.T.A.C. area. I hope that the Government will study the point with some care. I raise it now with emphasis, and I seek the indulgence of the House in pressing this, because I have a particular project in mind, concerning the use of raw materials mined outside a D.A.T.A.C. area.
  Would a project established to process that raw material qualify for D.A.T.A.C. help only if the plant is set up inside a D.A.T.A.C. area, which would involve heavy transport costs for conveying the raw material to the factory? Or would it qualify if the whole thing was established near the source of the raw material; in which case it would be a more economic proposition, employing
  686
  local people who would be able to work there instead of travelling into a D.A.T.A.C. area, and so easing the position within the D.A.T.A.C. area?
  I commend this point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I appreciate the sympathy which he has shown so far to the whole problem, but I ask him to bear this in mind and I am happy that he is present in the Chamber because he has given much attention to my constant pleas on this subject.
  This question of travelling to work is more important than it would appear. I was present when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade paid a very welcome, if all too brief, visit to Lanark some months ago and met two of our district councils. The point was made then about the need for industry locally, to save people from having to travel to work. But I got the feeling that in the rush of the occasion the Parliamentary Secretary did not fully appreciate the point which was being made. It is that if people are to spend say, £1 a week—or it may be 30s.—on travelling to work somewhere else, that money is being spent on an activity which is wholly unproductive, namely, transport. What I referred to earlier as the Keynes multiplier effect does not come into operation. But if that money stayed in the pockets of the people who earned it, and it was used for local expenditure on consumer goods, it would have a work-creating effect. Meantime, the demand for transport to travel elsewhere is siphoning capital into something which is not in itself productive. Therefore, I plead with the Government to give further thought to the whole question of the implication of the D.A.T.A.C. area definitions on travelling in the kind of case which I have listed, and whether it is economic to keep the application of the 1945 Act so narrowly to the D.A.T.A.C. definitions of 1958.
  We have been told that D.A.T.A.C. applications take up to three months to process. I know that it would be a great mistake to do the job in a shoddy manner, but there is a degree of uncertainty in some quarters where applications have been pending for some time. I hope that the Treasury can do something to speed them up. Then there is a limitation under the D.A.T.A.C. scheme that a firm already established does not

  687
  apparently quality for grant help, it the application of the money will be of a revenue-producing character. Apparently a firm can get a grant to help with facilities like an approach road, or a parking area, or for strengthening the structure of the factory, or to provide canteens and amenities of that sort, which are all valuable but do not stimulate employment.
  I wonder whether the Government are adopting too narrow a policy in their application of their own D.A.T.A.C. rules. If a firm is established, but feels that it would be unwise to expand beyond a certain tempo with its own resources, and if at the same time expansion beyond that tempo would create new employment, surely that would create grounds for giving grant help, even though the factory or firm might eventually derive a profit from it.
  There is also the question of steering Government orders. I have in mind a light engineering factory which is doing excellent work and which despite the limitations of D.A.T.A.C., could expand if it had a sufficient flow of orders coming in. I beleive that Government orders could be steered to this factory. My hon. Friends in the Government know all about this because I have spoken about it on a number of occasions. If Government orders were steered in that direction it would be a useful and fecund activity.
  I believe that the distribution of industry policy, as at present conducted, is inadequate. I believe there to be a whole range of other considerations which should be borne in mind, for example, the steering of orders and the anticipation of things like colliery closures. Apparently, the twenty colliery closures came on us like a clap of thunder and there was very little national planning in anticipation of it. That is the sort of matter which would naturally come within the purview of the kind of study proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Fife, East. There are questions like the guiding of industry in relation to the problems of transport. The general overall argument put out so well by the Scottish Council was a strong, sound economic argument, that very considerable sums could have been spent in the last few years on redevelopment as well as on unemployment relief.
  All these matters would be proper subjects for the study that my hon. Friend suggested. That is why I plead with the Government to take due note of his suggestions. Although I have spoken in a mildly critical, but I hope objective, way of the Government who I so ardently support—now that I am no longer independent—I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues have given a lot of attention to these problems. I think they are unduly restricting themselves by their definitions, and I hope that they will see fit to break away from those definitions and initiate a Scottish policy for Scotland.
  7.12 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) finds himself in very great difficulty today. His speech was a criticism of his own Government, yet in the last few sentences he told us that he was an ardent supporter of this Government. He spent a fair amount of time in going over the Questions which he has raised in the House about Douglas and how D.A.T.A.C. might apply to it. He seemed to get a ray of hope from a number of Answers, some of which seemed contradictory.
  In North Lanarkshire I do not have these problems about D.A.T.A.C. My area has been badly hit, like Douglas, but as it is a Development Area all the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Acts apply. Just as the hon. Member has found in Douglas, so I have found in my area, that nothing has happened to take care of the problems. The hon. Gentleman said that the 20 closures seemed to come about without previous knowledge or plan.
  I have a speech here which I made in a similar debate on 14th July, 1953, in which I pointed out to the Government what the National Coal Board had said about what was to happen in Lanarkshire in ten years' time. What was predicted is exactly what has happened. If the Government had realised the effect of National Coal Board planning and what was to happen in the mining industry of Scotland they could have taken steps to mitigate the social evils that have arisen.

  689
  The only other point I will take up from the speech of the hon. Member for Lanark is the criticism of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), that when my hon. Friend was talking about disinvestment he did not speak of the National Coal Board. Of course, he could not when he was dealing with disinvestment. Never at any time in the history of the coal industry has so much capital investment gone into it in Scotland as in the period from 1947. Some of the closures would not have come so quickly had it not been that the Government, by pulling back production in this country, hastened the closure of pits. I have no doubt that it was the Government's economic policy almost alone that brought about the sudden closure of the pit in Douglas and the others in my constituency.
  I now turn to other matters. In Scotland we have about 9 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, but, according to the latest figures published only this week, we also have 20 6 per cent. of the country's unemployed. A much more serious figure relates to boys under 18 years of age. Scotland has 27·6 per cent., or more than a quarter, of all the young men unemployed in the United Kingdom and 18 per cent. of the girls under 18 years of age who are unemployed. These are shocking figures. Many of these young people are school leavers. I have in my constituency school leavers who have been unemployed since their school closed this time last year and others who have been unemployed since their schools closed at Christmas or at Easter. What a tragedy it is for a boy or girl leaving school to have no work and to have to roam the streets, feeling completely unwanted.
  As to unemployment in my constituency, I would refer again to the speech I made in 1953, in which I warned the Government that if they did not take action in certain areas we should be faced with almost total dereliction. On 11th May, 1959, I was told by the Minister of Labour that in the area covered by the Shotts Employment Exchange—including a number of places that have been hit by the closures—5·1 per cent. of the insured population are unemployed. Why I interrupted the Economic Secretary to ask in which areas
  690
  there had been an increase of unemployment from May to June was that the Minister of Labour sent me figures for this area for 15th June. They show that, far from having decreased over the last month, unemployment has increased.
  There is an even blacker side to the picture. The Government did away with Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, which means that in an area like mine where there is no alternative employment, a time comes when unemployment benefit can no longer be paid to unemployed men and women. Apart from the latest closures, who are the men who are unemployed? Mainly miners, a percentage of whom, very often, are suffering from pneumoconiosis.
  I began to wonder how many workers in the area covered by the Shotts Employment Exchange were in receipt of sickness benefit, and I asked for the figures. They show that in this area we have approximately 700 insured workers who have been in receipt of sickness benefit for six months or more. That means that we have over 5 per cent. unemployed, but we have an additional 9 per cent. in receipt of sickness benefit for more than six months. The Government may say that these people are not fit for work, but I say that if the majority of them were in the London area or in the Midlands they would be working. They may not be able to work fifty-two weeks a year, but they would be able to hold down a light job, although at times they might be off work and on sickness benefit because of pneumoconiosis. I am convinced that if they lived in an area of full employment many of them would be in a job today.
  The opportunity for jobs for youths in the area is almost nil. Before the schools closed on Tuesday of this week there were within that one area of villages covered by the Shotts Employment Exchange fifty-five boys and girls without a job. I interviewed the youth employment officer and he had the figures of those who left the junior secondary schools in the area on Tuesday of this week. There would be 102 boys and girls leaving and ready for a job. Carrying out his duty, he notified all the employers in the area asking for information of jobs which they had available and by Friday of last week he had received a number of replies, but not a

  691
  single job was available from all those employers. That shows how serious the position is. Not only are there the 102 leaving junior secondary schools, but there are a number of senior secondary schools also in this area where I was unable to obtain the figures of school-leavers. The reason given by the youth employment officer was the suspension of recruitment for the mines, but it is even more serious than that because the mines and the mining industry are now disappearing completely from that area.
  I have dealt with unemployment and those who are long-term recipients of sickness benefit, but in all these debates during the period of office of the present Government I have never at any time based my case for alternative industry coming to the area on the figures of unemployment. I can do that today, but I prefer to base it on what is to be the future of the area.
  A number of years ago I brought a very high-powered deputation from Lanarkshire County Council to meet Ministers in London to discuss employment for this area. On Friday of last week the Secretary of State received a deputation in St. Andrew's House. He received it very courteously and listened carefully to what it had to say, and he had officials from the various Ministries present. He saw how responsible were the people who came with me and how representative they were of all the different aspects of life in that area. He came out and saw about 100 men and women, good people whose only desire was to ensure that their villages should have a life in the future.
  From January, 1947, to May, 1959, in the central east area of the National Coal Board there has been a reduction of 2,400 in the number of miners employed. That is in one district which covers the area about which I have been speaking and part of the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor). There has been a reduction of 17·2 per cent. of mining jobs there. In the Shotts, Cleland and Salsburgh area, six collieries and two mines have closed since 1947 and 2,161 mining jobs in that small area alone have disappeared. On the exchange books covering the Shotts area there are 101 miners unemployed. It is quite wrong to say that the National Coal Board can
  692
  provide work for all the miners when pits close, because of the men who worked in Southfield, the latest pit to close, over sixty miners are still without a job. Calderhead Colliery closed in August last year, almost a year ago, and of those living in my area—the only ones about whom I have information—fifteen are still unemployed.
  Yesterday, in answer to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), the Minister of Labour said:
  "I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that aspect of the matter, because the social effect of closures must be studied along with the economic effects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July. 1959; Vol. 608, c. 442.]
  Surely the Minister of Labour must know that I and other hon. Members have year after year been emphasising the dire social effects of what is happening through the closing of pits in our constituencies. It is not only the closure of pits in this area which is serious, but in Newmains the Coltness Ironworks closed during the time of this Government and more than 600 further jobs disappeared. Again, since the end of the war, pig iron production in Shotts disappeared. What have we got in place of all those 3,000 to 4,000 jobs which have disappeared? We have in their place one industry, which certainly is thriving at present, but it is employing only 460 people. The hon. Member for Lanark may fight as hard as he likes to get D.A.T.A.C. to apply to Douglas. We have not got that fight—D.A.T.A.C. applies to our area—but we have not got the industry. This requires urgent action by the Government which they are not willing to take.
  I turn to the reduction in the number of people living in the area. The earliest figures I could get from the Minister show that in 1952 the number of insured workers covered by the Shotts Employment Exchange was 8,860. In 1958 the total was 7,510. The total has been further reduced since then for every week families are moving out of the area. In those six years there has been a total reduction of the insured population of 15·2 per cent. If nothing is done about it, I warn the Government that the area will become completely derelict.
  I want to take a few minutes more to refer to the other end of my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for

  693
  Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) dealt very fully with the question of employment in her constituency and with the percentage of unemployed. I have the greatest difficulty, except in the case of the Shotts Employment Exchange which is the only one which covers my area, in getting the figures, as does the hon. Member for Lanark.
  Mr. Patrick Maitland Mr. Patrick Maitland indicated assent.
  Miss Herbison: The hon. Member nods his head. He has the same difficulty. Many of my villages in North Lanark are covered by the Airdrie Employment Exchange and the Coatbridge Employment Exchange. There are in the steel works at Gartcosh 600 fewer men working today than there were two years ago. In the brickworks at Glenboig there has been great redundancy. The paper mills at Calder-cruix have made representations to me, which I took up with the President of the Board of Trade, and I was informed about the meeting that was to take place with the Minister soon. There was redundancy in these paper mills last year. There is nothing in that area at all so far to provide alternative work.
  The Minister today spoke about how the production of steel strip would encourage industry to come to our country. It is only by planning beforehand that we shall get it. We are getting a very much smaller production of strip steel than Wales is getting in its new strip steel mill. It is of the greatest importance that we should use all of our powers under the Distribution of Industry Act in order to plan for factory space to be made available there when steel strip begins to come from the Ravenscraig mill.
  I have raised this matter before. At this end of my constituency the finished product will come from the strip mill in Gartcosh, and I understand that this week building is beginning in Gartcosh. It is a very big area. I beg the Government to put more planning into it. We are getting near the end of this Parliament. We on this side of the House have pleaded for something to be done for Scotland. I have very little faith that this Government will do much about the problems raised by myself or by the hon. Member for Lanark. My great hope is that, if an election comes
  694
  in October, we shall have a Labour Government which knows the needs of South Lanark, North Lanark and the rest of Scotland, and a Government who will ensure that there will be a real distribution of industry policy for those good, active people with plenty of initiative in my constituency who are ready to work hard at any type of work that is provided.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Noble: I am sure that the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will not expect me to follow her on the problems and difficulties of Lanarkshire.
  As a black face sheep farmer, I know the dangers of going anywhere near Lanark market, where a nod at the wrong moment can cost one thousands. As a farmer, I also share a pride in the work of Scottish farmers as a whole in increasing productivity and in their greatly increased efficiency over the last twenty-five years. That increase in efficiency has, unfortunately, produced one result which is not perhaps for the benefit of those of whom we are speaking in the debate today. We have employed 25,000 fewer people on the land in the last twenty years due almost entirely to our increased efficiency. The loss of these people has been a great sorrow to the countryside, and we should like very much to be able to draw back some of those from the towns, thereby helping them in their problems of unemployment and of housing.
  I should have liked to have said to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), had he been in his place, that if he is getting his student to write a chapter on the importance in employment of the preferences of the manager's wife, he should include among the places which the manager's wife apparently does not like, not only Dundee, but Argyllshire, because it is not easy to get people to bring industry into the Highlands, and it is not easy for those of us engaged in agriculture to employ a great many more people.
  There is only one hope in that direction. That is if, in future, as I think may be possible, we can break through what seems at the moment to be the top level of the stocking of our hill ground. If we can, I think that it will probably

  695
  come only through the use of aeroplanes for spraying the bracken and putting on fertilisers. This, perhaps, may be of some help to Scottish Aviation in its ideas.
  I feel that it is possible to get a number of industries back to the Highlands and particularly those based on the raw materials that we produce there. If we are to do that, the outstanding opportunity which seems to be available at the moment—because it is the outstanding raw material which is available—is the introduction of mills to deal with timber. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who heard me speaking briefly on this subject upstairs this morning will forgive me if I develop it a little further by saying this. The forests in Scotland, planted both by the Forestry Commission and by private owners, are growing up fast. It is quite possible that in the near future a great deal more timber may have to be imported from Russia in return for extra trade with her, and from the Scandinavian countries, if the problems which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) suggested come about.
  If that is so, it seems to me that the right policy for the Government now is to encourage the setting up of pulp mills, chip mills and other types of mills, whichever are the most suitable, and that those mills should be on or near the coast, so that the raw material from abroad can come immediately to those mills and keep them operating now, and so that, in a few years' time, the timber that we are producing and which is visibly growing on the hills of Scotland will have a market close at hand to take it. I feel, also, that if we can look upon this primarily as a problem of sea transport, we can revolutionise the whole of our transport ideas concerning particularly the north and west coasts.
  These are fairly scattered areas, but there is a possibility of great areas of ground being planted where, at the moment, there is no way of getting the timber out. A big plan on those lines could do much to bring immediate help to Highland areas and to give encouragement to more planting of trees. It would also help by starting a movement to get other ancillary industries in the area.
  696
  I am sorry that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is not in his place, because I wished to point out to him the problems of quarrying in parts of the Western Highlands, for instance, sand near Lochaline or diatomite or kyanite or others of the new minerals which are being found and which I hope will be used. Wherever there are mining and quarrying enterprises in existence, there is a genuine feeling of sorrow that the suggested Amendments to the Finance Bill, which have been placed on the Notice Paper during the last two or three years, have not yet been accepted by the Government. Some help could be given to these quarrying industries to make them more profitable and more likely to employ additional labour.
  The last subject on which I want to touch has been mentioned several times in the debate. I refer to D.A.T.A.C. Earlier today, when the Economic Secretary gave the number of jobs which would be made available by schemes already approved—a figure of 425—there were signs of misery from the Opposition, who thought that it was an insignificant total. I assure them that while 425 jobs may be very small beer in such constituencies as Lanark and other constituencies in the big industrial belt, the position is quite different in the Highlands. In the first place, this is only a start, and it can be extremely important.
  In many areas of my constituency, if I could get a small industry going which would employ 20 people and pay them a good living wage, the effect of it would spread far beyond those 20 people. It would involve the shopkeepers and all the other people who go to make up a community. Once depopulation reaches a certain level it is impossible for a community to live, as it were, by taking in its own washing. There is a great future for a number of small industries, helped and supported by D.A.T.A.C. and employing perhaps only 20 to 50 people each. They would bring a sense of community life to the Highlands without spoiling in any way their essential beauty.
  May I stress to the Economic Secretary the importance of getting the D.A.T.A.C. schemes through as quickly as is reasonable? I do not think that any of us want schemes rushed through without proper thought, with the possibility of their collapse after a few

  697
  months, but I know of schemes in my constituency in respect of which applications have been made for many months, certainly more than six months. It may well be that because they are small people they are not presenting the facts of their case in the most businesslike and efficient way. Some of the fault may lie with them. Nevertheless, I beg the Economic Secretary to make sure that the D.A.T.A.C. staff is adequate to obtain the necessary technical information and to take a decision as quickly as possible. In many of these cases if the delay is too long, the whole scheme may fall to the ground.
  I have spoken for as long as I think one ought to speak in a debate in which many other hon. Members want to take part. The Opposition have taunted us many times today on the fact that we are expecting Government aid. We do expect it. It is common ground between us that in many cases Government aid should be given and that there is nothing disgraceful or disreputable in asking for it. Nevertheless, we believe that it is possible for the Government to give aid in the form of loans, or in whatever way is needed, and for private enterprise to run the industry. We have been most successful in agriculture, but, in spite of the Government help which has been given to agriculture, I do not think that hon. Members opposite want to nationalise agriculture.
  There is not much between the two sides of the House on this matter, and I think that the argument which has bubbled up several times today is not a serious argument between us.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: I think that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. M. Noble) is right to say that there is no divergence of principle between us in the matter of at least affording some assistance to these areas. Our objection is to the claim made by some hon. Members opposite that private enterprise alone is responsible for any improvement which may have come about in our economic position, particularly since it was the same private enterprise, as a result of Government policy, which first of all created the recession. On a subsequent improvement taking place, it is claimed by some people that we should all fall down in adulation of
  698
  the very private enterprise which created the recession in the first place.
  I could not agree more with him than when he spoke of the necessity for ancillary industries to forestry in the Highlands. We have debated that subject this morning and I will not develop it at great length, but I concede the point which he made, and if the Government will pay greater attention to this matter in the future I am sure that it will bring great comfort to all of us who want to see greater progress made in the north of Scotland.
  On this point I would draw attention to the development of the canals in the North. Such development, as mentioned by the Bowes Committee on Inland Waterways, would greatly assist. I am sorry that in their White Paper the Government have not been more forthright and have not gone further than is shown in paragraph 19, which reads:
  "The recommendations concerning the Caledonian and Crinan Canals and the main line of the Forth and Clyde Canal raise important issues and are being further considered by the Government."
  After all the previous Reports and inquiries, I should have thought that the Government would already have made up their mind that this was the last Report and would have accepted the Bowes recommendations that these two canals, the Crinan and the Caledonian, should be maintained as a social service. That was the recommendation of the Bowes Report. Moreover, the Bowes Committee said that the Crinan Canal ought to be deepened and widened in prospect of the development not only of industry but also of forestry, in that way helping to facilitate shipping on the western seaboard.
  To that extent I agree with the hon. Member, but the matter goes a little further, because Glasgow Corporation has recently been faced with the problem of the desolation of the Forth and Clyde Canal and the Monkland Canal. I do not usually raise constituency points in debates of this kind. I think that there is a main overall trend of economic policy to be followed as far as we humanly can, on one side or the other, but this point is not related merely to Glasgow and the surrounding area. It goes right across the narrow waist of Scotland—for 40 miles.

  699
  It is true that aesthetic problems may be raised, but in these modern days, with the expansion of transport between Edinburgh and Glasgow and with diesel engines which make the journey in 45 minutes, it seems to me that there is less need for these canals. I, for my part, and such local authorities in the area as Glasgow and Falkirk, all press the Government to make the decision that these canals should be in-filled at the earliest possible moment. It would facilitate traffic. It would allow development and planning to be carried out all in the one vast field.
  The Glasgow local authority, at least, would be very anxious to start in-filling the Monkland Canal. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) will agree that the Monkland Canal is a disgrace and that something should be done. But the Government, in paragraph 11 of the White Paper, go only so far as to say:
  "If work proposed to be done in carrying out redevelopment schemes is eligible for Government grant under existing legislation, applications will be sympathetically considered."
  That is not good enough. This is a national problem, and the Government must be more forthcoming in what financial aid they are prepared to extend to local authorities, who in this way could provide useful work which would stand the test of time and would fit into the improvement of Scotland's labour position in the future.
  I am sorry that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is not present. When he referred in his speech to the Glasgow Herald, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was quick to point out to him that the body of the article did not relate to the headlines. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie then revealed who is now in charge of the Glasgow Herald, which, perhaps, explained a good deal to the Economic Secretary. It was a bad choice to use the Glasgow Herald, because that is the greatest apologist in Scotland for the Government.
  Let the Economic Secretary change his bed reading and read the Scotsman editorial of Monday, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). He will find that the theme of his own speech, which was
  700
  akin to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Elgin on Saturday, was completely answered and shattered by Monday's leading article in the Scotsman.
  The Economic Secretary chided us and rather made fun of the fact that we seemed to be displeased that, although Scotland has one-tenth of the total population of Great Britain, we were receiving one-seventh of the resources. I will not go into the details, but the leader in the Scotsman is very apt on that point and shows that it is simply because of the geographical conditions and the distances prevailing in Scotland that we expect and need that great proportion of the nation's resources.
  I do not want to enter into the usual detailed argument about figures of unemployment. There has been a deterioration in Scotland ever since 1951. In 1957, the average monthly rate of unemployment was 56,000. In 1958, it was 81,000. This year, even including the improved figures for May and June, the average monthly rate is 102,500. I do not think that the Government can even claim that the improvement in May and June is sufficient to justify the ebullient claims made by the Minister of Labour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently. The hard, dominant feature of Scotland's unemployment figures is that, as has been claimed by so many of my hon. Friends, whether in recession or out of recession, they are twice those of the average for the rest of the country.
  The Government have not faced up to that central feature. Apparently they will not recognise it. Further, they will not recognise that it calls for extraordinary measures. In our last debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour began his speech by being very disarming and placatory to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). He said "Let us talk of the things on which we are agreed. We share the concern of the hon. Member". Sharing concern does not offer any solution to the problem. It is a very nice way to say it, but one must be brutal and say that that concern has been prevalent in Scotland for years, but the Government, even in the dying days of this Parliament, have not yet offered us any solution.
  The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the Government were agreed

  701
  that the problem of better distribution of industry in Scotland is not new. It is not new, but after seven years' rule by this Government no fundamental programme has been offered to Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary then said that the Government and the Opposition were probably agreed on the reasons which had led to the increase in unemployment. I do not think that we are agreed on the reasons for the increase. Certainly, we are not agreed on the motive which lay behind it. What is lacking is a courageous decision to take some action. The Government have signally failed to do that.
  If the Government asked me what the Labour Party suggest they should do, I should say that just as a beginning they should consider the plans and suggestions offered by my hon. Friend as convenor of the Opposition's industry group over a long period and which have been summarised in the proposals submitted by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). I will not repeat those proposals, because they have been mentioned already and are well known.
  The one fact we should like the Government to remember always when they are claiming these advances and reductions in unemployment is this. With 85,000 unemployed in Scotland in June, that is a reduction from the previous month of about 9,000. In June, 1958, there were 76,000 unemployed. In June, 1957, there were 49,000 unemployed. It is no use the Government deliberately increasing unemployment and then, when a reduction takes place, asking us and the electorate to extend some adulation and to admire their handiwork. The question is: who created the unemployment? Moreover, seasonal influences are more responsible for the decrease in unemployment than any deliberate action of the Government.
  I wish to mention the incidence of unemployment as it affects our young people in Scotland. The numbers decreased last month as compared with the previous month. At 4,000 the figure is still more than twice what it was in June, 1957, when there were only 1,800 unemployed. That is the hard fact with which the Government have not yet reckoned. In the White Paper it is made perfectly clear that, with almost
  702
  twice as many young people unemployed today as there were in 1957, the opportunities of employment have been halved. Therefore, we have doubled the number of young people looking for half the number of jobs.
  Will the Government, even now, reconsider their attitude to the problem of young persons, apprenticeships, etc., in Scotland. We know that they have formed a Central Industrial Council for the training of young people for apprenticeships and the rest, but what they have added is that this is the responsibility of industry alone. They themselves accept no responsibility in this matter.
  That will not do. The Government must extend to industry and to the trade unions financial assistance to ensure that in these days, when Britain needs an increasing number of young people of skill and technique to meet the challenge of the modern world and of other countries who are taking these measures, they, too, play their part in encouraging industry in this way.
  There is one other problem, which has already been mentioned by at least the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison). I heard only the latter remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor), so whether he was dealing fully with the problem of the paper industry, I do not know. Hon. Members will know that discussions have recently been held in Stockholm concerning the formation of a "little" Free Trade Area consisting of the Scandinavian countries and ourselves. The aim, which may be perfectly laudable, is to develop an industrial free market between ourselves to gain strength in bargaining power to negotiate with the Common Marker countries.
  Another purpose is to bring down tariffs as quickly as possible. The vital factor is increased trade. While those may be desirable objectives, I should like to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade and of the Secretary of State for Scotland to this proposal and ask them seriously to consider whether the consequences might not be quite disastrous.
  There are two paper mills in my constituency, Edward Collins & Sons, Ltd.,

  703
  of Kelvindale, and the Dalsholm Paper Co., Ltd., both of them excellent and reasonably large mills employing 200 to 400 people. A letter to me from Edward Collins & Sons, Ltd., states:
  "… we are seriously concerned by the latest development towards what is being referred to as a 'Little Free Trade Area' … The proposal … is fraught with the gravest danger to the British paper and board industry, particularly that section of it which is located in Scotland."
  Here I interpolate that if in the future we extend and take advantage of our forestry industry to produce pulp in Scotland, there may be even greater consequences than my correspondent suggests.
  The writer continues:
  "Our industry would have been adversely affected by the general European Free Trade Area originally proposed, since his would have opened the home market to our chief competitors, who, at the same time, control one of the main sources of our raw materials. The new proposal is infinitely more dangerous, however, since it would open our market while leaving Scandinavian paper and board subject to duties in the Common Market countries."
  My other correspondent has this to say:
  "We would like to bring to your notice the disastrous effect which the establishment of the proposed Little Free Trade Area would have on the paper mills in this country, and in the employment provided by these mills. … In 1957, the Scandinavian countries … exported 570,000 tons of paper and paper board to the United Kingdom and 871,000 tons to the Common Market countries."
  Those are some of the details which my correspondents would like the Government to bear in mind when considering the whole problem before any final decisions are made in this matter.
  There is another direction in which the Government, by their own direct action and control over Departments, can help in Scotland. The White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland, for example, refers to the fact that while Scotland had over 9 per cent. of the total industrial labour force in Great Britain, only 2·7 per cent. of the research and development workers in the whole country work in Scotland.
  Bearing that in mind, I wonder whether the Secretary of State will consult a table, which appeared in HANSARD of 24th March this year, at c. 1098, showing the allocation of new works of £10,000 and
  704
  over erected by the Ministry of Works in the United Kingdom. If he looks particularly at the section which refers to research establishments, including Royal Ordnance factories for the Ministry of Supply, the Atomic Energy Authority, the Admiralty, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he will find the following amazing figures, which I ask the House to note.
  In the United Kingdom, the number of schemes started since 1st January, 1957, totalled 104, to an estimated cost of £21,300,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), to whom I am indebted for this information, asked what proportion of the new works of £10,000 and over had been erected by the Ministry of Works in Scotland. The astounding answer was that of the 104 establishments, only three were in Scotland and that of the estimated total of £21,300,000, the value in Scotland was only £241,500. If my arithmetic is correct, that will be found to amount to 1 per cent. of the total of the works provided by the Ministry.
  In those facts and figures, which no one will gainsay, there is a wealth and depth of feeling and criticism which bears out the contention of my hon. Friends on this side that even in instances when the Government themselves, through their own Departments, can influence and direct work to Scotland, they are signally failing to do it and to discharge their duty. The only time when Scotland was helped in this direction was by the Labour Government in the establishment of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, at East Kilbride, and by Ferranti; and there are others. It is the publicly-owned industries which are building up research and from and to which private enterprise in many instances is getting and giving great assistance.
  I conclude with that appeal. I hope that the revelation of these figures concerning this one item alone will make the Government sit up and that they will ask the other Departments to conduct a searching examination to ascertain in what other directions they can assist in providing work in Scotland. That will obviate the need for the Secretary of State to have to admit, as he did in the

  705
  last debate, that in 1958 38 per cent. of Scottish graduate scientists and 59 per cent. of her graduate engineers left Scotland.
  That trend has been going on for a number of years. It gives great offence to many of us who are interested in education to see the university quadrangles being transferred into feeing fairs and lavish offers being made to young students even before they graduate, offers of attractive jobs elsewhere than in Scotland.
  That is something which the Government should consider. The best way in which they can do so is to provide the facilities and the work in the attractive professions, so that our young people will want to stay in Scotland and to provide for their families an education and background where they most want to stay, thereby ensuring that attractions elsewhere do not force them to leave Scotland and add to our emigration figures.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Ever since my arrival in this House, this subject of industry and employment has been one which has been discussed very regularly. There is, therefore, very little that is new to say, and I do not want to make a long speech this evening.
  We all know what the position is and we all tend to describe it on the evidence of our own constituencies. These discussions tend to be slightly repetitive and not, so far as I can gather, very effective, since we are all more or less round the same table and asking for the same pieces of cake.
  What I want to discuss, therefore, is not what we are dealing with, but why we have to deal with it. In this connection I should like to associate myself with my hon. Friends on this side of the House who are anxious for some kind of inquiry into the matter. Why should Scotland always have to deal with an unemployment percentage approximately double that of England? It is extremely difficult to find out. I have been trying to do so for quite a long time now—six months or so—and I have had several different answers.
  Sometimes, I am told, it is the accommodation, the buildings or the rent, but it is not true, particularly in relation
  706
  to the concessions now available under D.A.T.A.C. Sometimes people will say - Englishmen in particular—that it is the labour involved, but this is also a heresy. Scottish labour is second to none. More often, I am told, it is transport and the vast distances from the markets which have to be faced by firms situated so far north. But distance is relative, and we do not need a market on our doorstep in order to operate efficiently and with profit. We are not, comparatively speaking, all that much further away from markets than industry in the South, and, particularly if we want to export, all we need are good harbours, and there is no shortage of these in the north of Scotland.
  So far as transport itself is concerned, as often as I am told that it is crippling industry I am also told, in fact, that in some cases transport costs are merely a fraction of a penny of the overheads involved. Indeed, the whole question of transport in connection with this problem is very complex and largely unknown. For instance, in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning we were discussing forestry, and in reading up for that debate I discovered that while it costs £20 to send timber from the South to Inverness, it costs only £10 to import the same amount from Scandinavia. If Scandinavian timber comes in by sea, why cannot our coastal traffic compete effectively and at the same rates with trans-North Sea shipping? At least, we should be able to help our own products to complete on equal terms with foreign products in the English market.
  It is clear that, facing the realities and the necessities of markets in the South, the north of Scotland—in which I personally am particularly interested—is not the most suitable natural investment ground for certain industries. But the problems which an industrialist has to face there are not insuperable, and I do not think that anything is to be gained by pretending that they are. I deplore this continued exploitation of the unemployment problem by various parties for political reasons, because all it does, as far as I can see, is to create a general feeling of uncertainty and unrest in the areas involved.
  In a free economy, which does not depend on Government assistance all the time, and which I sincerely hope we shall

  707
  always have, the first essential for prosperity, for increased production and for investment is confidence. If we continually attack what is, after all, compared with the rest of Europe, not an unfavourable position, we are going far towards destroying the first essential which we need so much—confidence.
  It seems to me that the main barrier against investment in the north of Scotland is a psychological one. As I have said, the physical ones are not insuperable. They have been and are continuing to be surmounted. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury mentioned three firms in particular, and I have several in my own constituency which are even now expanding and continuing to expand very successfully, and are trading in markets in the south of England. These problems can be beaten and are being beaten, and I hope very much that they will continue to be beaten. I personally refuse to join in the dirge about the situation usually indulged in by hon. Members opposite. It sounds to me very much like the pibroch, lonely and haunting, in the political wilderness.
  At the same time, I think something more specific could be done to investigate the kind of factors which are affecting the present position in the country. I have been trying to find out for a very long time exactly what it is that goes wrong, and while I have had a number of different opinions, I can truthfully say that I have not had one single conclusive one. At any rate, there has been nothing specific enough to offer me any satisfaction, and I think that there is a case for some kind of inquiry into the various factors affecting the success or failure of particularised industries or firms. Until we know exactly what the problem is, surely we cannot deal with it at all, either by Government assistance or through private enterprise.
  There is one final thing I should like to say which, more or less, follows from the speeches of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). This is connected with a very good series of articles in the Aberdeen Press and Journal, which newspaper has been conducting a survey of the Aberdeenshire
  708
  families in Corby. I have no idea why we should not have a Corby in the north of Scotland. Why should these families come down to England in order to find conditions of work which they need? I do not see why we should not have some kind of effectively industrialised belt in the north of Scotland, a kind of industrial centre which would be able to absorb and, at the same time, stimulate the creative ingenuity and skills of the people in that part of the country. We have everything up there, including a great enthusiasm for work, and there is no reason why it should not be a great success in this case. Further, following on what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who spoke of big firms attracting small firms, I can see no reason why that kind of success should not bring still more in its train.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige Gordon) reads his speech tomorrow he will feel that he would like to alter some of the things he has said. While it may be true that God is in his heaven in East Aberdeenshire it is not true of many other parts of Scotland, and particularly of that part of which I should like to speak—
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I did not mean to imply that God was in his heaven in East Aberdeenshire. What I meant was that, comparatively with other European countries, our position was not quite as bad as hon. Gentlemen opposite try to make out.
  Mr. Rankin: That is a qualification already, before the hon. Member has read his speech, but the hon. Gentleman led us to believe that though God might not be in his heaven in East Aberdeenshire, all was well. That is not true of Scotland as a whole.
  I want to refer, in particular, to the shipbuilding industry. It is an industry of tremendous importance to Scotland, including East Aberdeenshire, because, when it is healthy, engineering, the electrical industries, painting, plumbing, furnishing, and a whole host of other dependent occupations are also in a sound and prosperous condition. One out of every 12 persons employed in Scotland is dependent on this great key industry.

  709
  In Clydeside, the figure is even more impressive, because in my area one out of every eight persons depends on shipbuilding in one way and another to earn his or her daily bread.
  At the moment, that industry is on the decline, not because of any dirge that has been sung by the workers, or because of anything expressed here, but because of conditions over which the workers in the industry and, indeed, many of the employers, too, have no control. That decline is well illustrated by these figures. In 1930, the United Kingdom launched 1,472,000 tons of shipping, equal to 51·9 per cent. of the world output. Last year, the United Kingdom launched 1,402,000, a diminution of 70,000 tons which represents a changed percentage that is revolutionary in its significance. The United Kingdom percentage is now only 15·1 per cent. of the world total.
  Last year, Japan launched over 2 million tons, and we now have a whole host of maritime countries entering this market—Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, France, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Spain and the United States of America. Every one of them has increased its output over that of 1957. And while Britain's output fell in 1957 by 12,000 tons. Scotland's output fell by 50,000 tons.
  In addition, it is worth noting that last year the biggest ship launched in the United Kingdom was the "British Duchess", from Clydebank, a vessel of 42,000 tons deadweight. In that same year Japan launched the "Universe Apollo" of 100,000 tons deadweight, three other ships of 50,000 tons gross weight, one of 31,000 tons, and three of over 30,000 tons. Germany, the United States of America and these other countries I have named also launched bigger ships. According to the American Maritime Commission
  "The United Kingdom has been eliminated as a competing shipbuilding centre, and it is not foreseeable that it will become a serious contender in the near future."
  From those facts, two questions emerge. First, can the present high rate of world shipbuilding be maintained? Secondly, can we retain our position—or regain our position in the forefront of the world's shipbuilders—should there be a slump? To find the answer to the first question, we must take into account
  710
  the present state of world trade. In 1958, the world's fleet stood at the biggest-ever figure of 110 million tons, but it was not fully utilised. Even if trade were restored to its 1957 level and the fleets were fully occupied the 1958 level of shipbuilding could not be maintained. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East to think over those things, and not to criticise us as lightly as he has just done.
  If we assume that the average life of a ship is twenty years, to renew the existing world fleet would mean an annual output of 5½ million tons. Before the war, the normal output was 3 million tons. That 5½ million tons is a maximum possible figure that no responsible shipbuilding authority—and I have consulted knowledgeable people on this matter—believes to be a practical estimate of world shipbuilding needs in the future. We therefore arrive at the conclusion that there will be a very drastic fall-off of shipbuilding orders in the near future, and Dr. Dennis Reddick, Deputy Manager of Harland & Wolff, confirmed this view when he wrote the article in the Glasgow Herald Trade Review to which the Economic Secretary referred.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: But he did not read that to us.
  Mr. Rankin: He did not do so, because it would not have been to his advantage.
  If the shipbuilding requirements of the future are confined to replacement programmes, because there is no purpose in building new ships in this state of affairs, the existing shipbuilding industry will be employed to the extent of only 50 per cent. The Secretary of State knows something about this. We are perfectly entitled to do what the back benchers on the other side have not done so far; ask the Government what they intend to do in this situation.
  In spite of improved techniques and more than £100 million invested in modernisation, the launching output over the country as a whole—I am, of course, referring to the United Kingdom, because we cannot consider Scotland as a separate entity in this matter—has been practically static for the last five years. In that period there have been remarkable developments abroad, particularly in Japan and Germany.

  711
  Holland is expanding her shipbuilding capacity. Portugal is developing its second six-year development plan to expand its capacity. A new yard is opening in Brazil, and a new yard is about to be opened by Mr. Niarchos in Greece, which will include a German floating dock to take ships of up to 65,000 tons deadweight—something which those of us concerned with Clydeside will not see for long years to come if this Government, unfortunately, remains in power.
  The Iron Curtain countries are expanding their industry, perhaps due to their inability to get contracts placed here. Let us remember that the Germans are now building 10 factory ships which we refused because of the cold war. Last year, Norway opened its biggest building dock and ships up to 65,000 tons can be built there, while provision has been made to expand it to take ships of up to 120,000 tons. In Japan, the fourteenth short shipbuilding plan is now in operation. Even Communist China claims that the fast building times which have been announced by the Japanese have been surpassed by China. Three years ago, when I was in China, they were only thinking about launching into shipbuilding, and now they are claiming that in speed of construction they can beat anything else in the whole world.
  That is the situation which confronts us, and it is the situation which has led to the decline in shipbuilding in Scotland, which has led to the fear that is developing in the shipbuilding yards. In the June issue of British Shipping this is said:
  "There comes a time in the history of an industry when warning signs point unmistakably to danger ahead."
  It said that that stage was reached years ago.
  The Government are hardly awake even now to the danger which exists. This is emphasised by the position of Liberia. Ten years ago Liberia, as a maritime nation, was represented by a single ship of 1,000 tons. Today, Liberia has the second largest trading fleet in the whole world, registered under her own flag and totalling 11 million tons gross.
  I want to quote one figure just to illustrate how this set of conditions is bearing back on our industry. I return to my own area, Clydeside, which has
  712
  been recognised and accepted as the greatest shipbuilding area in the whole world. In my division I have Harland and Wolff's, Fairfield's, and Stevens, of Linthouse—yards which are known all over the world. Every one of them today fears the danger of unemployment.
  Unemployment on Clydeside is not confined to Clydeside because, as I have said already, the ramifications of the shipbuilding industry are so vast. Unemployment on Clydeside would affect the whole of Scotland, including East Aberdeenshire. Orders received from overseas in 1955 were 188,000 tons and last year they were down to 2,000 tons. That is a shattering thing to happen, and we must do something about it.
  I want to look at one or two things which we might do. I am leaving out some of the figures which I should have liked to put, but they are fairly well known and the problem which I am stating is generally accepted. As a result of what is happening to industry, something is also happening to the individuals concerned. We are now engaged in great plans for educating people to go into industry, but if we do not have the jobs we shall not use fully the skills and aptitudes which we are helping to create.
  Therefore, in a way, there are two problems here—the problem of physical unemployment, the losing of a job, and also the problem of mental unemployment, or under-employment in some cases, due to the fact that mechanisation and modernisation have expanded so far that the educational endowments with which people enter industry today are not being fully utilised.
  Recognition of this puts a question mark against the whole structure of the type of society in which we live. If we do not recognise this problem, the frustration which can develop may well result in an industrial retardation which would be dangerous for us as a nation. Accepting the problem stated, what are some of the things that we must do? We are living in a changing society where redundancy would seem to be inevitable. The first thing that we must do is to safeguard the standards of working men and women who are in industry. For that reason, I suggest to the Secretary of State that in safeguarding the in dividual he must think, of the problem

  713
  of compensation on the termination of employment.
  This idea is not exactly new. It has been adopted in some countries. In Belgium, it was adopted by legislative enactment. In other countries, like the United States, it has been adopted by collective agreements. In this country it is already accepted and practised on a small scale by ad hoc settlements in many private industries and by agreement in a great many public industries. Something on a much wider scale is now needed. It is now a national problem and not one which can be left to the good will of individual employers.
  I urge this on the Secretary of State, because it is important and because he need not be timorous about it, since he has good support. In November, 1950, a Private Member's Bill was introduced by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who was with us earlier today, but who is no longer in his place. It was supported by the present Minister of Labour, the present Paymaster-General, the present Government Chief Whip and an ex-Chancellor of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). In prosecuting the idea before the Cabinet, the right hon. Gentleman should have some powerful allies on his side. The purpose of that Bill was "to entitle certain wage earners to a statement setting out the conditions of their employment and the terms upon which, if their employment were terminated, they should be compensated."
  That is important, because there is a conflict between a workman's desire for security in his job and the national need for mobility of labour. That conflict is possibly at the bottom of many of the troubles affecting us today. There is nothing new in this proposal, because it has already been accepted in certain quarters. Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill, who was threatened with the loss of his job, has been promised that if he does lose it, he will get £60,000 compensation. Sir Charles Colston, of Hoovers, got £83,000: Sir Frank Spriggs, of Hawker-Siddeley, got £75,000; and Mr. George Pate of Albion Motors got £60,000—all tax-free. If the principle is good in those cases, it must be equally good when applied to the community as a whole.
  714
  Because of the state of shipping and shipbuilding, the Government, the trade unions, the shipowners and the shipbuilders have got to get together. They have to think out what can be done. I have already suggested that, but I cannot find a Minister, at any rate at Question Time, who has responsibility for a matter of this sort. I am now putting it to the Secretary of State. World capacity to produce ships is now three times more than world demand for ships. Therefore, we have, first, to think of a policy of scrapping ships beyond an agreed age Secondly, we have to think what we can do with the scrapped ships, and I suggest that the steel mills are waiting for them, because there is a demand for steel. Thirdly, we have to think of revising the strategic list.
  This afternoon I put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade on this matter, reminding him that last autumn he removed Dakota aircraft from the strategic list, which he regarded as a great achievement. He might as well have removed Noah's Ark and imagined that that would in any way help trade with Russia. Last weekend the Russians flew the TU114 from Moscow to New York, nearly 5,000 miles, in a little over 11 hours non-stop. Yet the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we are making progress when we remove the Dakota aircraft from the list of banned exports on strategic grounds.
  My fourth suggestion is that we must have fuller employment of our scientific "know-how". We have a great background of scientific knowledge. In many ways we are ahead of most nations in the world today, but we are not fully using that knowledge. If we were, we would have not only more employment, but it would be more highly skilled employment that would make greater use of those abilities and attainments which many workmen in industry today have.
  Next, we must try and reach international agreements. At present, there are restrictions and reservations in favour of national shipping all over the world. There are preferences in port charges and there are artificial aids through licensing control. Every one of those things threatens British shipping and British shipbuilding. We must get some sort of agreement on this by the

  715
  creation or the expansion of the powers of an international agency which I know already exists with regard to rates and fares. We must try to expand its powers.
  We have the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Air Transport Association in relation to airways doing good, useful work. We now want something of that nature for the seaways, to try to relate the increase in the amount of tonnage afloat to the requirements of world trade.
  Those are suggestions which the Secretary of State must consider. The first suggestion that I made about terminal compensation is urgent, because if unemployment spreads there will be serious danger. We cannot expect people always to behave quietly when their very existence is at stake. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies he will give his views on what he proposes to do about the suggestions that I have made. My suggestions are not cures. They are attempts to relieve the dangers which lie ahead of us if the unemployment situation is allowed to get out of hand.
  8.49 p.m.
  Sir James Henderson-Stewart: The House was good enough to listen to me when we discussed this White Paper on a previous occasion. I do not therefore complain that very little time is left now for me to speak. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is present tonight, because it may be that I can amplify a little the proposals which I made on the earlier occasion.
  This debate, like the previous one, has taken the usual form. On the whole, the Opposition have painted a rather dreary picture of Scottish conditions. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), who made a very moving speech, was speaking of her home conditions, and she is entitled to tell the House what she thought, but the general picture has been exaggerated and has left out of account much of the fine work done by the Government and other agencies in the last few years. I wish that there had been time for me to produce a more balanced picture.
  Tonight I am concerned with the question of what we should do in the future. Everybody has agreed that something is
  716
  wrong. There is a consistently larger percentage of unemployment in Scotland than in England. There must be some reason for it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) said. What is that reason? Many inquiries have been carried out into individual aspects of the Scottish problem, but there has never been a comprehensive survey of the state of our economy as a whole. It is partly because of that that there is not available to the country and the Government the body of advice that should be available.
  Mr. Bence: The Cairncross Committee.
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: That dealt with only one aspect of the matter. We must have a proper survey, taking into account all the matters affecting Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) made an interesting speech on the shipping industry. It is a questionable whether, in the years immediately ahead, we shall continue to enjoy great prosperity in that industry. It surely cannot be right that Scotland should drift into this new age without having seriously thought of what might happen. If things did not go successfully in shipbuilding, as the hon. Member for Govan said, great parts of Scotland would be adversely affected.
  What is the future of the coal industry in Scotland? Day by day we hear of the closures of pits, and the chairman of the Coal Board has indicated that there will be further closures. Is there a long-term plan for coal? Is it likely to affect the general economy of Scotland? There is also the problem of foreign investment. It is assumed by the Scottish Council that there will be a continuation of American investment in Scotland, or that investment will come from some other country. Can we count upon that in the years immediately ahead? What happens if the Common Market does not develop as we should like to see it develop?
  These are some of the broad and fundamental problems which some skilled body of Scotsmen should be examining now, with a view to charting the future course of our economy. It is not enough to say, "We will put up a few more factories, in the hope that somebody will fill them." That-is not a policy. We hope that factories will grow up round the great strip mill development. I

  717
  fervently hope they will. But this aim will not be achieved by our saying, "There will be a factory here and another factory there." Plans must be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that I am not being misunderstood. I do not mean plans made and carried through by central Government alone.
  Mr. Willis: Who will do it?
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I am striving to get a consensus of opinion of skilled men in Scotland—the kind of commission that I have suggested on the previous occasion. We want men who will sit down and think out the problem of Scotland's economic and industrial development in the course of the next five or ten years. It may be Government enterprise or local authority enterprise; it may well be mostly private enterprise.
  I think we waste the time of the House by pursuing the barren argument about whether something is capitalism or Socialism. The truth is that we are faced with very hard conditions which we have to examine and we must produce some severely practical solution. We have long passed the age of laissez-faire; similarly we have long passed the age of depending on nationalisation which in one election after another has proved no good—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the truth is, as hon. Members opposite know perfectly well, that if we are to make a success of the industry of Scotland and indeed of the rest of the country, there will have to be a synthesis of effort, a co-operation of effort—private enterprise, local authority and Government—and we must all play a part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that we all agree; because this is precisely what the Government are trying to do now.
  I hope, therefore, that we shall not waste time on barren, useless, academic arguments. I want a commission of inquiry which will be strictly practical, carried out by men with knowledge and understanding of the development of Scotland in the future. I think it would be helpful to the nation to have such a commission appointed by the Government, with strong and broad terms of reference to cover the whole economic future of the country.
  I am sorry that it is necessary for me to concertina this argument because of
  718
  the lack of time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this suggestion which I make with complete sincerity, as he will know. Such an inquiry would be valuable to the country, and were it properly manned, I think it could be completed in eighteen months. I hope that out of such an inquiry would come a blue-print for Scotland's future in the next five or ten years, indicating the broad lines along which the nation should move as a whole. I hope we shall not turn that idea down because it is something new; or because it has not been tried before; or because it does not line up with one philosophy or another. I am asking for a strictly practical, businesslike, thorough examination of Scotland's problems so that we may create a viable economy for the future.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: It is probable that this will be the last survey of Scottish industry and the employment and prospects for our people which will be conducted in this Parliament. But there would appear to be a feeling—at least the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) seemed to indicate it—that this is not the last but the first survey. May I remind the hon. Member and his hon. Friends that consistently since 1951, when the economic well-being of Scotland passed to the control of the party opposite, we have had a debate such as this year after year. We on this side have instituted the habit of devoting each year not one but two days to those debates.
  As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, East I could not help recollecting the first debate that we had on the subject of industry in Scotland—in 1952. The hon. Gentleman should remember it too, because he was the Minister who answered. I wonder whether he remembers what he said; but, much more important, does he remember the questions that were asked him? The opening speech of that debate was made by the late Hector McNeil. I will give in his own words what the hon. Member for Fife, East said then. He said:
  "The right hon. Gentleman finished on a note of inquiry and of imagination. He was searching for the answer to Scotland's long-term future. … He asked: What is our future"—

  719
  I would ask the House to note these words of the hon. Gentleman—
  "what new industries should we seek to get, what sort of technical staff should we establish, what is our strategy?"
  That is exactly the kind of thing that the hon. Member for Fife, East is now suggesting should be done. In the debate of 1952 he instanced his own constituency and referred to his own knowledge of the mining industry. He said:
  "I know that problem. It may be that we can do something about it. I should certainly like to be able to do something about it."
  He was the Minister responsible. Seven years later he is asking for the establishment of something which he then had it in his power to achieve.
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: Much has been done since then.
  Mr. Ross: We will come to that. I want to remind the hon. Gentleman of what he said in 1952 about what has been done in the post-war years, done by the Labour Government. He said:
  "There is and has been throughout the post-war years great confidence and buoyancy in Scotland—far more than I see in other parts of the country; it is due, I am sure—and I do not deny credit to Government agencies and officials—to this unique voluntary co-operative effort on the part of Scotsmen and women of all grades and classes … It has served Scotland well, and I am sure that if we can continue with that spirit … there is no doubt about the future of our country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1952; Vol. 503. c. 1555–7.]
  The economic destiny of Scotland has been in the hands of the hon. and right hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Fife, East since that time. Here is the position. In 1952 we had a similar debate to the one we are holding tonight. Then the figure of unemployment for Scotland was 42,300. Here we are, in the last July of nearly eight years under a Tory Government, and the unemployment figure is 85,200, more than double what it was then. That is what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been able to achieve.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Answer that one.
  Mr. Ross: I could give the hon. Member for Fife, East quotations from his replies in 1953, 1954, and so on.
  We kept asking for that overall plan for Scotland. I and my hon. Friends
  720
  remember that before the debate we had in 1953 we saw the Minister of Labour, now Lord Monckton, the Minister of Supply, the President of the Board of Trade and the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), and asked them to prepare a blue-print for Scotland to show what it would be like ten years ahead. We were interested then, as we are now, not merely in unemployment but in employment and the future of Scotland. Our alarm is not at the failure of Scotland and the downfall of Scotland, but at the impotence or indifference of the party opposite to take the steps which must be taken if Scotland's destiny is to be assured. What we fear is our people going through another period of hardship and travail before what today is obvious comes to be done.
  In January, 1953, the winter peak figures of unemployment were 81,000. Here is the great achievement up-to-date. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in that strange and quiet visit to Elgin, told us that the unemployment figures have gone down steadily since January of this year. He added that he felt they would go down again when the figures were issued, a few days later, for June. The figures have been issued for June. This year, after seven and a half years of Toryism, the figures are 85,200. The summer low, after eight years of Toryism, is higher than the winter peak of 1953—a very considerable achievement. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) said we painted a gloomy picture.
  Mr. Willis: He was almost crying.
  Mr. Ross: He nearly had the whole House crying. His was the gloomiest speech we have heard. He was taking us to task for painting a gloomy picture, but it is against this worsening position, against this constant demand year after year for the production of an effective policy and plan for Scotland and the failure to get it, that the picture we have painted today has to be judged.
  If we were at the end of the road, it would not be so bad, but we know quite well that even with 85,000 unemployed that improvement last month of 9,000 is not an improvement that will last These pompous predictions of the

  721
  obvious are getting me down a wee bit. The Minister announces in the month of May that the unemployment figures will fall next month. That is not surprising as they have fallen in the summer ever since figures were taken. But it is equally true that they have risen in the winter. We go back to the speech in 1953 of the man who was responsible for making the speech made by the hon. Member for Fife, East today, the man who now is Minister of Labour and who then was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. He was quite honest—1 wonder if the Secretary of State will be as honest tonight—to point out that the inevitable decline of the figures in the summer would be followed by the inevitable climb of the figures in the winter.
  I am going to do a little bit of prediction of the obvious. Even with the present policies of the Government, or lack of them, we are going to have 100,000 unemployed in Scotland this winter. I wonder if the Economic Secretary to the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to deny that? Let me tell them what is happening in respect of Scottish employment at present, this week, next week, next month, even this year and so far as we can see ahead, in respect of some industry. In Burntisland shipyard a hundred men are being paid off. They are not included in the figures which we have already got. This is gloom to come. Let us have no more Treasury humour about it because for the men involved it will be a pretty dismal summer.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recall that I described the case of a skilled man who was sacked in Burntisland a fortnight ago and who asked me to write to new towns in England to get him a job because he could not get one in Scotland?
  Mr. Ross: We have this position on the railways and in the workshops in Inverurie. I wonder whether what is happening in this part of Aberdeenshire did not reach the ears of the young hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon). We have the position in Cowlairs, St. Rollox and Kilmarnock. There are 400 men faced with redundancy, though redundancy on the railways means not only men losing their
  722
  jobs but being transferred to other areas. There are men who have already left Aberdeenshire, and who are working in Swindon. This is another avenue of local employment that is closed to young people.
  From Prestwick we have the sad news of 400 people of the staff of Scottish Aviation Ltd. joining the 600 who have already been sacked. There is no redundancy scheme for them. There is no placing them in other industries. Private enterprise does not accept the obligations accepted by nationalised industry. I agree with most of what was said by the hon. Member for Ayr. Is it not a tragedy for Scotland that the Government are prepared to allow this to happen to this valuable team which has produced a valuable product and one whose efficiency and worthiness has been recognised by the Air Force of this country, the Air Force in Malaya, and by companies throughout the world? I am not at all satisfied that enough has been done. I recognise the failings of this private company. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to tell us that we are wrong in suggesting that the Government should do something about this and for him also to insist that Scotland's future should depend on the vitality of private enterprise. Look at the result.
  Here we have a company whose entire sales department apparently consisted of one man. The jobs of these 2,500 people depended on that and they are jeopardised by one unhappy event. I ask the Secretary of State, even at this late hour, to do something to ensure the growth and build-up of that aircraft industry in Prestwick. It is one such industry that we can point to in Scotland. Let us remember the money poured into the aircraft industry in the South. It is not just a question of the Pioneer aircraft. The Pioneer will go on. What we require in Prestwick is something after the Pioneer. That is what these men should have been doing and working on, supported by the Government. They have not had that support.
  I have a long list to show where unemployment is growing. There are still men to be paid off in the Royal Ordnance Factory at Irvine. There are men out, not included in these figures, in the dockyard at Irvine. I wonder if the Secretary of State knows the latest news from I.C.I.

  723
  at Stevenston. The works manager called the men together last Friday and told them that the safety fuse department and the black powder department were to close down. In one case it employs about 350 men and in the other case about 150 men. He said that the work was being transferred, not to England, but in one case to a factory being built in Africa and in another case a factory being built in India. This is looking ahead a year or two years. But anyone who knows what has already happened in I.C.I. over the past year, and who knows how the whole life of Northern Ayrshire was dominated by I.C.I., realises that the outlook is black. In Ayrshire, we already have over 5,800 unemployed. In the old industrial district we have 3,500. It will be well over 4,000 unemployed as a result of this week's events.
  Against these figures we measure the Government's policy. I asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new projects had been started in the Ayrshire Development Area in the last year. I was told that there had been two new projects which, when completed, would provide jobs for 178 people. Can anyone wonder that we are alarmed and despondent? We are also told that Massey-Harris-Ferguson of Kilmarnock intends to transfer its engineering department from Kilmarnock to Coventry. Yet another team of engineers and draughtsmen is to be lost to Ayrshire. These are fifty valuable men. Another 100 engineers are involved but they will probably be found work within the production unit. But we shall have a production unit whereas previously we had a creative unit. There is always a danger, which is in the minds of certain people, that it might be easier for them to close down the Kilmarnock branch of the factory.
  This is centralisation of a department. We should blame the Government, not private enterprise, for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will remember the unavailing fight he had against centralisation in respect of Admiralty departments. Cannot we have some centralisation of these jobs in Scotland? Why should we not centralise engineering departments in Scotland, the home of engineering? When we put these suggestions to the Government they say, "We must leave this to the
  724
  commercial judgment of private enterprise." We remember the tragedy of Scotland's lost opportunities before the war, the stagnation and the decay and the misery, which we knew as a result of a Government which did not believe in interfering with private enterprise. Have we to learn that lesson all over again?
  I return to my list, my catalogue not of things which have happened but of things which are to happen. First, there is Donibristle, where 100 men are still to be paid off. There is Standard-McLean at Hamilton, 250 men. There is Bo'ness dock. Although the men employed there will be on the register at Grangemouth, it will probably mean a loss of earnings to many people.
  Mr. J. Taylor: Probably about 100 of those who work in the timber yard which the docks supply will be displaced.
  Mr. Ross: There are also the Menzies Leith ship repair works, thirty men to go there. We learned from the newspapers the other day that George Brown of Greenock have launched their last ship. More unemployment there. We have the serious situation in mining. We have the railway situation, apart from railway workshops, with the closing of the branch lines. We have the loss of employment of about 140 people due to the changes being made between Inverness and Wick. They are in remote areas where it is difficult to find jobs. All the time the Secretary of State will not take the necessary steps to use what influence he has to ensure that the Government's approach to Scotland recognises the obvious fact that Scotland requires a different policy from the rest of the country.
  Now I come to the Economic Secretary, if I can find his rigmarole. He said that Britain's economic recovery was taking place, but Scotland had not shared in the recovery. Not only has it not shared in the recovery, but the measures taken by the Government to create unemployment, in which they succeeded, hit Scotland harder than the rest of the country. Not only are we not recovering so quickly, but we were knocked further down. Surely the obvious arises from that. In their overall general policies the Government should recognise the vulnerability of Scotland, and it should be sheltered in the general economic policies, in relation to defence cuts, and the like.

  725
  We were told of the rather facetious attitude adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the open air rally at Elgin. He told the people of Scotland that we were expensive luxuries, that we cost the Treasury a lot and that we received more than our share of certain things. There is another thing of which we receive more than our share, namely, unemployment. Last year we lost 4,000 jobs as the direct result of calculated cuts by the Government. That information was received in reply to a Question which I tabled to the President of the Board of Trade. The loss of 4,000 jobs is the result of direct Government action in this respect—naval workshops, Royal Ordnance Factories, etc. This is what I mean by saying that, recognising our vulnerability, there should be a different policy. The position is not good. The Economic Secretary quoted the headlines of the Glasgow Herald supplement. He should have gone a little further and quoted from the article. Mr. D. J. Robertson, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Glasgow, said:
  "A brief look at existing Scottish industry suggests a decline in the number of jobs available in some sectors rather than growth. Some of Scotland's basic existing industry seems more likely to decline than expand in the next few years, whilst our immigrants from England and America can hardly be predicted as becoming more numerous."
  That is the outlook as foreshadowed by Mr. Robertson. The outlook in shipbuilding was well stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). The outlook for steel was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). I personally deeply and sincerely regret—I am sure that I am speaking for the rest of my colleagues—that the speech my hon. Friend made tonight was her swansong. I have known the hon. Lady, and she has known me, since I was a boy. I have known her speak on platforms all over Scotland, particularly in the Low Green at Ayr. Always she has been fighting outside for the same cause as that for which she has been fighting inside this House, and I am convinced that she will carry the banner of that fight with her even after she leaves the House.
  Tonight she spoke about the condition of steel. I have here a report from Mr. Bell, the manager of the iron and
  726
  steel works of Stewart & Lloyds. The Clydesdale factory, the company's Lanarkshire steel and tube works, manufactures the heavy tube and pipe used for oilwell pipeline and refining construction. He says in his report that the international situation is complex. That is putting it mildly. We have heard talk about the humour of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Elgin. The only humorous part was where he said to the assembled populace:
  "I am sure you want to leave our international affairs in the experienced hands of Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Lloyd"
  —these stars of stage, screen and Suez. Mr. Bell continued:
  "There is no firm indication of any early revival in demand for casing, tubing and line pipe for the oil industry. The 1959 prospects are not favourable and reduction in turnover in 1959 as compared with 1958 would not be surprising."
  For Lanarkshire, therefore, the position will be worse, resulting directly from something in which the Secretary of State has a hand, because he speaks for Scotland in the Cabinet, even in foreign affairs and vital decisions. Suez led inevitably to Iraq, and Iraq has meant a halt to the expansion of the oil companies in their great capital projects which directly affect Scotland. That is the international situation—the Middle East—that the Chancellor talked about. Scotland has indeed suffered from the party opposite.
  The Economic Secretary said that this was no new problem. That was no new statement. In 1953, the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, when Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service said exactly the same thing. The only thing that the hon. Gentleman spared us today and which we usually get from the Dispatch Box when somebody comes into a Scottish debate was the usual sort of rather facetious, patronising pleasantries. We were spared that today.
  Mr. Erroll: I did not do that.
  Mr. Ross: I had my criticism of his speech all ready—"Patronising pleasantries, followed by a restatement of the well-known, a dessertation on specialised subjects of interest to the hon. Gentleman himself and a proclamation of the Government's unflagging interest in Scotland." I wrote this out

  727
  yesterday. The only thing in which I was wrong was the patronising pleasantries. After reading what the Scotsman had to say about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Economic Secretary thought he had better skip that.
  The present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, when Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service, said that what was required was new thinking. That was six years ago. Our alarm is that we have never got that new thinking. Today, the position is worse than ever, with Scotland in the position that its basic industries—coal, shipbuilding and steel—are in the way of such change and contraction that Scotland's present population will not be employed. Is the future of our young people to be emigration or, according to the new Highland policy? Are they to become caterers, cooks and bottle-washers? Is that to be our future?
  I am indeed disappointed. I hope that we do not get from the Secretary of State the sort of wishy-washy replies that we had before. The Economic Secretary wondered why we got rather tired of his dissertation on D.A.T.A.C. The reason is that I can say in one sentence what he took twenty minutes to say. What he meant to tell us was that the Board of Trade had received fifteen more applications, that seven of them had been recommended and that £30,000 more was involved. That was what he took twenty minutes to say. We got most of this from the Secretary of State last time, and it is not good enough.
  The Government's policy does not measure up in any way to what needs to be done, because we see private enterprise too often content to hold out the begging bowl, while we get from back benchers opposite criticism of the nationalised industries, though the Economic Secretary showed us today that the nationalised industries of the people are going ahead, despite the difficulties placed in their way—
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The Coal Board?
  Mr. Ross: Yes, the Coal Board, which is opening pits today—
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: It is shutting down pits.
  Mr. Ross: —the first to be opened in this century. New pits are being opened by the Coal Board.
  I feel that what we want at this late stage is not a policy from the Government, but just their resignation. They just have not got the courage to solve this dilemma. They want a plan, they need a plan, but a plan is not enough. It has to be implemented, and the implementation of that plan can only come from a Government who have the courage to act. They are not prepared to take the obvious step of putting the plan into force so that we in Scotland may benefit from that plan. We cannot rely on the irresponsibility of private enterprise, as even I.C.I. will close down in Ardeer and build factories in India. It has no responsibility to Scotland. It has responsibility only to profit and to its shareholders.
  The policies of the Government in no way measure up to the needs of Scotland. We need a Government who are prepared to accept responsibility for the well-being of this nation—both its social and its industrial well-being. It is essential that they should have a plan and that they should retain and use the power to intervene, guide, stimulate, establish and foster industry, consistent with an overall vision of a strategic policy.
  I think there will be more than one swan-song tonight. I think we shall have a swan-song from the Secretary of State. His successor has already been picked.
  Mr. Patrick Maitland: You?
  Mr. Ross: As for the right hon. Gentleman, I only want to say this of him. [Interruption.] The longer the interruptions, the longer I will stand here. The right hon. Gentleman has had his opportunities. He has not effectively used them. He should have spoken for Scotland in the Cabinet. It is all very well for him to say that he did on the steel strip mill. We have had such a glowing tribute about it from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that we wonder why it took so long to get it. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will look back in sorrow, while we on this side will look back in anger, when he himself goes down, not
  "Unwept, unhonoured and unsung."

  729
  He will go down "unwept and unsung," but he probably will be honoured—in another place.
  9.34 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I, too, have made a forecast of what the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would be. The trouble about these debates is that we are getting a bit too inbred. The same people are arguing with each other day in and day out, week in and week out, month after month and year after year, and we always know what each other will say. I was wondering at half past nine, when I understood that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would sit down, though he has exceeded his time, why he had left out his usual winding-up reference to myself. In fact, I felt almost encouraged, because I had not had the usual personal attack on myself. Now, however, the hon. Gentleman has completed the job, so that his speech is exactly what I expected.
  This debate has been highly constructive, even more highly constructive than the earlier debate, but I must put in balance the Scottish scene. Practically all hon. Members opposite have spoken with justice on the detailed problems in their own constituencies and the detailed problems affecting industries in Scotland, but not one has spoken of the things that are happening in Scotland that are extremely good.
  If I now turn for a few minutes to the brighter side, it is not because I am complacent about the bad parts in the Scottish scene, but because I think that it is extraordinarily dangerous, in a debate like this, for it to go out from the House of Commons that we Scots think only gloom, gloom, gloom about our own country. That is very bad and very dangerous. We have our problems, and it is right that we should recognise them. It is right that we should argue about them and press the Government of the day to deal with them, but it is equally right to look on what is good and what can develop and is developing; to hold out hope for the future, and not adopt the attitude of despair we have witnessed today.
  One or two hon. Members, thinking of the future, made constructive speeches.
  730
  Anybody who has had any experience of trying to encourage industrialists to move into a country, an area, or a town within an area knows that they can be very much influenced by what they gather from reading the Press and from the general atmosphere surrounding an area. If they get the feeling that the inhabitants of Scotland themselves think that we are down and out, who will come to us? For goodness' sake, let us keep the thing in proportion and not talk gloom all the time.
  Why do we not talk more about the tremendous developments at Grange mouth, and of the Finnart extension, just opened, making this the first harbour in Britain to take 100,000-ton tankers? Why do we not talk more about the contracts placed by British Railways with the North British Company for locomotives? Then there are Hunterston and Dounreay. Chapelcross is now supplying electricity into the grid—[HON. MEMBERS: "All nationalised."] I do not care a hoot whether they are nationalised or not if they are contributing to the well-being of Scotland; and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) that this nationalisation argument should be put out of the way for the time being. It is not useful on an occasion like this. I did not intro duce it. I was listing the good things that were happening—
  Mr. Woodburn: When the Conservative Party is arguing all over the place against nationalisation, and undermining it, it forces us to introduce these things into the discussion.
  Mr. Maclay: I said that I did not care a hoot whether some of the projects I mentioned were nationalised, but I personally feel that it would be disastrous to have any further measures of nationalisation. I say that for this very good reason. The real problem to-day is not so much who owns things, but how to get the best management, and if anyone tells me that we have solved the management problem in the nationalised industries I just do not believe it. It still remains an acute problem.
  An hon. Member opposite murmurs, "What about private industry?" In private industry we get a very flexible management. How else could we have come through the last two extremely

  731
  difficult years with our unemployment figures, bad as they were, a great deal better than they were in any country in the free Western world, except France? That is true. During those years, nobody has been able to touch us on that score.
  I could go through a whole range of good things that are happening, but I will mention only one more, because it is typical of what can happen in the future. Probably not every hon. Member opposite read a very interesting article in the Scotsman of 30th June, otherwise they would not all be so gloomy. In Peterhead, the Cleveland Twist Drill Company makes a fine quality product and is exporting it to all parts of the world, regardless of all problems of distance caused by being located in Peterhead. We have there the Peterhead Gear Manufacturing Company doing exactly the same thing—overcoming all these difficulties we hear so much about, by private enterprise at its very best, helped by the Government in the appropriate way, with a proper balance being followed. We have got Crosse and Blackwell carrying out food processing there, canning which used to be done in the South.
  These are not developments which are going South. Here is not the risk, as hon. Members opposite have described it, of the joining up of companies, of amalgamations, meaning that these things are going South. This is not a one-way traffic. Quite a lot of things are coming North from the South. I have myself opened a factory where was concentrated the production of the whole organisation—in one Scottish factory. There is an enterprise coming from Coventry to Brechin, coming north, and doing very important work which is being concentrated there. There are other works. I have a longish list of these, but I am not going on with it now, because I have not enough time. But this is not a one-way traffic.
  The reason I interrupted the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) when he was speaking was that I felt that he was painting a rather too dangerously gloomy picture of the things which were going to happen—at least, I thought he was. These are things which need not happen. They are things we want to avoid.
  732
  Having said that I would say I agree with hon. Members opposite that everything we want to happen in Scotland is not happening. I was puzzled by the final attack by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I was not puzzled by his attack, for I knew it would come, but there was a part by which I was puzzled. I was puzzled by the fact that he sounded as though the party opposite has another policy, has a new policy. But what is it? [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] Is there a new policy? Let us get straight what it is. Is it for more advance factories?
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Yes.
  Mr. Maclay: What is it? I have read of all these things said by the party opposite.
  Mr. Hamilton: We want to hear the right hon. Gentleman's policy.
  Mr. Maclay: I have read the statements of the party opposite, and, to tell the truth and to be quite frank, both parties have been working along broadly the same lines, knowing that the basic problem is the diversification of industry in Scotland.
  Mr. Hamilton: Let us hear the right hon. Gentleman's policy.
  Mr. Maclay: We have got this figure, which I greatly regret and deplore. The figure of unemployed is 31,000 less today than at the peak winter figure, but it is still about double that of the United Kingdom average.
  Mr. T. Fraser: More than double.
  Mr. Maclay: Just over double.
  Why have we got it? I think the diagnosis is fairly clear. It has often been made in the House. We are still over-concentrated on the heavy industries. Undoubtedly, we have got to go on working for diversification of industry.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock made it sound very easy, but he did not say what he would do to achieve the results he described. Does he intend to direct industry? No, of course he does not. He will not get up there and say that the policy of his party is to direct industry to Scotland. What will right hon. and hon. Members opposite do? They will put forward various forms of

  733
  inducement in precisely the same way we are trying to do, because that is the practical way of doing it. Let us not, for goodness' sake, get into a political auction ring on this, each party offering a little more than the other and saying, "We are the better people." [Interruption.] It was a rhetorical question I asked. It is permissible to put rhetorical questions into speeches.
  Mr. Lawson Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Maclay: Time is short.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Maclay: I give way a good deal, as hon. Members know. I cannot give way now. Time is short.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman definitely asked a question, Mr. Speaker, and if an hon. Member is prepared to give the answer to the question is it not in order that he should be permitted to do so?
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly not, unless the Minister gives way. The question was a rhetorical question.
  Mr. Lawson Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. Member to remember that there is only limited time at the disposal of the Secretary of State. A lot has been said, and I think that we ought to allow him to reply.
  Mr. Lawson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been present all the afternoon. I have been here much longer today than the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Secretary of State threw out a challenge to hon. Members on this side of the House. There was a definite challenge, and so far—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to take up that challenge unless the Minister gives way.
  Mr. Maclay: I will get on. It was quite clear that what I was asking was a rhetorical question as to what the hon. Member's speech meant. I will leave the House to judge for itself whether my question was justified.
  I want to deal with many other things. One is the suggestion made by my hon.
  734
  Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) in the last debate, and again today, about the possibility of an overall inquiry. I have, of course, had other communications on this subject from various individual Members, and I have had talks with a number of people. I am, of course, considering, and will go on considering, all these suggestions with the greatest care, but I am quite certain that no hon. Member who knows the work of the Scottish Council would wish to do other than express the highest regard for the devotion and effectiveness with which it carries out its work. I am certain that that is the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East.
  Hon. Members will recall that the Scottish Council's objects include maintaining
  "a continuous survey of industrial developments and trends"
  and arranging for such
  "inquiries and research into particular problems affecting the well-being of the people of Scotland"
  as may be desirable from time to time. From the information so obtained, the Scottish Council's remit is
  "to advise the Secretary of State in regard to the industrial, commercial and economic problems of Scotland on which action may be needed."
  The Council has carried out a large number of inquiries, many, I agree, in particular areas and into particular industries, but also into the general economic position and the general prospects in Scotland. I would emphasise, as it may not be fully realised, that this process is practically continuous. My own contacts with the Scottish Council, and those of my Department and other Departments concerned, are equally continuous. I feel certain that no one would want to suggest that there should be unnecessary duplication of work or function. I will, of course, discuss with the Council the various suggestions made and will continue to think very carefully about how best to apply the constructive thought given to this problem by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East and other hon. Members. In the light of discussions with the Scottish Council, it may well emerge that further lines of inquiry can and should be immediately developed.
  I would emphasise that, in addition to the work of its own full-time expert

  735
  staff, there is nothing I know of to pre-vent the Council calling in the widest range of advisers and consultants, be it individuals, firms, universities, or any other body which can help. One thing that is quite certain is that the Government are more than anxious that the best brains in Scotland, and elsewhere, too, should be continuously applied to the solution of our industrial problems. I make clear that I consider these are grave still. We must do a great deal of constructive thinking about how best to achieve the diversity of industry that we must have, and we intend to go on to the best of our ability in search of means of getting that diversity.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Scottish Council put a plan to him, he replied, brushing it off, and the Council's reply was
  "The Secretary of State's reply showed no appreciation of the fundamentals of the problem."
  What is the good of giving the Council more to do in this respect and then paying no attention to what it says?
  Mr. Maclay: I thought that the hon. Member would be asking that question. I had thought that he would have asked it in his speech and I was about to deal with the matter in my speech. I know that the reply given to the Scottish Council has been described in the Press as disappointing, but it has not been published yet.
  Briefly, this is the position. It is true that the Government have not been able to accept all the Council's recommendations, but, as I told the Council, we fully share its concern about the need for further diversification of industry and a reduction of unemployment in Scotland. We believe that the measures which have already been introduced can be of substantial assistance to a solution of our problems, and what has been done in the last year has been of substantial assistance. Of course, we are constantly studying how to improve those methods.
  The Council suggested, for example, that there should be an increase of 2 million square feet a year in the rate of Government factory building. The difficulty, if one is being responsible about this matter, is that while that may be a very desirable target, there is simply not
  736
  the demand at present for a large amount of space of that kind. Indeed, as I have said before, there is a substantial amount of space lying empty. We expect that as a result of the general upturn in world economic activity and the measures which the Government have taken to stimulate our own economy, demand will revive, and as demand for factories rises, there should be no difficulty in meeting it. Similar considerations apply to the building of advance factories, and to a "float" of advance factory space being permanently available. We have been over the argument about advance factories very often.
  I am terrified that there will not be enough time to deal with the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and I will here interject that I have carefully considered the representations which were made by the deputation which she brought to see me and whose courtesy I greatly appreciate, as I do the extremely lucid and able way in which it put its case. I am still considering everything that was said by them.
  We have this one advance factory building in Scotland, and we must watch the situation. It may well be that there should be more advance factories, but so long as we have a pool of a substantial number of existing factories lying empty, it is extraordinarily difficult to justify going on with a big programme. I assure the hon. Lady that we are watching the position very carefully in her area and in comparable areas.
  There is one other point which was raised by the Scottish Council and with which I should deal this evening. The Council made a most interesting suggestion about investment allowances at a special rate in Scotland. In my reply, I pointed out that, as everybody knew, those allowances were introduced throughout the United Kingdom in the last Budget. I realise that that does not form a direct inducement to firms to set up in Scotland, but it has to be clear that no amount of special inducement to firms to go to Scotland will be of any use unless the United Kingdom economy is expanding. Such an expansion, which these allowances should stimulate, is bound to be of some benefit to Scotland. Differential investment

  737
  allowances, as any hon. Member who considers it will realise, raise fundamental problems of policy which would have to be carefully considered before one could commit oneself to that kind of proposal, which is a completely new kind of proposal affecting taxation.
  I conclude my comments on the Scottish Council by saying that I believe that the Council is now considering what further representations it should make to the Government in the light of my reply. I have been in close touch with my colleagues in the Government who are particularly concerned with the matters raised in the Scottish Council's memorandum, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has told me that if the Council so wishes he would be willing to join with me in meeting it to discuss its further representations.
  Of course, we realise that there is an acute problem in areas, such as that represented by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, which are undergoing a structural change in industry. I can say only that we will go on working in every way we can to find means of attracting new industry to her area. It is eligible for all the various types of assistance, which I need not detail again today. It is a problem of finding a firm willing to go there. That raises our policy with regard to I.D.C.s. This matter has often been discussed on the Floor of the House. We are pursuing a very tough I.D.C. policy to prevent people developing firms in areas where there is already an over-concentration of industry, and we will continue to do so.
  I should like to add to what has been said by other hon. Members about the swan-song of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). I have known her for a number of years, and I think we have a remote family connection of some sort through a meeting between her family and mine a long time before that. As Secretary of State I have found her as persistent, annoying and encouraging an hon. Member as one could hope for in the House of Commons. Undoubtedly, a Secretary of State would be astounded if any hon. Member who was doing the job that the hon. Lady does for her constituency was not a very considerable irritation, because that is what a good Member ought to be. I add to the expressions
  738
  of our great sorrow that this is to be the hon. Lady's swan song.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) raised two specific points. One was about Dunbar. We listened carefully to my hon. and gallant Friend's able summary of why some of the inhabitants of Dunbar were concerned about the possibility of juvenile delinquents coming to that town I assure him that I have carefully noted what he said. On the question of Eye-mouth harbour, a study has been made of whether modifications can be made of the overall plan that has been put forward so as to make it a more practical proposition.
  I am sorry that I cannot go through a lot of other detailed points. To the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) I say that I am arranging, as perhaps he knows, to receive a deputation from the county council before the end of the month, when some of the acute problems of his area will be discussed.
  On the question of Russian trade raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), I understand that there was nothing in the agreement about designating ports. What happened was that before the Russian Trade Mission went abroad there had been discussions about setting up a regular liner service. The regular liner service was arranged quite independently of the delegation. There are no designated ports, but that service, which was worked out on a commercial basis, is based on London with Hull as an alternative port of call. As the hon. Member knows, it is up to the Government to do everything they can to use all the trade possibilities that may come out of the Russian agreement. Arrangements have been made through the Scottish Office for the Ministry of Transport to see representatives of the Leith Harbour Board, to advise them how best to get Leith more directly involved in trade between us and Russia.
  We have to work together on improving Scotland economically. I do not mean that we have to give up our political disagreements, but I know from experience during the last three years that this is work where Members of Parliament, working with their local

  739
  authorities and with industries in their constituencies, can make immense progress faster than the central Government can. All of us have a part to play, the private firms, the central Government, the local authorities and Members of Parliament. Let us do everything in our power to encourage people to come, but do not let us have excessive gloom or they will not come.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland and Scottish Roads, 1958 (Command Paper No. 706).

AGRICULTURE (SILO SUBSIDIES)
10.0 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Silo Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss the Silo Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme with the English scheme.
Mr. Godber: That would be very convenient, Mr. Speaker.
The new schemes constitute, in effect, an extension of the present arrangements which are due to come to an end on 31st July. A few minor modifications have been made, but the rates of subsidy and maximum grants payable remain the same.
We have considered carefully the question of whether the silo subsidies should be incorporated into the Farm Improvement Scheme. The House will have noticed that the report of the Caine Committee on Grassland Utilisation made suggestions to that effect. We have studied these suggestions very carefully. They would, of course, entail fresh legislation, since the 1957 Agriculture Act specifies a 33⅓ per cent. grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme. In any case, we felt that there are real objections to complicating the Farm Improvement Scheme in this way in order to make special arrangements for silos. If we were to continue to meet the purposes of
740
the Silo Scheme within the framework of the Farm Improvement Scheme it would be necessary to create a sort of scheme within a scheme.
Moreover, it was never the intention of the Silo Subsidies Scheme to provide grants for the larger farmer to build large and expensive silos. The scheme was deliberately weighted in favour of the smaller farmer, both by providing a relatively high rate of subsidy on individual items in the Schedule and by limiting the total amount of subsidy payable on any one agricultural unit. For these various reasons we have concluded that we should continue the silo subsidies for a further period in their present form, but we shall, of course, always keep this matter under review.
At the same time, I should make clear to the House that the Farm Improvement Scheme will in future be administered without regard to the maximum grant payable under the Silo Scheme. In future we propose that the two schemes shall operate side by side and that structures may qualify for grant under either where they satisfy all its conditions. In other words, where a building can be said to satisfy fully the tests of the Farm Improvement Scheme and can be regarded as a long-term improvement irrespective of its use in connection with silage making, it will be eligible for grant under that Scheme.
The silo itself will continue to be subsidised as now under the Silo Subsidies Scheme, which will also make provision for covered silos of a straight-forward kind where that is what is required. I hope this solution will commend itself to the House. It meets the main point which the Caine Committee evidently had in mind without disturbing the provisions of either scheme, and we are confident that it will be found acceptable by the farming community.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: We do not oppose the schemes. This is a comparatively modest subsidy, amounting to no more than £1 million, which is rather less than was provided in the previous year. We support the schemes broadly because they will encourage home production of feeding stuffs and save imports, but there are a few observations that I want to make before we part with them.

741
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary recognises that these are anomalous schemes, in the sense that we have an improvement scheme within the production grants, and although it is true that the money comes out of the overall Price Review, and the National Farmers' Union agreed to the schemes, since they deal with capital projects they should be kept under review and not regarded as permanent subsidies. It was for that reason that when we discussed the Bill some of my hon. Friends were rather critical of the proposal.
In the progress of production grants we tend to lose sight of the main agricultural objectives, and I would much rather the Government gave more serious thought to the Caine Committee's general recommendations about grassland improvement. We should not regard this as another permanent production grant but as something which is giving a stimulus to the production of silos. We should judge it in the light of the effect of that stimulus.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Caine Committee's Report which is very important in this context. There was a majority and a minority recommendation. The minority recommendation was that there should be a silage subsidy rather than a silo subsidy. I gather from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government have considered that and prefer the views of the majority of the Committee. If that be the Government view, it is one which I share. We have the advantage of a review of the effect of this production grant, but the conclusion of the Committee is disappointing. It is not very positive. The Caine Committee said that it is too early to judge the full effects of the scheme. Again, this is a very important matter.
When we have discussed previous schemes I have said that it is not good enough merely to say that the object is laudable, in this case that there has been an increase in the provision of silos, because that was happening before the schemes were introduced. We wish to know what stimulus this subsidy has had. After all, we are concerned with the expenditure of £1 million. The disappointing thing about the Report of the Caine Committee is that it does not adduce any evidence that this subsidy has been fully effective in this broad sense.
742
It is encouraging that the Report shows that the subsidy has been successful in stimulating the smaller farmers to provide silage, which is a good conclusion to draw from the effect of the scheme. But, as I have said in previous discussions about production grants, we have the Small Farmers Scheme and we have to consider the whole time whether, if we aid the small farmer, it will be better to do so within the provisions of that scheme rather than by a general aid such as we are considering here.
The Parliamentary Secretary concedes that the Caine Committee has made a recommendation which the Government are not following. However, I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said, that there will be a greater co-ordination between the Farm Improvement Scheme and the present Scheme. That is a good development. As he said it goes a long way towards the recommendation of the Caine Committee, but I feel strongly that there is a good case for bringing this under the Farm Improvement Scheme, even though it might mean taking it out of the Price Review award. I can see the objection of the Treasury to the proposals of the Caine Committee, because if they were implemented they would probably result in silos coming within the Farm Improvement Scheme; but I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary has considered this, and what he said will be an improvement.
I wish to make two other points about this scheme. We still have not heard anything about what research has been carried on. I know that research is being carried on but we require research in two spheres, in the actual making of silage and in farm buildings. The Caine Committee supports me. It also felt that there should be research into farm buildings. I wish to emphasise that when we are considering such a scheme as this, we must consider ancillary ways in which we can encourage the objective behind it. We are far too lackadaisical about the matter. Time after time the Department is presented with difficulties and it only doles out a little more money. It should tackle this much more realistically. We should get not only more money provided, but provision for more research, technical advice and assistance.
I do not wish to repeat again what I have said about N.A.A.S. being the

743
"Cinderella" of the services. We hope these matters will be kept under review. We are not convinced, and the Caine Committee apparently was not convinced, that there is positive evidence that the scheme is having any remarkable effects, apart from the desirable effect of seeing that small farmers are turning more to silage.
The main point, however, I want to emphasise is that to vote Price Review money to a particular purpose in a scheme such as this is at the sacrifice of the farming community generally. We must, therefore, not disregard the other ways in which good farming practices can be encouraged, and we must get other initiatives to back up the expenditure of the subsidy.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I was hoping to have some sort of progress report from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think that we should pass further money for a scheme unless we know whether or not such schemes have been successful. We do not know how successful or otherwise this particular Silo Subsidies Scheme has been since its inception.
It has been a good scheme for the small farmer, but today he will make silage only when the weather is bad. There will not be as much silage made this year as there has been previously. With the large farmer it is different. He sets aside a certain acreage for silage and hay, irrespective of the weather. More silage is made when the weather is bad than when the weather is good. I hoped that it would be possible to find what progress the scheme had made up to the present.
Many silos which have been made by small farmers will be used for sheds—implement sheds—rather than silos in the future, because the small farmer does not altogether like silage. In the main, he prefers to make hay, which is better to handle. He has not the men to handle silage as the big farmer has. Many silos will be used for other purposes than those for which the grant was made.
I am glad that on page 2, paragraph 4, there is provision for the construction of a roof over existing silos. A large number of silos have been made and I
744
was surprised at the Ministry not insisting upon a roof over them. In wet weather silage should not be made unless it can be covered at once. Many silos are open all the year round and the result is that six inches to a foot of the top of the silage is absolutely rotten. Last year, the waste in some silos was deplorable, but that was an exceptional year. The Ministry ought to insist that a roof should go over the silo, whether the silo is new or reconditioned, especially in areas where rainfall is very high.
I do not feel that silage making will be a permanent feature of the small farmer's practice. I think that it will be a permanent feature for the large farmer, who can make both hay and silage and work one in with the other, but the small farmer will turn to one rather than the other and, generally, he will turn to hay.
Another thing which is against him is that he cannot afford the machinery—at least, he should not be able to—that is used for silage making. The silorator and all the new machinery which is used by the larger farmer is far too costly and will soon over-capitalise the small farm, and there is already too much of that going on. This scheme wants considering carefully to see that the best use is made of the money, that the silo is of the best type, with a proper roof over it, so that there is not so much waste, and whether it will become a permanent feature for the small farmer or will be discarded in one or two years' time.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that the scheme wants watching. Could the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland explain how it is working in Scotland?
10.16 p.m.
Sir Archer Baldwin: After we have heard two voices from the other side of the House which do not agree with the Silo Subsidies Scheme, I feel that, as a user of silage, I must make my contribution. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said that is was not of much use to the small farmer, but I do not agree. In a year like last year it was essential that there should be such a scheme, but this year, I agree, farmers will make hay and will not need to have the advantage of silage to be used later.

745
I do not agree that the silage pit can be turned into a machinery shelter. That would be extremely difficult. If silage is made properly, particularly if it has a. shelter over it such as the hon. Member advocated, I cannot see that there is so much waste as the hon. Member seemed to think. I have an open silo, but the moment I finish contributing to the heap I throw soil on the top and then I can use the silage. I do not know why the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was not in favour of a silage scheme in Scotland.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I asked for information. I did not oppose the scheme at all.
Sir A. Baldwin: I thought that the hon. Member was opposing the scheme. From my knowledge of Scotland, if there is any place which needs such a scheme it is Scotland. When I was there, about eight years ago, I found that farmers were hesitant about the matter, but I think that since then they have developed it. It would take a lot of the ache out of their heads. I wish to support the scheme, because I think it will be extremely useful for both the big and the small farmer.
10.19 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I was asked a question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I should like to answer him and also the questions asked of my hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Kenyon), because to a certain extent those questions go together.
Up to the end of May more than 25,000 projects had been approved in the
746
United Kingdom, of which about 16,500 were in England, 3,000 in Wales, over 1,700 in Scotland and about 3,850 in Northern Ireland. Collectively, they attract grants amounting to over £4 million. Of these, about 15,700 projects have been completed, attracting a grant of £2·35 million. Since the inception of the scheme, there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the amount of silage made in the United Kingdom each year and in the same period the number of farmers making the silage rose by about 8,000 to nearly 50,000.
There is still a steady demand for approvals, although, naturally, this is less than in the first year, when there was a good deal of pent-up demand to be satisfied. Approval is at present being given at the rate of 7,600 projects a year, attracting a grant of £1·2 million.
The figures which show the success of the scheme in Scotland which is what, I think, interests the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I can best give in this way. The first Silo Subsidies Scheme was started at the end of November, 1956. In 1956, the total tonnage in Scotland was 368,108; in 1957, it was 428,057; and in 1958 it went up to 568,872.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Silo Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
Silo Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme, 1959 [draft laid before the House 16th June], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]

AGRICULTURE (LIME SUBSIDY)
10.23 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Agricultural Lime Schemes (Extension of Period) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
The Order applies to the whole of the United Kingdom and extends the lime subsidy scheme for the next five years.
The lime subsidy enables the farmer to get a refund of 60 per cent. of his liming costs—in recent years increased in the summer months to 70 per cent.—to encourage farmers to lime hill, grassland and marshy and other land on which summer liming is practicable. The cost of the subsidy for the whole of the United Kingdom is between £9 million and £10 million per annum.
There is still some way to go before we can say that the lime status of United Kingdom soils is satisfactory. The latest estimate of the soil chemists of the National Agricultural Advisory Service is that we are short of that target by some 15 million tons of calcium oxide, equivalent to about 30 million tons of lime product. We are losing by leaching, extraction by crops and stock and so on, close to a further 2 million tons of calcium oxide a year. Some 9 million tons of liming materials—4½ million tons calcium oxide—a year would have to be applied to the soils of the United Kingdom to get the position right over, say, the next six years, nearly half of this quantity being required to replace our annual lime losses.
The current rate of consumption is close to the practical limit of agricultural lime production under average conditions. Average consumption for the last four years has been 6½ million tons of lime product for the United Kingdom. This year has started well and if weather conditions continue to be favourable for liming, consumption in 1959 should be well up to this average.
We regard the lime subsidy as one of the most useful of the farm production grants making, as it does, a positive contribution
748
to improvement in the fertility of our land. I believe that this Order for its further extension will commend itself to the House.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: We do not oppose this Order. These schemes have obviously been a great success, but there is a considerable sum involved—£10 million—and we must remember that the subsidy was only £2½ million in 1946–47. The subsidy has absorbed the rising transport costs and rising prices. Nevertheless, because it is substantial we must look at it twice.
This Order illustrates the dilemma of the production grant. It is an old scheme, first effective in 1939. Obviously the scheme has proved itself, because whereas the consumption was 500,000 tons in 1939 it is now 6 million to 7 million tons. The dilemma is whether such a production grant in effect becomes permanent. I concede at once that it would be a serious disadvantage if the subsidy were reduced at this stage. Indeed, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that it will be required for six or seven years, a view confirmed by the Caine Committee, which said that the subsidy should continue at the present rate and should so continue for seven years.
Parliament clearly considers this as temporary aid, because the Government have to seek extension powers, but it means that we have a distortion of the economy. This has some disadvantages. Unlike the fertilisers subsidy, we have some costings in this case, but the mere fact that we have costings does not mean that we can avoid all the difficulties of such a price structure. The difficulty about the lime prices, as the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out, is that there are no savings in the production costs due to improved efficiency and new techniques. For a subsidy which has continued over twenty years, this is a deplorable result.
We have no drive within the price structure to ensure that there are keen competitive prices. When this was raised, the Comptroller and Auditor General in his Report said that
"the Ministry were of the opinion that the industry was not obtaining any significant benefit from uncosted productivity gains

749
which might otherwise, in whole or in part, accrue to the Exchequer and they doubted whether any good purpose would be served by instituting a study of individual producer-costs and prices."
This is not altogether satisfactory. The Ministry apparently conceded that some benefit might be obtained. At any rate, it leaves the suspicion that there is some laxity in controlling the prices.
Moreover, we have been driving an industry the whole time in order to bring about maximum output. This means that the price is certainly affected by the price of marginal production. This has gone on for 20 years and, as we are dealing with an extension Order, I had hoped that the Government would say that, since they envisage using the subsidy for a further seven years, we should have some businesslike inquiry to see that the prices are as competitive as possible. I recognise the dilemma and the difficulty of changing the rates of the production grant when we still have to make the maximum use of all lime available.
We cannot escape from that dilemma, but we can escape from the fiction that this is a temporary measure. We have to recognise that this Order has endured for twenty years and will certainly endure for seven years more; and that in seven years' time the then Parliamentary Secretary will probably say that it is needed for a further period. Because of this, the Government should face more seriously their obligations to satisfy both the House and the farmer—who, in the last resort, pays for the subsidy—that it is not a cloak for any inefficiency, and is not a device for avoiding the ordinary forces of competitive prices.
I do not think that the rather complacent reply of the Ministry to the Comptroller and Auditor General was satisfactory, and I hope that during the period of this extension the Government will show a lively concern, and will not merely to be content with the costings inquiry and review but will make the fullest use of it.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. Clifford Kenyon: To safeguard myself, I must at once say that I support the Order, otherwise the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) will say that I opposed it. I
750
did not oppose the other Scheme, but supported it. One can support something even though one may criticise it.
I support this Order because I feel that if any subsidy schemes are doing good this, above all others, is absolutely essential. I was interested in the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary, but they were averages for the country, and he will find that in the industrial areas and the rainfall areas—and especially where they coincide—the lime deficiency becomes very serious indeed.
At the Helmshore experimental farm in Rossendale it has been proved over the last few years that the leaching, together with the effect of acids from industrial smoke, removes from the soil half a ton of lime per acre annually. That is a terrible loss. Farmers in the area find that the cost of the additional lime necessary is very heavy, and I am afraid that in such areas we are not getting so much lime used as we should. Farmers just despair, and the land goes back to rushes very quickly if one does not keep up, year after year, with the liming.
Are periodical tests made by Ministry inspectors of the lime that is delivered to the farms—especially of limestone dust and ground limestone? Many farmers think that the quality is not what it was; that there is not the same care taken in the grinding or in the separation of the lime, or whatever the process may be. They feel that it is adulterated more than it should be. This does not occur with the burnt lime, but in the case of the limestone dust and the ground limestone there is certainly the possibility that this is taking place. Perhaps that can be looked into.
Facilities are much better for the spreading of the lime. The merchants have their spreading machines and they are getting on to the hills better than they did a few years ago. They can now use their crawler machines and their little crawler lorries and they can get into places that we used to regard as being inaccessible to anything but horses. Now they are making a good job of this work and there is no reason why the land, even on the hills, should not receive the lime that it now requires. Once again, I support the schemes.
10.36 p.m.
Sir Archer Baldwin: I am glad that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) supports the schemes, because although I do not usually like production grants I agree that this is one of the best forms of production grant. I am sure that, without it, there would be nothing like the amount of lime used that should now be used.
I do not quite understand the criticism of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about production. The hon. Member for Chorley has rightly pointed out that the producers now distribute their lime in a first-class manner. I remember that in my young days it was hauled in the clod condition, put out in clumps on the field and spread with a shovel, which was not a very nice condition. Now, however, it can be distributed straight away.
My suggestion is that it would be as well if a test were made of the limestone when it is being applied. In the old days when the lime was slacked, there were stones left which we hauled off and put into the gateways. What becomes of the stones now? Are they ground up and applied to our land as lime? A little interest in the quality of the lime at the various limekilns would be useful.
10.37 p.m.
Mr. Godber: Perhaps I may reply briefly to two points which have been made. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred, understandably, to the comments of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that we shall all be interested to see the results of the survey. He raised also the question of relative prices. I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member's lips the claim that competition is a good thing. I hope that he and his colleagues will all think of that in other contexts.
I have been checking the price of lime, before subsidy, to the farmer shortly before the war and now. It is interesting that just before the war it was 24s. 6d. per ton. Now it is 43s. 10d. per ton. It has not, therefore, more than doubled in price, as most other commodities have done. That shows that there has been some reduction through the increased quantities which have come forward.
752
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), whose speech, as usual, interested us, asked a specific point about the sampling to make sure of quality. I assure him that samples are taken at frequent intervals. We keep as close a check as it is reasonably possible to do on the qualities of lime. As far as we can tell, there is not much wrong with the average sample.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Agricultural Lime Schemes (Extension of Period) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (SAFETY REGULATIONS)
10.39 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture (Stationary Machinery) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
The Regulations, unlike the two previous Orders, are entirely new, and I shall have to deal with them at a little more length. They are the most recent in the series which have been made under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956, and whose prime purpose is, I am sure, agreed by all sides of the House, namely, to safeguard the worker on the farm.
As the House will remember, we have already introduced Regulations about first aid on farms, ladders, the safeguarding of power take-off points and of circular saws and of workplaces, as well as others designed to reduce the accidents to children on farms. Those now before the House deal with certain farm machinery designed for stationary use only. This machinery is the type which includes corn mills, root cutters, grain drying and cleaning plant, meal mixers and hop pluckers. Transmission machinery used with such machines is also included and so are the prime movers which work them. Although stationary threshers, hullers, balers and trussers would come within this definition, they need special treatment and are left for a later set of Regulations.

753
It is important that farmers understand exactly what machines are covered. The definition in the Regulations states that "stationary machines" means any machine designed or adapted for stationary use only. It follows, therefore, that any field machine which for convenience is used in a stationary position in the farmyard or elsewhere is not covered by these Regulations, but if it is adapted for permanent use in this stationary position, then it would come within the terms of the Regulations.
I should like now to comment briefly on the main points in the Order. Shafting, pulleys, belts, flywheels and similar machinery will have to have guards of adequate strength unless these components are safely positioned out of the way of workers. Slow-moving belts or chains such as conveyors need to be guarded only at the run-on point: this also applies to primary driving belts except where they are part of a fixed installation, when the whole length of the belt must be guarded.
Guards have to be provided for feeding inlets and discharge outlets of machines which grind or similarly treat grain, and those which prepare feedingstuffs such as roots, hay, etc.
Both machines and prime movers must have readily accessible stopping devices. These will, for prime movers, often be switches and there are special requirements for their effectiveness such as clear identification with the prime mover concerned.
Employers will, in the main, be allowed two years to make the necessary arrangements, but the comparatively easy guarding of feeding inlets and discharge outlets of certain machines that deal with grain must be done in twelve months. This shorter period also applies to provision of adequate light and maintenance of belts.
Manufacturers and dealers have not been given legal responsibility. The guards required frequently depend on the position of the machine in relation to the worker, or to other machines, of which the manufacturer could not be expected to be aware. The layout of an installation is primarily the concern of the farmer. However, organisations representing both manufacturers and dealers have been consulted during the
754
framing of the Regulations and I have every confidence that they will cooperate. Experience with earlier Regulations in this field is encouraging.
Interested organisations have been consulted and the draft Regulations have been accepted by all sides of the farming industry. We shall, as with earlier Regulations, use all available means to inform people concerned of their responsibilities: publicity will include leaflets explaining the detailed requirements, and more general announcements as reminders.
Our safety inspectors will be only too glad to advise farmers who are in difficulties. Although I cannot, of course, promise that we shall never use our powers of prosecution, we are not out for a crop of prosecutions on technical infringements. We want to make farm machinery safer by some reasonable precautions: we shall proceed by publicity, advice and warnings, and keep prosecutions as really a last resort.
I feel certain that, as useful and necessary additions to the existing safety measures, these Regulations will commend themselves to the House.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I welcome these Regulations without any reservation. When the Bill was in Standing Committee I moved an Amendment to try to make such a provision as this in the Bill itself. I withdrew the Amendment because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then the Minister, was sympathetic to the principle and undertook to produce an Amendment, if he could, on Report. But he found it impossible to do that, I think for two reasons. One was the difficulty of definition within the Bill itself and the second was the need for consultation.
Having studied the Regulations, I would accept the difficulty of definition within the terms of the Bill itself. The Chancellor said that we would have Regulations as early as possible. That was three years ago, but I do not make any complaint about this because it is quite clear that this has been a difficult matter. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary—in fact I emphasised the point during the Committee proceedings—that it is absolutely essential to hold the fullest consultations in matters of this

755
sort. I agree entirely with him that this is not an object to be attained by prosecution, but an object to be attained by the utmost co-operation by those in the industry and those responsible for the manufacture of the machinery.
It is because there has been full consultation and because there has been agreement to these Regulations that I wish to raise no point on the Regulations themselves. I think that if we have such consultation, and if we do secure agreement, we have to recognise that the Regulations are the best provision which can be made and will be the most effective provision which can be made. I notice the provision for certificates of exemption. I recognise the unavoidable necessity of such certificates, but I hope that no undue use will be made of them.
Everyone who took part in the discussions on the Bill recognised that static machinery has caused ghastly accidents in the agricultural community. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee shared the desire to try to seek for the agricultural worker a status comparable with that of the industrial worker, and I should like to take this occasion to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his Department on the excellent work they have done, and to encourage them to produce in due course further regulations so that we may have parity between the agricultural and the industrial worker.
10.46 p.m.
Mr. Ray Mawby: I wish to join in welcoming these Regulations. The main thing about them is that they draw the attention of those engaged in agriculture to the many dangers which are always there whenever stationary machinery is used.
In an ordinary factory, which, of course, for many years has been subject to the Factories Acts, from the beginning of the time a boy enters it to work, the dangers are pointed out to him, so that he knows full well that by removing guards and so on he is exposing himself to danger—and also his employer, because the employer is obliged to make certain that everyone working in his factory is aware of the dangers which can arise from working there.
No matter what walk of life we are in, we always assume that it is other
756
people, not ourselves, who have accidents. I believe that these Regulations, if carried out properly, will certainly draw the attention of those engaged in agriculture to the many dangers which do arise whenever there is machinery in operation. Particularly am I interested in the insistence that there shall be good natural or artificial light whenever there are prime movers and shafting in operation in barns and other places, because the workers are so used to going there and doing certain operations in semi-darkness that they do not realise the dangers to which they are thus exposed.
I believe that these Regulations will do a grand job of work in making certain that all those engaged in agriculture will be made aware of the dangers, and that in that way the Regulations will give them added protection in their jobs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Agriculture (Stationary Machinery) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.

GOOSE GREEN FARMLAND, WIGAN (OPENCAST MINING)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]
10.48 p.m.
Mr. Alan Fitch: On 17th December, 1958, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the state of the land at Goose Green, Wigan, which had been returned to several farmers after opencast coal operations. Prior to writing to the right hon. Gentleman I had visited this land, and whilst I have little knowledge of farming—in fact, I am not even a very good gardener—it was apparent to my amateur eye that the land was in a very poor condition. Indeed, it looked to me very much like marshland. I had photographs taken which I sent to the right hon. Gentleman. In my letter I suggested it was unsatisfactory for any kind of arable farming. On 27th January, 1959, I received a reply to my letter. It said:
"One of our major problems on opencast coal land, especially sites such as this with the heavier soils, is the lack of physical, or

757
'crumb' structure in the replaced soil. This produces an impermeable condition which does not allow free drainage or percolation of the surface water through the soil so that it can find its way to the drains. This is a problem to which our experts have not found a complete answer, but I hope that before long my scientific advisers will be able to suggest remedies. What has become clear already is that in addition to efficient drains, a good standard of management and generous applications of fertilisers to promote root growth are essential.
"When the land in the Goose Green area was derequisitioned, my technical officers considered that it was in a reasonably satisfactory condition, though in some parts of the area there was not a great deal of soil available for replacement. Technical compensation was of course paid in accordance with the statutory conditions current at the time to the owner by the Minister of Power. Underground drains were installed, but the impermeable condition I have mentioned prevented surface water reaching the drains. The stocking of the land with cattle did not help. If this takes place in the early years, and especially in wet weather, 'puddling' and 'ponding' of the surface are the natural consequences.
My Ministry have investigated the complaint about this area very thoroughly, and my officers have given help and advice on the management of the land and on the best way of dealing with the problems. I have asked my technical officers to call on the farmers of Goose Green to give them all the help they can. This is I am sure the best way of trying to solve the very difficult problems which your constituents are facing."
This is a very courteous and honest letter. There are, however, certain questions which I would like to put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
Was the drainage system wrongly laid out, or was the actual work hastily or incompetently carried out? I visited the area concerned last week. Certain parts of the land were trenched for what appeared to be the re-laying of drains. Mention was made in the letter of the stocking of the land with cattle which did not help, but of the five farmers concerned, two had no cattle, one had one cow, another six cows and another ten cows. Could the grazing of such a small number of cattle cause such swamps? Incidentally, the farmers themselves deny that any of their cattle ever went on this land.
The Minister in his letter says that advice has been given on the best way of dealing with this problem. I have spoken to all the farmers concerned on more than one occasion and have asked them what advice they received. With due respect, they do not seem to have found this advice very helpful. I had
758
great difficulty in finding out exactly what advice they had received. I gather that one farmer was advised to sell, which is certainly good business advice, but hardly relevant to the problem which he has to face. I do not want to overload the Joint Parliamentary Secretary with questions, but could he give me any idea what sort of advice these farmers have been given?
On 19th February, 1959, I put the following Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food:
"if, in the interests of good husbandry, he will consider giving financial aid to those farmers at Goose Green, Wigan, whose land was left in an unsatisfactory state after opencast coalmining operations, in view of the inadequacy of the compensation received from the National Coal Board."
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, said:
"Provided that they satisfy the conditions of the relevant schemes, owners and occupiers of opencast coal land may obtain various forms of help, for example, by way of ploughing grants, grants under the Farm Improvement Scheme or lime and fertilizer subsidies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February. 1959; Vol. 600, c. 519.]
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether these farmers have received any form of help under the schemes suggested in his reply to my Question.
A letter dated 17th March, 1959, from a person who has been acting for the farmers—I use the word not in a legal sense but in the sense of a person who has a disinterested interest—says that a meeting of Ministry officials and the farmers took place on Monday, 16th March. This, incidentally, was the first meeting between officials of the Ministry and the farmers since I raised this subject on 17th December, a matter of three months. I feel that this matter should have been treated with more urgency than it was. Apparently, the outcome of this meeting was pessimistic. The farmers were told that it would take a number of years for the land to drain as it should and that there was no power to grant any extra money for the purpose.
I should now like to turn to the farmers themselves. I want to give some details about the number of acres involved and the type of farming undertaken. Five farmers are involved and there is another whose land has not yet

759
been derequisitioned but is likely to be so soon. The six farmers have 319 acres among them and 253 acres were used for opencast coal operations, of which 169 acres have been derequisitioned and 84 acres of which are due for derequisition in the near future.
Until May, 1951, those farmers paid rent for their land. In fact, they were tenant farmers. In May, 1951, they bought the land at an average cost of £65 per acre. That may have been cheap because they were already in possession of the land and the former land-owner had died and the land was being sold in order to realise death duties.
I should like to make a brief comment on each of these farms. William Wadsworth of Derbyshire House Farm, Goose Green, owns 50 acres, of which 47 acres were requisitioned for opencast coal operations. His land was derequisitioned in 1956. Before opencast operation, his crop of wheat was threshing out 32 to 35 cwts. to the acre. Now it yields 8 cwts. to the acre. The hay crop before opencast operations would yield 3 tons to the acre; now it yields barely 2 tons. The milk yield is only about half the quantity it was before opencast operations. The 1959 crop of wheat and oats was a complete failure. To quote Mr. Wadsworth:
"The sparrows had to go down on their knees to get at them."
This was in spite of the fact that £160 had been spent on fertiliser, £250 on manure and £60 on seed.
William Barker of Hatton House Farm, Goose Green, owns 70 acres, of which 63 acres were requisitioned for opencast operations. Thirty-five acres were derequisitioned in 1955 and 28 acres are still requisitioned. His pre-opencast operations consisted of wheat growing which yielded 25–30 cwts. per acre, but now yield about 7 cwts. per acre. Potatoes yielded 6 tons an acre but now give about 1 ton an acre. Oats were 30 cwts. per acre, but are now not worth growing since opencast operations. One acre of grassland would feed three cows but is now sufficient for only one cow.
George Phythian of Glass House Farm, Goose Green, owns 40 acres of which 36 were requisitioned for opencast operations, 32½ acres being de-requisitioned
760
in 1955 while 3½ acres remain requisitioned. His pre-opencast farming consisted of wheat, oats and hay. This season oats were sown on 8 acres, wheat on 6½ and hay on the rest. Oats yielded about 15 cwts. per acre and the wheat was a complete loss. Prior to opencast he kept 8 cows which he has had to sell. In 1958, 32½ acres of wheat yielded 6 to 7 cwts. per acre. This year's hay crop is nothing.
James Halsall of Worthington Fold Farm, Goose Green, owns 50 acres of which 45 acres were requisitioned and derequisitioned during the period 1952–57. Before opencast operations, potatoes yielded 8 to 9 tons per acre and now give 25 cwts. per acre. Oats yielded 23 cwts. per acre and now give 7 cwts. Wheat which yielded 1 ton per acre now yields 8 cwts. and hay, which yielded 2½ tons per acre, now yields less than 1 ton per acre. More than £50 per acre has been spent on manure, lime and fertiliser.
Tom Halsall of Wheatlea Farm, Goose Green, owns 10 acres of which 6 were requisitioned for opencast coal operations, but derequisitioned in 1956. Previous to opencast operations his land yielded one ton per acre of oats and wheat and 7–8 tons per acre of potatoes. In 1958 his crop was 5 cwts. per acre of oats and wheat while potatoes were nil. In 1959 four acres of his land were unsuitable for any crops owing to faulty drainage. In 1958 he spent £50 on seed and manure. His return in monetary value for the oats reaped was £15, but he spent £15 on hiring a combined harvester and the whole operation was a complete financial loss.
John Jameson, Hawkly Hall Farm, Goose Green, is rather a different case in so far as 52 acres of the 99 acres which he owns were requisitioned but have not yet been derequisitioned, but he asked for and obtained permission to sow fifteen acres of this land with wheat seed. He spent £60 on seed. The crop was a complete failure.
I have tried to describe as accurately as I can the problems facing these farmers. I have no special Knowledge of the subject, although I understand that farming has an ever-increasing appeal to politicians. Perhaps the serenity of the cows grazing in the fields or the wind as it blows the fields of wheat first to the

761
left and then to the right has a special appeal to politicians, weighed down as they are by the ever-increasing tempo of modern political life. If by some mischance the politician sought peace and serenity at Goose Green he would have a rude awakening. He would be faced with a waterlogged, stony area of land offering many problems.
I have relied for my facts on the information given to me by the farmers concerned. I am convinced that this land will never again be fit for arable farming but that it might with treatment be fit for dairy farming, and I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to consider this. I ask him to consider some kind of ex gratia payment to these men. When I worked in the mines we used to have what was called a payment for abnormal conditions, something outside the terms of the contract. I suggest that the term "abnormal conditions" applies at Goose Green.
Will the Minister say, when he replies, whether he believes that arable farming will be possible again on this land? Does he realise that the soil is very wet, very stony and without worms? Will he say what he feels can be done to improve it?
It is not always wise to generalise from the particular, but in view of the difficulties experienced at Goose Green and taking into account the fact that more and more unsold coal is piling up, will the Minister do all in his power to stop valuable land being impoverished by opencast coal operations?
The value to the community of the small farmer is immense. At the best he cannot make a fortune but at the worst he can very easily go bankrupt. These men unfortunately have very little future as farmers.
11.3 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) for raising this matter and for the moderate and open way in which he has done so.
Any farmer who has had his land taken for opencast working is bound to feel a sense of loss, and it is doubly unfortunate if on receiving his land back he has reason to think that it has been indifferently restored. I hope to show
762
that at Goose Green the fault does not lie in restoration. It would be idle to pretend that the land is in as good condition as when it was requisitioned or that its present condition will enable the farmers to resume successfully their former system of husbandry immediately. Our purpose in restoration has been to secure that as far as practicable in the circumstances land on derequisition is fit for normal farming. We believe that the restoration measures on these sites were properly conceived and efficiently executed to that end. Unfortunately, other factors over which we have at present little control have taken a hand and militated against full recovery, not least among these has been the weather.
The complaints relate to about 160 acres, roughly half the area of the six sites involved. The first site was requisitioned as long ago as 1944, and derequisition of the sites has extended over the period 1951 to 1958. The hon. Member asked me about the future of requisitioning for opencast coal mining. He will be aware that this has been very substantially scaled down. There is no intention to do a great deal more.
I should also mention an additional site nearby, Hawkley Hall, which is still held under requisition, because we have reason to hope that on derequisition this site, which had suffered from subsidence, will prove to be in better shape than it was originally. It is an example—only one of many—of the success with which the restoration treatment is usually attended.
The period, now amounting to fifteen years, over which the working and restoration of these sites has extended is in itself significant. In that period we have achieved a steady improvement in our standards of restoration resulting from accumulated experience and much experimental work. I understand that the six sites are all in much the same condition. It is, therefore reasonable to deduce that the failure of the later sites to respond to improved techniques now known to us is attributable, not to defects in their restoration treatment, but to other factors. I emphasise this because it is restoration treatment for which we are primarily responsible.
On all the sites the land was given four or five years restoration treatment

763
under the close supervision of the professional and technical officers of my Department. This special treatment included reseeding to grass in the first year, heavy application of fertilisers throughout the period and in the final year a second reseeding to grass and, with the exception of one small area on which the farmer proposes to carry out the work himself, the installation of permanent drains. On derequisition my officers were satisfied with the standard of restoration achieved in the circumstances. In their opinion the land had been brought to a state in which it could be farmed and there was nothing that the Ministry could do which would materially affect its condition.
The root of the trouble experienced on these sites, and one which is, unfortunately, found on other sites with heavy clay soils, is the impermeability of the soil and the subsoil caused by the breakdown of the physical structure of the replaced soil and the loss of the "crumb" texture which allows air and water to penetrate. The loss of friability arrests free drainage and the surface water fails to find its way to the drains.
There is no reason to suppose that the permanent drains which were installed are defective or that they will fail to function properly when the soil eventually recovers its permeability. Unfortunately, the weather in 1957 and 1958 could not have been worse for this purpose. The high rainfall in both years, combined with other circumstances, greatly aggravated the tendency of the soil to "pan" and become waterlogged. I understand that in the recent long dry spell the land has dried out The considerable cracks will have their effect over a long period of time. Although the immediate consequences may not look very encouraging, there is evidence to support the hope that the long-term effect will be beneficial, since the natural cracks in the surface will facilitate the drainage and aeration of the soil.
As further proof that the drainage system which we put in is not at fault. I would add that very recently my technical officers completed an examination of the permanent drains on all these sites. With the exception of one area of five acres, they found that
764
all the installations were satisfactory. They have since rectified the minor defects on the five acres.
The impermeability of the soil, especially on sites with very heavy soils, such as Goose Green, is a major problem, as yet unhappily unsolved, in opencast restoration. The agricultural Research Council, together with scientific staffs at the Universities of Cambridge and Durham, are conducting research into the problem, but this is not a study which can be expected to yield immediate results. This much is certain, to achieve the maximum restoration in the long-term the land requires the most skilful nursing after derequisition.
I do not for one moment suggest that the land has been badly farmed, but I must emphasise that only by careful management over a period of years can the degree of fertility which has been built up during the programme of treatment be maintained and improved. It is, of course, for the farmers to choose for themselves, but our advice can only be that, having regard to the economic future of this land, to overstock it on the one hand or to attempt to take cash crops from it prematurely would be a mistake. That is my answer to the hon. Member who put the specific point to me whether I should advise it to be used for arable farming. My advice is that at the moment I think it would be unwise to seek to do this other than in small areas, to try it out to see if it will work. Instead, I am sure that it is right to keep it as grassland for the time being.
I recognise that cash cropping is the practice on much of the surrounding land and it is frustrating for farmers not to be able to resume their former system of husbandry, particularly when their inability to do so must mean a fairly sharp drop in their financial returns from this land. But in our opinion the best course is undoubtedly for the land to be put into grass and farmed extensively, preferably for milk production.
There are certain remedial measures which can be taken at once in helping towards the re-establishment of natural soil conditions. On the advice of my Ministry's advisory officers one of the farmers has already carried out sub-soiling operations. I understand that

765
these have effected a considerable improvement to his land. I am asking the technical officers of my Ministry to make a further thorough and urgent study of the effect of similar treatment of the other sites concerned.
The hon. Member asked me about further compensation. I am afraid there is little hope I can hold out there. We have no powers and certainly my Ministry is not responsible for this, but I think we ought to get the facts quite straight. It would not be appropriate for me to give the sums paid to individual farmers, but I can give the figures in relation to the six sites involved, totalling 330 acres, roughly half the acreage of which is the subject of this debate.
First, while under requisition, compensation rental was paid as follows: £729 for Tan House, £3,380 for Harvey House, £2,119 for Hawkley Brook, £2,352 for Wheatlees, £4,699 for Derbyshire House, and £2,713 for Ben Johnson I and II, making a total of £15,992. Then upon derequisition two payments were made. The first was the terminal compensation which amounted to £1,523 for Tan House. £3,658 for Harvey House, £2,357 for Hawkley Brook, £2,012 for Wheatlees. £2,633 for Derbyshire House and £2,557 for Ben Johnson, making a total of £14,830, which is an average of over £44 per acre.
The second payment on derequisition was an extra-statutory rehabilitation allowance. This amounted to £187 for Tan House, £519 for Harvey House, £959 for Hawkley Brook, £700 for Wheatlees, £873 for Derbyshire House and £860 for Ben Johnson, making a total of £4,098, which is an average of over £12 per acre. So, altogether, and not counting the compensation rental paid during requisition, £18,928 was paid out as compensation on these sites. This works out at an average of £57 per acre, which cannot be considered ungenerous when compared with the total value of the land prior to requisition which I think the hon.
766
Member suggested was about £65 per acre.
What I have said I think shows that very considerable sums of money have been paid out. The hon. Member asked a specific question about any help under the various grants which I mentioned to him in my reply in the House a month ago. I cannot give a specific reply on this, but, as the hon. Member knows, it is open to the farmers to seek help under the various schemes run by my Ministry. I assure him that if they put in applications for grants they would be very sympathetically considered and we should help in every way we could. While we have tremendous sympathy with these people in their difficulties, I hope the hon. Member will realise that we have tried to do everything we can to assist them and are fully alive to the difficulties which must confront them and are sparing no efforts to find practicable remedies.
My professional and technical officers have kept in constant touch with the farmers, have visited the sites frequently and will continue to do so. Like the farmers themselves, they are most anxious to overcome these baffling and abnormal conditions which on these sites—in contrast with the many others where restoration has been carried out smoothly and successfully—have to some extent defeated their best endeavours.
We shall continue to help with all the practical advice we can give, and in any way we can, with all the normal production grants to which I have referred. I am sorry I cannot see any way in which further capital sums can be paid out, although that is not strictly speaking a matter for my Ministry. We shall help in any way we can because we are just as anxious as anyone else to see that these farmers get a fair break.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation (Yield)
  Taxation (Yield)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Farm Vehicles (Duty-Free Oil)
  Farm Vehicles (Duty-Free Oil)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Travel Agents
  Travel Agents
  Citrus Imports
  Citrus Imports
  Chester-le-Street, Washington and Birtley
  Chester-le-Street, Washington and Birtley
  PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO SOVIET UNION)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO SOVIET UNION)
  EXPLOSION, ALDERMASTON (REPORT)
  EXPLOSION, ALDERMASTON (REPORT)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  CABINET RECORDS (PUBLIC DISCLOSURE)
  CABINET RECORDS (PUBLIC DISCLOSURE)
NYASALAND
  African Civil Servants (Detention)
  African Civil Servants (Detention)
BUGANDA
  Constitution
  Constitution
KENYA
  Disciplinary Inquiry, Hola Camp (Report)
  Disciplinary Inquiry, Hola Camp (Report)
  Detention Without Trial
  Detention Without Trial
WEST INDIES
  Citrus Industry
  Citrus Industry
BRITISH GUIANA
  Medical Department (Former Employee)
  Medical Department (Former Employee)
SINGAPORE
  Banned Publications
  Banned Publications
  Trade Union Officials
  Trade Union Officials
SIERRA LEONE
  Timani Tribe (Headman)
  Timani Tribe (Headman)
ZANZIBAR
  Self-Government
  Self-Government
TANGANYIKA
  Land (Rights of Occupancy)
  Land (Rights of Occupancy)
  Development (Loans)
  Development (Loans)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Licensing Act, 1953 (Occasional Licences)
  Licensing Act, 1953 (Occasional Licences)
  Arthur James Cox
  Arthur James Cox
  Lottery Results (Publication)
  Lottery Results (Publication)
  Sir Roger Casement
  Sir Roger Casement
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Salaries (Report)
  Salaries (Report)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Preventive Detention (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Preventive Detention (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Magistrates' Court Amendments Act
  Magistrates' Court Amendments Act
BECHUANALAND
  Bamangwato Tribe and Rhodesian Selection Trust Exploration Ltd.
  Bamangwato Tribe and Rhodesian Selection Trust Exploration Ltd.
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Commonwealth Countries (Entry Restrictions)
  Commonwealth Countries (Entry Restrictions)
SCOTLAND
  Houses, Douglas
  Houses, Douglas
  Diligence (Exchequer Assistance)
  Diligence (Exchequer Assistance)
  NUCLEAR WARFARE
  NUCLEAR WARFARE
ROYAL NAVY
  Nuclear Marine Propulsion Unit
  Nuclear Marine Propulsion Unit
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hypomagnesaemia
  Hypomagnesaemia
  Weed Killers (Spray Drift Damage)
  Weed Killers (Spray Drift Damage)
  Apples and Pears (Grades)
  Apples and Pears (Grades)
  Wheat (Transport)
  Wheat (Transport)
  Forestry Workers
  Forestry Workers
  Farm Improvement Scheme
  Farm Improvement Scheme
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Refusal of Planning Permission (Appeals)
  Refusal of Planning Permission (Appeals)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Craft Apprentices (Deferment)
  Craft Apprentices (Deferment)
  Coal Miners
  Coal Miners
EMPLOYMENT
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry

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

COMMONWEALTH EDUCATION CONFERENCE
3.5 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the scope and objectives of the forthcoming Commonwealth Education Conference.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the Commonwealth Education Conference will be held in Oxford from July 15 to 29. The Conference will work out detailed arrangements for the new scheme for 1,000 Commonwealth scholars and fellows, agreed on by Commonwealth Ministers at the Trade and Economic Conference held in Montreal last September. The Conference will also review existing arrangements for co-operation between the Commonwealth countries on education generally. The Agenda will be settled by the Conference; the supply and training of teachers and scientific and technical education will be subjects of particular importance.
Lord Halifax will be President of the Conference, and Sir Philip Morris, who of course has most distinguished experience in this field, will be Chairman. The delegations will be composed both of officials and of representatives of universities and other educational bodies. I hope that from the Conference there will emerge practical schemes for furthering co-operation in this vitally important matter of education, where the needs are so great and where Commonwealth countries have so much to offer one another.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we all welcome the statement which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has just made, and we wish the Conference every success. May I ask the noble Earl whether a report will be published at the end of the Conference and whether we shall have an opportunity of considering it?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have no doubt that the findings of the Conference will be made public in one way or another, and I will take steps to see that this House and Parliament is acquainted with the results. I might have added to my reply that the officials and the university people who are coming from the Commonwealth countries—and they are going to be well represented by people of very high standing—will have an opportunity to tour the United Kingdom on several different tours before the Conference begins. So that I think the preparations and arrangements will help them to understand the system we have here before the Conference convenes.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask whether, if the Conference should recommend some financial developments, Her Majesty's Government will look sympathetically at any such recommendations that might be made?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I cannot answer for the Treasury, but we have had it in mind that if schemes are launched they will almost inevitably cost money.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence on Tuesday next over the other orders of the day, to the Second Readings of the New Towns Bill and the National Assistance Bill.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The procedure is that to which I drew attention when I moved the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that, in the present Session, all Bills for re-enacting in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of an existing Statute be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate the Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provides for certain increases in the retirement pensions of those public servants whose pensions are paid from the United Kingdom funds and who are over the age of 60 or who have retired under the age of 60 owing to ill-health. The principal classes of public servants concerned are local government employees, National Health Service employees, Government civil servants and some other categories which your Lordships will find in the Schedule, such as the police and firemen. Armed Forces pensioners are not included in the Bill because they will receive parallel benefits under the Prerogative Instruments, which will differ very little, of course, from the increases provided for Civil
640
Service pensioners in this Bill. The number of people who will probably be affected will be about 110,000 Armed Forces pensioners, about 140,000 civil servants, roughly 100,000 teachers, and 100,000 local government employees, making a total of rather more than 450,000 altogether.
There have been a number of Bills, all of them what might be called ad hoc measures, making special increases in pensions since 1920: there was one in 1924, one in 1944, one in 1947, another in 1952 and the last one in 1956. None of these measures has ever recognised the principle that pensions ought to be based on any cost of living index, and no Government have ever recognised any obligation, either of right or of equity, to increase pensions in accordance with the cost of living. There is only one occasion—I think in 1919—on which an attempt was made to link Armed Forces pensions with the cost of living, but that had to be abandoned in 1935 or thereabouts, because it did not work satisfactorily. At that particular time I think its effect was that the pensions had to be adjusted the wrong way, which caused just as much discontent as the cost of living going the wrong way. The Government do not recognise, and have never recognised, any principle of this kind in relation to Civil Service pensions.
There is an opinion which some people hold that it might be a good thing if we did have a pension scheme linked with the cost of living, and it is perfectly proper that that should be debated. But I do not think we are likely to get very far by discussing it in relation to this Bill, because it is quite foreign to the principles on which either this Bill or any of the previous ad hoc measures to which I have referred have been based What various Governments have tried to do in these Bills is to make purely ex gratia provisions, prompted by the unfortunate fact that we have had from time to time a good deal of inflation, and that certain former employees of the Government whose pensions are fixed in terms of money have thereby suffered hardship. Therefore Parliament has agreed to certain ex gratia measures to alleviate that hardship. But Parliament has never agreed to any proposition that there is any kind of moral or equitable obligation to take any action of this kind; it is entirely a matter of grace.

641
This Bill differs from the previous ad hoc measures in only two respects. One is that it removes the ceiling of £100 which was still left by the 1956 Act. That Act abolished the means test for those additional pensions, but it left the ceiling that is now removed. The other difference, which is not a difference in principle but perhaps a considerable one in practice, is that in this Bill the increases are based, not on the original basic pension as in previous Acts of this kind, but on the existing pension—that is, the previous original pension plus subsequent increases The amount of hardship likely to be suffered by fixed pensioners is, of course, greater the earlier the date at which they retired. Therefore, the graded increases of pensions provided for under this Bill rise as the date of origin of the pension which" is to be increased goes further back. For pensions granted after April 1, 1957, there is no increase because the rise in the cost of living since then has not been sufficient to justify any special addition on that ground. For those whose pension began between March, 1956, and April, 1957, the increase will be 2 per cent.; between March, 1955, and April, 1956, 4 per cent.; between March, 1954, and April, 1955, 6 per cent.; between March, 1953, and April, 1954, 8 per cent; between March, 1952, and April 1953, 10 per cent., and for those whose pensions began not later than April 1, 1952, the increase will be 12 per cent.
In the discussions on this Bill in another place I do not think there were any positive criticisms about what the Bill contained; criticisms were confined to what it did not contain. I have already pointed out that no Government have ever admitted any obligation to relate pensions to the cost of living and that we cannot therefore accept the proposal for what is called parity—that is to say, that pensioners should all have their retirement pensions brought up to what they would have been if they had retired now instead of having retired at whatever date it may have been. Another criticism, naturally, has been that people under the age of 60 who have not retired owing to ill-health do not receive any increase in their pension. It is only if they are over 60, or if they have retired owing to ill-health do not receive any they get the increase. That again is based
642
on the principle that we have got to try, or want to try, to relieve hardship where it presses most.
Of course, we all know that there are individual cases of people who are under 60 but who, although they are in good health, find it practically impossible to get employment because the work from which they have been compulsorily retired at an early age is of such a kind that they are not easily adaptable to any other kind of employment; and these cases are undoubtedly hard ones. But as a general rule we take 60 as the most normal age at which retirement under these pension schemes could begin. It is easier, in general, for people under 60 than for people over 60 to obtain employment, and it has not been felt that it would be right to ask the taxpayer to extend these purely ex gratia additions to persons who are still of working age, still under 60, because the additions would have to be paid for, of course, by the taxpayers who are equally affected by changes in the cost of living.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am not clear what the noble Earl is really trying to explain to us. Is he referring to people who were in the Civil Service, or whatever it may be, and have already come out, or is he dealing with people who are in the Civil Service and will draw the pension in a few years' time? To which of those two categories is he referring?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The people who are in now and will draw the pension in a few years' time will not be affected by this Bill at all. This is an increase only for persons whose pension has begun earlier than April, 1957. The peak figure of 12 per cent. is not reached until you get back to the people whose pensions began before April, 1952. But some of those, of course, are still under 60 and therefore will not receive the increase until they reach the age of 60. I wished to put before your Lordships all the considerations which have affected the debates in another place. One of them has been the negative criticism that this provision ought to have been extended to persons below 60 even though they are in good health.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: People who have already retired?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is what I said, people who are retired and who are under 60. They could, of course, have retired for some unavoidable reason not due to ill health.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: To other employment?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If they are in other employment they still get their Civil Service pension.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it increased?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No. They get their Civil Service pension. But what I have been trying to explain is that the 12 per cent. increase does not apply to people under 60 unless they have retired on grounds of ill-health.
LORD CROOK: Even if they have retired on grounds of ill-health surely it does not apply if they are in employment?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes. If they get their occupational pension at the age of 55, it does not mean they cannot get the occupational pension if they get some other kind of work.
LORD CROOK: But surely one of the things inherent in this Bill is that if a man retires on the grounds of ill-health and gets the pension, and in due course secures full-time employment, he will not get the increase until he reaches 60?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course he will. He gets it if he is over 60, or if he is under 60 and has retired owing to ill-health.
LORD CROOK: The noble Earl still has not got my point. It is not that the man will get it if he is under 60 and has retired on grounds of ill-health. He will not get it if he retired before 60 on ill-health grounds and is still not at the moment away from work but is in other employment. He does not get the increase notwithstanding that he is 59 and has retired on grounds of ill-health.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If he has retired because of ill-health he will get the increase.
LORD LATHAM: The words in the Explanatory Memorandum are not that he has retired on ill-health grounds but only that he is in bad health. He may not have retired on the grounds of ill-health but he may have bad health subsequently.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The operative part of the Bill is on page 2, Clause 1, subsection (2):
"A pension payable…shall not be increased…unless the pensioner—

(a) has attained the age of 60 years; or

(b) has retired on account of physical or mental infirmity from the office or employment in respect of which, or on retirement from which, the pension is payable"

LORD CROOK: I do not want to embarrass the noble Earl, but this affects what I am going to say myself. Surely all this is related to subsection (6) of Clause 1. If it really means what I think it does, a man who has got his pension on grounds of ill-health, having retired from the Service, will not get this increase, according to subsection (6), if he is capable of being engaged in any full-time regular employment now.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think it would be better if the noble Lord makes the point in his speech and I will deal with it in reply. I am not sure that I have apprehended the case he is trying to put, but he will no doubt put it later.
Although these increases apply only to those who have been in Government employment and whose pensions are paid from the United Kingdom or local authority funds, it is, of course, possible that other pensioners whose pensions are paid from the funds of Colonial Governments may receive a parallel increase if the Colonial Government so decides; but the responsibility is with the Colonial Government. What the Colonial Office here does when an increase of pensions of this kind is given to British ex-civil servants is to send a circular to the Colonial Governments pointing out what we are doing and implying that they might perhaps like to do the same. There are some Colonies whose scales of pensions are better than our own; some are the same, and some worse. But whether any Colony or Dominion or member of the Commonwealth should decide to make a parallel increase is the responsibility of that Government.

645
The cost of the increases provided for in this Bill will be about £8½ million, of which rather more than £6 million will come from the Exchequer and £2½ million from the local authorities. In addition, the Armed Forces pension increases under the Royal Warrant will cost a further £2¼ million. The factors which have always governed the decision of Parliament and of successive Governments in making these ex gratia increases in order to deal with hardship arising from inflation have always been mixed ones. They have to balance one thing against another. First there is the desire of the Government to alleviate hardship among its former employees. Next there is the duty of the Government to the taxpayer. We must remember that there are many taxpayers who are suffering great hardship on account of inflation and whose circumstances might often be considerably worse in that respect than those of the pensioners.
Thirdly, every Government has always to consider the effect of increased Government expenditure on our national economy, particularly in relation to the price level. At the beginning of this year, as your Lordships know, we were advised by our economic advisers that during 1959 we might expect a gradual strengthening of the national economy, but it was not expected that the improvement would be enough to justify this additional Government expenditure during the course of the year; and it was not until just before the Budget that it was realised that the estimates upon which we were proceeding had been too cautious, and that the improvement in the national economy was, in fact, proceeding faster than had been anticipated. Although it is always agreeable to find that things are better than expected, it has this disadvantage, that you may have to alter your arrangements without a great deal of preparation. In this case, there was no time for the local authorities, who are considerably affected by this Bill, to be consulted before the Budget. But my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary met them as soon as possible afterwards, on April 14, and I should like to repeat the expressions of gratitude which have already been made in another place by my right honourable friend to the local authorities for the way in which they have cooperated at such short notice with the
646
Government in making the arrangements from their side for carrying out the intentions of this Bill.
My Lords, the Bill has not met with any opposition in another place, As I have mentioned, the only criticisms have been concerned with what it does not contain, rather than with what it does contain, and I hope that your Lordships will now give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the main purpose of this Bill, as of previous Bills along the same lines that have been carried through both Houses of Parliament and received the Royal Assent during the last decade, and earlier, is to deal with the results of inflation. At the present time, we in this country, as in most other countries, live on a monetary economy; and where we are dealing with contracts that run over a considerable number of years, as they do in the case of a civil servant who makes a contract with the Government when he enters employment, retires forty or fifty years later and gets a pension based on the conditions which prevailed when he entered the employment, we are thrown into complete and total confusion by inflation. The people whom we are considering at the present time, and with whom this Bill essentially deals, are the people who have suffered as the result of inflation.
I think I am right in saying that these people have a double grievance. The first is the one to which I have referred. The other is that what was considered a reasonable standard of life for them and their social and economic equals fifty or sixty years ago, is at the present time regarded as grinding poverty. What I gather from this Bill is that while it attempts to meet the first and the major evil, that of inflation, it does not, and is not intended to, do anything with regard to the second. Whether that be right or wrong, I do not know; but certainly that is not the purpose of the Bill.
Now I come to the Bill itself. To a large extent of course, it is not a Party matter at all. During the last fourteen or fifteen years—in fact, further back

647
even than that—we have had this enormous inflation whatever Government has been in power. We had inflation under the Coalition Government; we had inflation under the Labour Government, and we have had inflation under the various Conservative Governments that have followed. It is equally true of all Parties and of the Coalition. The result is that unless these unfortunate people are to be left absolutely to fight an impossible battle against the odds that have been created by inflation, any Government with any heart at all must try to do something for them. The noble Earl correctly said that the State, in its hard-hearted form, has neither a legal nor even a moral obligation to do something for these people. That may be true. But I think that any Government of flesh and blood must feel a moral obligation towards these people who have served the State or the local authority to the best of their ability, and who, owing to some effect of inflation over which they have had no control at all, find themselves in this deplorable position.
Having said that, I have, in effect, subscribed to the principle underlining this Bill. I think that noble Lords on this side of the House will take the same view as I do; that the principle governing this Bill is a sound one, and that we should certainly offer no opposition to it in all its stages. Nevertheless, there arise a number of minor points which no doubt some of my noble friends behind me will illustrate, and which require bringing to light. I do not suppose that these increases will satisfy a large number of these people, partly because, as I have said, they are concerned not merely with inflation but with the other change in the position and ideas of the standard of life between to-day and twenty or thirty years ago. They will no doubt feel that, because they undertook this long contract with the Government, they are singled out by fate, if you like, for a particularly unfortunate lot. However, as I have said, there is no major issue involved. There may be minor issues which no doubt some of my noble friends will raise, but these figures, for what they are worth, are an alleviation of a lot of these people. As the noble Earl has said, however, while it is easy to be generous with other people's money the Government cannot
648
go beyond a certain point with regard to the taxpayer. Whether this Bill will last for all time or whether, as in the case of another Bill which the noble Earl was dealing with from that Box a little while ago, this is only a step and will have to be covered by further steps in the future, I do not know. But so far as it goes, in its very limited objective, and particularly with the exclusion of any ceiling, we give it our support.
There are two questions that I should particularly like to ask. The first is, since the Bill has no ceiling, how far does it go? Does it go right up to people at the top of the Civil Service who have incomes of £2,000 or £3,000 a year? As it has no ceiling in the sense that the earlier Bill had, is there any limit beyond which these increases do not take place? The second question I should like to ask (though it may not be possible for the Government to give me an answer) is, can the Government tell us whether there are any persons—and if so, can they give us some rough idea of the number—who have been in public employ, either by the Government or by local authorities, to whom this Bill applies who are at the present time in receipt of National Assistance? I think it would be useful to know the answer to that question, because, in the setting of that fact, we shall get a clearer idea of what help is really being offered to the people who are dealt with here. Having said that, I think there is nothing further I need add at this moment with regard to this matter.
3.40 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to make a few comments on this Bill I should like to say at once that I am one of those people who entirely approve of its principles, and I have no criticism to make of what is in the Bill. I have, however, a certain number of criticisms to make about what is not in the Bill. I am indebted to the noble Earl who introduced the Second Reading for his frank and—if he will pardon me for saying so—unashamed confession that the forgotten man and the forgotten woman, otherwise the members of the Colonial Civil Service, are abandoned to their fate. I think those are not too strong words. We all know that Colonial Governments are responsible for the payment of these pensions, that there is now a no-man's-land of colonial territories

649
which have become independent, and that requests made to the Colonial Office meet with that kind of response: that it is the responsibility of the Colonial Government concerned.
There are two Secretaries of State whose honour is involved in this matter. There is also the Department of Commonwealth Relations, and their reply would be that they have no authority in the matter. Technically, that is quite true, as we all know; but it should be remembered that these men and women were appointed by the Secretary of State and worked under him in their earlier years. They were moved all over the world at his behest, and it is purely a matter of their luck, or ill-luck, whether they happen finally to finish in, and have their pension paid largely by, a Colony which is able to pay it, and to pay these parallel increases, or whether they end up in one which either cannot or will not do so. One has to consider the political circumstances which arise to-day in which certain Colonial Governments have a prejudice against these payments to expatriates and are not prepared to grant any increases which may involve them in all kinds of local difficulties with their own staff. But surely it is a point of honour with the British Government to do something rather more than merely to adopt this kind of tepid indifference of attitude.
I know that, when this Bill goes through, the Colonial Office, as the noble Earl has said, will inform Colonial Governments (and the Commonwealth Relations Office will do the same to territories which have become free) that these increases have been made here; and perhaps they will express a hope that those Governments will be able to make parallel increases. But that kind of tepid goodwill is surely not enough. I want to be fair about it. I realise the difficulties that would arise if Her Majesty's Government were to say that where these Governments will not pay the parallel increases Her Majesty's Government will undertake to do so: because, of course, in that event no Colonial. Government in future would dream of giving the increases.
When this matter was raised in another place the Financial Secretary to the
650
Treasury said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 606 (No. 116), col. 130]:
"Most overseas Governments are at least as generous as Her Majesty's Government in this matter."
That is not correct. The actual figures are these. There are, roughly speaking, 42 of these overseas Governments concerned in this matter, and in regard to pension increase schemes, 21 out of the 42 are far less generous over the arrangements than the United Kingdom is. Five Governments out of the 42 have adopted the United Kingdom standard; and 16 have given terms which are rather more generous than those prevailing in this country. But when this Bill has gone through, unless parallel action is taken, the majority of colonial civil pensioners will he considerably worse off than United Kingdom pensioners.
I would suggest that it is, not enough for this Government to tell these men and women who have served us well in the past and helped to build up the Commonwealth that their pension is no longer any concern of this Government. Looking back on my own recollections in many of the bigger Colonies, I recall, that in Malaya, for instance, we Colonial servants had our own widows' and orphans' pension fund. The Government took it over compulsorily, and with the liabilities they absorbed the funds. Now it is no longer the Government in Whitehall that is concerned, but the Government in those territories. Surely, in those circumstances, there is a moral obligation of a very strong kind to see that the widows and orphans do not suffer owing to that transfer of authority. I appreciate that this Bill is perhaps not the right place for such provisions, but I feel that when discussing the Bill one is entitled at least to draw attention to these matters. I know that in another place the representatives of Her Majesty's Government said that this matter would be constantly under review. But that is very poor consolation to the widow and the orphan, or to the ordinary pensioned civil servant, because he, with his Government experience, knows what a phrase like that really means in practice.
Apart from that, there is one other point which I raised a year or two ago in this House on the last of the matters mentioned in the Schedule to this Bill

651
the Governors Pensions Act, 1957. I do not want to raise all the questions which were raised at the time over that Act, except to say that, in my humble view (and here I have to declare an interest, because I was personally interested in the matter), to take the Governors' pensions and entirely alter the method of computing them, giving all kinds of rights and privileges which had not been given before, and then, for some inscrutable reason, to ante-date the arrangements and give them retrospective effect to 1955, and to exclude from all benefits under the Act the 30 governors who were left, who had retired before that time, is a disgrace.
To their honour, be it said, the protest in another place came from the Front Bench of the Opposition. A former Labour Secretary of State asked why Her Majesty's Government had excluded these men, who presumably had served their country well. I do not wish to raise questions about the amount of the pension and so forth, but I do wish again to raise the point that never until 1957 in this country has Her Majesty's Government or the Government of this country recognised that a Governor has a wife. If, for instance, I had died within a week of my retirement my wife would have got precisely nothing after my eighteen years' service as a Governor. I suggest that this is a matter of principle. It is a public disgrace. To my own personal knowledge there have been, over the past few years, wives of Governors who have lived in considerable penury and distress because they were entitled to no pension at all. I know that this is not generally known, but it is a thing which ought to have received attention, and no attention has been paid to it.
I know that the usual reply is that the ordinary Colonial Governor has, before he became a Governor, had service in one or other of the Colonies and has subscribed through the contributory schemes to a widows' and orphans' pension fund, and he has been allowed to go on subscribing during his period as a Governor. That subscription lasts over thirty-odd years and the maximum pension which his wife could get under that would be between £400 and £500 a year, less tax. That, I suggest, my Lords,
652
in modern conditions is a very inadequate amount; and it has nothing whatever to do with the Government in this country, because payment of those widows' and orphans' pensions is one of the things that the noble Earl disowned any responsibility for, because it is the responsibility of some Colonial territory. And so the Government of this country escape paying anything to the widows of people who have borne those responsibilities.
May I say, in conclusion, that I think nobody will deny that the wife of any Governor has rendered a great public service, and no successful Governor could possibly succeed without owing 50 per cent. of his success to his wife, who has contributed to the service of this country as much as he has. I suggest that when these questions of pension arose it would have been easy to include something in the Bill for the widows and orphans, yet nothing has been done about it. I support the Bill entirely, but I thought that this was the proper time to draw attention to some of the things which have been left out.
3.53 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I seem to have lived a life almost permanently with Pensions (Increase) Acts coming into operation or Pensions (Increase) Bills about to be the subject of campaigns. I am made almost to feel very old to-day when I recall that I was in the 1920 agitation as a young trade union official of 19; and for local government and Civil Service officers I took part in campaigns to secure Pensions (Increase) Bills in 1920, 1924, 1944, 1947, 1952, 1954, and 1956. I assure your Lordships that I do not recall those facts merely to recount my life story, but because of their relevance to some of the observations which, for a few minutes, I seek to offer to your Lordships in respect of this Bill.
I want to start, at any rate, by saying how much I welcome the Bill, and I am sure it is welcomed by all those who will benefit from it. For over eighteen months representatives of the Civil Service and local government officers have been pressing Her Majesty's Government to produce a fresh measure to remedy the disabilities of the 1956 Act. That Act did not apply to those retiring after March, 1954, which meant that

653
some of those who retired after that date have in fact borne the full effect of the rise in the cost of living of approximately 20 per cent. What is more, before the 1956 Act Pensions (Increase) Acts have contained, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, both means tests and "ceiling" provisions. The 1956 Act removed the means test but retained the "ceiling", and as a result some ex-civil servants to this day are bearing an uncompensated increase in the cost of living which amounts in the extreme case to as much as 66 per cent.
Having welcomed the Bill, may I offer a few criticisms relating to improvements that some of us would like to see in the measure, if we could secure them before the Royal Assent? First, I join with those in another place who regarded the amounts as inadequate, although approving of the new system which the Government have put into this, the best of eight measures which have come in front of Parliament in the course of nearly forty years. The postman who retired in 1939 with a pension of £91 per annum is now getting £162, and under this Bill, if passed, he will get £182. If he had been in post as at to-day and was retired to-day he would get £235. A clerical officer who at the beginning of the war in 1939 retired with a pension of £175, now as a result of the 1956 Act is getting £271, and under this Bill he will get £303. If retired to-day he would get £316. He has, in fact, one of the nearest approximations to parity I have so far seen under the terms of the Bill. But that is not bringing pensions up to a level which provides that the pensioners can buy what they expected to buy when they retired from the service.
I would remind your Lordships that they had a right to expect certain conditions when they retired. They were taken into a service where they were told that their pay was fixed lower than it otherwise would have been because the Treasury would in due course provide an adequate pension for them, the cost of which, it was stated again and again in arbitration tribunal cases, was to the State approximately 12½ per cent. of the value of their remuneration. I know that there are many arguments which can be advanced against parity, but there are many arguments which can be advanced for it. I would remind your
654
Lordships that we had the most astonishing support for parity during the 1956 debates, when no less a newspaper than The Times, in an editorial—I ask your Lordships to note, The Times; not any other paper—said:
"Pensions should be kept in line with those payable to currently retiring servants of comparable status."
I could never have hoped to put it in such good language to make a case to your Lordships this afternoon.
If we look at the senior grades, which the Treasury has had such difficulty in recruiting that it has had to raise the general standard considerably to get from universities the recruits that it wants, we see how bad the system proposed by the Government in this Bill really is. A principal who retired in 1939 with a pension of £550 per annum is, under the 1956 Act, getting £694: and under this Bill, if passed, he will get £774. The principal recently recruited who retires in the next couple of years, having received for the three-years' averaging period under the Superannuation Act the present remuneration given to a principal, will retire on a pension of no less than £1,025. In fact, this Bill in general gives only about half compensation for what these pensioners have suffered. If the pound is taken as being worth 20s. at the end of 1951 (the operative date in respect of the calculations under the 1956 Act), its value at January of this year was 15s. 2d., a decrease of 4s. 10d. or very nearly 25 per cent., as against the 12 per cent. which is the maximum anybody can get under the present Bill.
I am bound to confess that I am not sure what we in this House can do about this matter, because, as I understand it, the question of a Money Resolution in another place is obviously involved, and that has already been passed in limited terms, but I wonder whether we could not, in the course of later stages of discussion on this Bill, deal with the point of retrospection, which was raised in another place and in respect of which the Government has, so far, been adamant. The decision in principle to take action to produce this Bill was announced in April, and it is in respect of April, instead of August 1, that I suggest that retrospection of payment could be made. The dates of April 1 each year are the effective dates in the

655
Schedule in respect of the amounts of increases, and appear in both the Explanatory Memorandum and in the main clause of the Bill.
I know that in another place it was argued that retrospection in these matters was quite impossible. My Lords, it is not true that it is impossible. Royal Assent to the 1944 Act was given in this House on May 24, 1944, and the operative date for the payments was December 31, 1943. In 1947, Royal Assent was given on February 18 of that year, again with an effective date of December 31, 1946. In respect of the last Act, as many of your Lordships will remember, in 1956 Royal Assent was given well into May, with an effective date of April 1. I do not want to keep your Lordships unduly on a point like this, but I do want the noble Earl responsible for the Bill on behalf of the Government to know that those are the lines along which some of us are thinking, and might well be the lines of Amendments sought to be moved at the Committee stage.
But I would say that my main point involves no payment by the Government at all. My third and last point is that in respect to which I referred to my association with the past seven Acts in less than forty years. I did so deliberately, to lead to what I am now going to say. Parliament throughout this period of nearly forty years has completely failed to settle as a principle the method of dealing with the pensions of public servants. If pay increases are settled by negotiation, or if there are arbitration awards by the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal which involve many millions of pounds of expenditure, the Treasury and the Government accept them as an automatic thing which they take in their stride. But in order to get any expenditure at all in respect of pensions, we run into not only separate Bills but the spirit of pressure groups, which I think is thoroughly bad, on the part of the organisations of civil servants, local government officers, and the like. Before we have a Bill like this coming to Parliament, there is each time a long, intensive period of lobbying and pressure, particularly in another place. Large quantities of letters and pamphlets are distributed, public meetings are held, and Members of Parliament are lobbied in the House
656
by constituents in order that they may secure from the Government a benefit under a Pensions Increase Bill.
When the Bill ultimately is produced, it appears as if it is something which pressure has extracted from an unwilling Government, whereas I say quite candidly to the noble Earl that that is not really the position. The truth is that successive Governments have in due course always given practical evidence of their interest in this subject, but they have never let it be known that this was something which was going to be done at a given time. They have always taken the kind of line that the noble Earl quite candidly said just now that the Government took on this occasion. Pressure groups have been busy; constituents have been lobbying, as I know; and, suddenly, as the noble Earl tells us, in April the Government, finding they had over-budgeted and had a bit of money they could use, took such urgent action to get on with the Pensions (Increase) Bill that the noble Earl has had to repeat here this afternoon the apology the Government had already given to the local authorities: that they had been unable to consult them because they had finally acted so fast.
If these pensioners, and the people who are about to be pensioned, are left all the time with a lack of knowledge as to whether the Government will in two, three, or four years' time think about reviewing the position, there will be these pressure groups all the time; because we must accept that an Act cannot increase pensions recently awarded, so there must be some "cutoff" date. In this Bill, for instance, no increases are to be given to pensioners who retired after March 31, 1957, because the rise in the cost of living from April, 1957, until now has not been sufficient to justify it. But the civil servant who retired on that date in 1957 had his pension based on his average salary over the three previous years—that is, his salary calculation, on which his pension was based, goes back as far as April 1, 1954. So he has not been fully compensated for increases in the cost of living even up to the date of his retirement.
For instance, a man earning £500 a year on April 1, 1954, would have had from the Treasury by April 1, 1957, two economic or cost of living increases, which

657
would have meant that by then he was getting £550 a year. But when he came to apply to that the percentage on which he would get a pension, it was applied not to £550 but to £530. So that, as a pensioner, he starts already behindhand; and then he finds that the next Bill leaves him out for a couple of years. As a result, a situation exists, even to-day, where there are a large number of pensioners, unaffected either by previous Acts or by this Bill, who are already falling behind in the race with the cost of living. In the case I have quoted, the man who retired as at April 1, 1957, is drawing a pension 6 per cent. higher than his 1954 salary would have warranted, whereas the cost of living has in fact in that time risen by 20 per cent. So we start off with a hard-core of pensioners who are critical, and every day, as hundreds more go on to the pensions lists, this critical gang of people grows, building itself into a pressure group—and when this Bill receives the Royal Assent these many pensioners will not see any prospect of a further review for perhaps another four years.
One of the major factors in this continuing pressure has been the feeling that once an Act has been passed no hope can be seen of any further consideration until this three or four year period has gone by. In the case of the present Bill, for instance, the man who retired on April 1, 1957, at the age of 65 has had no benefit up till now, gets none even under this Bill when it becomes an Act, and can hardly he expected to sit down and wait for something to turn up when he is 71 years of age, if he is lucky enough to live to that age. I think, therefore, that the Government ought to face the fact that in these modern days, when the Government themselves are indulging in every possible form of good relationships in industrial relations and when they are encouraging other people to do the same, they should make some firm statement on this matter.
If necessary, I should be prepared to put down an Amendment on the lines of the Amendment which was put down on the Report stage in another place and which provides for the appointment of a small committee of experts who will examine and report to the Government at the end of every two years. I say I should, if necessary, be prepared to do so; and I use those words quite deliberately,
658
because I am not particularly enamoured with that idea at all. I would far rather that the Government took themselves away from using merely these general phrases about "keeping things constantly under review" and said what would be accepted by everybody inside these organised groups and inside the trade unions that are made up by Civil Service and local government membership. A statement should be made, upon which they can rely, that for a period of two years the Government will do nothing, but at the end of the two years the Government will undertake to review the situation in the light of the circumstances then existing.
I throw that out to the noble Earl, not in the belief that he can hurriedly rise today and give some answer willy-nilly, but as an idea for examination, so that some statement may be made perhaps on Third Reading or when this Bill comes to pass, as pass I hope it will at the earliest possible date. Because nothing I have said, in what I hope has been an attempt at some constructive criticism, stops me from expressing to the Government my great appreciation for this Bill and for the fact that not only have they found legislative time to bring it in at this time and will try to get it through before your Lordships' House rises at the end of this month, but because it is the best of the eight Bills, the first one that, by trying the escalator principle, deals with the question the right way round.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I should like, in two sentences, to say how gratified I am to see that the Government have not forgotten to 'include in this measure their pensioners of the former Royal Irish Constabulary. Those of them who live in Southern Ireland do not enjoy many of the advantages which our richer country is able to afford, and their need is by so much the greater. I am glad to see that their pensions have not been forgotten in this Bill.
4.12 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add a word to what has been said about this Bill by my noble friend Lord Crook, and to underwrite to some extent the very valid criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. The situation which he describes to your

659
Lordships' House is in some ways disgraceful. It seems to me that, as a matter of honour, the Government should underwrite the obligation to see that those who go out to work in our colonial dependencies are properly looked after in their old age, and particularly that their widows are properly looked after.
But this is a wide subject: it is really wider than the terms of the Bill before us this afternoon. I come across it a great deal in connection with those who work in our universities, now some 12,000 of the elite of the community, who are continually faced by exactly this sort of problem. They receive their superannuation from grants voted by Parliament. Undoubtedly there is nothing that has pressed more hardly upon the older university teachers during the period since the end of the war than this constant threat of being left in penury, or semi-penury, and having their widows deprived of all real position in society. This situation is reflecting itself in the way I was glad to hear my noble friend emphasise—on recruitment. We have heard how difficult recruitment is becoming in the Civil Service. Recruiting is becoming difficult in the universities, too, and largely for this reason; at any rate, this is certainly an important factor in the situation.
At the present time in industry there are generous pension schemes. I imagine that every noble Lord knows that; and it must also be known to your Lordships that during the past few years several distinguished civil servants have left their Departments in order to take posts in industry or commerce. More than one of them have told me that the reason for this is that pension arrangements are so much better. The State really cannot afford to lose its servants in this way. The State cannot afford not to attract the ablest young men from the universities both into the Civil Service and into the university teaching profession. Therefore, it is essential that this matter should be nut on to a proper footing and that the kind of situation, in which the noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading this afternoon, seemed to glory, should be brought to an end. I am very glad indeed that my noble friend Lord Crook emphasised this very point.
660
In the university world, we have now succeeded in getting quite reasonable machinery for dealing with salary increases in the situation of inflation which has prevailed over recent years, but when we suggest to the University Grants Committee that the same sort of arrangement should be made in respect of superannuation, we are met with a blank wall. That is much the same position as the Government have taken up in regard lo the pensions of civil servants and other people who come within this Bill. Surely it is reasonable at the present time that superannuation and pensions should be dealt with in the same sort of way and that effective machinery should be involved.
I do not know whether the suggestion in the Amendment which was put down in another place is the right one. Possibly sufficient consideration has not been given to it. But I should have thought that any reasonable person would have agreed that the position, which my noble friend has so graphically described, of Members of another place and of your Lordships' House being circularised by all sorts of organisations, like the Association of Senior Civil Servants, who wish to see that justice is done to the people who have given their lives in the service of the State is a disgraceful one, and that this sort of thing should not have to happen.
It is good that there is this Bill before your Lordships' House this afternoon, but is it not open to the reflection that this is General Election year and that this sort of criticism, which ought not to be available, is bound to be made until proper machinery for handling this position is established? I hope that my noble friend will put down some sort of Amendment in order to give your Lordships a better opportunity of threshing out the arrangements which are required for curing what is undoubtedly a sore in the body politic at the present time.
4.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise first of all to reiterate my agreement with the most impressive statement made by my noble friend Lord Crook. He is perfectly right. Although we get these Pensions (Increase) Bills periodically, they always come as a result of pressure and not as a result of a recognition that it is timely to

661
review the position of pensions. I know that the noble Earl has told us that the Government do not accept the principle that they have to make good to the pensioner the increase in the cost of living or fall in the value of money. But they have, in fact, recognised it eight times. And there comes a time when they must cease to say that they do not recognise the principle and yet go on doing this.
By now, no Government can afford to say that they do not propose to take any notice of the increase in the cost of living, or the fall in the value of money, and to tell the pensioners, "You have made your bargain and you have to accept it." Of course, Governments periodically have to look at the position. It is unfortunate that they should do it only when they have a little bit of money to spare, or when there is an Election pending, or when the pressure on them is so great that they can no longer resist it. I fully associate myself with what my noble friend has said. There ought to be some legal machinery for looking at this position periodically to see whether it is timely to review the position of existing pensions.
I should like to ask the noble Earl, having—if you like, without prejudice; and I suppose that is what the noble Earl would really say—accepted the position that we have to make good the increase in the cost of living, why do we not really do it? Why do we hold back and go half-way or two-thirds of the way? Why do we not go the whole way and do the thing properly? In the long run it would not cost us very much more, because each time we make an increase we have to take into account the backlog of the previous occasion. It would be so much more satisfactory if, once and for all, we recognised the principle that when we grant a pension it is granted on the basis of the cost of living—that is to say, if the cost of living goes up then the pension goes up correspondingly—and that there is a periodic review so as to ensure that the matter is properly looked at.
The noble Earl may say: "What happens when the cost of living comes down?" I am not authorised to speak for anybody, but it would be quite appropriate at the review, if the cost of living came down, to bring down the cost of the pension, if the understanding is that it is designed to give people a
662
definite standard of living. I hope that the noble Earl will make these representations to those for whom he is speaking in the Government, and perhaps at a later stage of the Bill we might have a clear account both as to whether it is possible to have a regular review and as to the principle upon which the actual amounts are settled.
There is one other point I should like to raise, and I imagine that it is one for the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I see that all kinds of people are referred to in the Schedule, but there is no reference to High Court Judges, Judges of the Court of Appeal and others of high judicial office, although magistrates and county court judges are dealt with. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he can say if this is intentional and if it is intended to deal with them in some other way. If so, could a statement be made as to how it is intended to deal with them? Is it going to be on something like the same basis as this Bill, or in another way? Having said that, we welcome the Bill, as we welcomed every one of the eight previous measures; but we do hope that in future it will not be done in this casual manner and that we can have a regular review of these pensions from time to time.
4.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to intervene for a moment to deal with the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The increases recently sanctioned in the salaries of members of the lower Judiciary in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have resulted in the amount of their maximum pension entitlement being automatically increased to a point where they approximate to, and in a few cases exceed, the pensions of the higher Judiciary mentioned by the noble Lord. The Government have been giving careful consideration to the situation which has arisen, and have decided that the pension entitlement of members of the higher Judiciary in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be revised. Proposals to this end will be put before Parliament in a subsequent Session. It is the intention to propose at the same time that some increase be

663
made to the pensions of those members of the higher Judiciary who have already retired. As your Lordships are aware, there has been no increase in the pensions of the higher Judiciary of England for some 134 years.
LORD SILKIN: Is the noble and learned Viscount in a position to go a little further and say the amount of the increases?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the moment the form of the legislation is being considered, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would leave it for some time. As soon as it is possible, I will acquaint him with what is in our minds.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, might perhaps clarify the question about persons who had retired under the age of 60 which he asked previously, because I should not like any of your Lordships to be in any doubt upon the point, and I was not sure that I apprehended what his difficulty was.
LORD CROOK: I thought the noble Earl would prefer me to leave it until later. However, I will develop it if he wants me to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: What I said in reply to the noble Lord is, I think, correct. If the pensioner retired on grounds of ill-health, he will get the increase even if he is under 60. That is clear. If he retired on any other ground, and is still under 60, and then falls ill so that he cannot work, then he gets the increase. That, I think, is also quite clear. The noble Lord also referred to the situation which would arise if the pensioner got other employment. I do not think that makes any difference at all. This is a pension which is not subject to any kind of test in regard to other employment.
LORD CROOK: May I help the noble Earl by saying that why I did not speak was that I thought it would be a good thing on the Committee stage to put down an Amendment to Clause 1 (6) to test the point, and that I would not bother with it to-day
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Clause 1 (6) says:
"For the purposes of this section, a pensioner shall be deemed to be disabled by physical or mental infirmity if he is permanently incapacitated by such infirmity from engaging in any regular full-time employment"
That is simply a definition.
LORD CROOK: Yes. It is Clause 1 (2).
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It does not affect the principle, which is that he gets the pension if he is disabled. I cannot see any ground for difficulty, but if there is any further misunderstanding I shall be glad to look into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, made, I think, a very good and moderate defence of the principle of parity and also of the case for retrospection. As he said, he does not expect me to agree with him on either of these points. I quite understand the case for parity. The case against it, of course, is that if a pensioner's pension is fixed on the amount of his earnings at the time when he retires, and as a result of inflation his pension falls in purchasing power, you have got to remember that a great many other people besides Government pensioners also suffer very much in this way from inflation; and I do not think there is any moral principle which requires that special action should be taken to correct the effects that arise from changes in the cost of living in respect of some particular class of person.
LORD CROOK: May I say to the noble Earl that I fully agree with him? I did not expect anything special; I was thinking merely in terms of the magnificent speech which the Prime Minister made to a conference at Brighton where he associated both pensioners and those of the rentier classes.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The increases which have been given over the last twenty years at various times the noble Lord was inclined to attribute to the results of pressure. I have no doubt that there is pressure of various kinds from bodies representing all classes of pensioners, but I doubt whether it is really the case that these ex gratia increases in the pensions of ex-Government servants have been wholly or mainly due to pressure. There would not have been any case for them at all had it not been that inflation took place at certain times.

665
Naturally, when inflation occurs the Government, although they do not admit any equitable responsibility in the matter, want to consider whether they can do anything to ease the hardship which has resulted from inflation upon their former servants.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who followed up the point, said that we had recognised the principle eight times, that we ought to compensate them for the consequences of inflation. But that is precisely what we have not done on these eight occasions. The whole point of what we have done is that, without recognising any responsibility, we have given what would have been a very inadequate increase if the responsibility had been recognised. It is precisely because the amount has not been commensurate with the rise in the cost of living that it is possible to make these criticisms on the principle that parity ought to be accepted. We have not accepted the position on these eight occasions that we ought to compensate the pensioner in full for a rise in the cost of living.
As for the arguments in favour of having a permanent Committee to review these things, I know, of course, that there is a case for that, too. I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, indicated one of the arguments against it when he mentioned that if the cost of living went down, the pension might have to be reduced. That was precisely what happened in the only class of pensions which we did at one time try to relate to the cost of living—the Armed Services pensions; and the results were so unsatisfactory that the idea had to be abandoned.
I should like to remind your Lordships that on every occasion when an increase of pensions of this kind has been made the Government spokesman has usually said that he hopes this is the last time it will be necessary to do anything, because he hopes that from this time forward there will not be any more inflation. Of course, if there is no more inflation there will not be any case for increasing pensions, and there will be no ground for any of the pressure to which the noble Lord referred. I am not going to be brash enough to repeat that, but I should like to remind your Lordships that for the last fifteen months prices have been stable for the first time since the war, and there are indications that we may
666
be able to hold that position; and that if, in future, pensions were to be regulated in accordance with the cost of living, it is not entirely impossible that the change might be in a downward rather than an upward direction.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, for the support which he expressed for the Bill, which I think was not affected by the various criticisms which he made about the Government's attitude towards the position of ex-Colonial servants. He questioned the statement of the Financial Secretary in another place, who said that most overseas countries had scales of pensions which were as generous as ours. I have tried to check it again and there appears to be a conflict of information. According to the information which the Government have, the majority of these overseas territories are either as good as or better than ours, although, of course, there are some which are not. My right honourable friend the Financial Secretary referring in another place to the position of widows' and orphans' pensions—which are in some cases more unfavourable—said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 606, No. 116, col. 130]:
"The Government have that question very much in mind, but it is not appropriately dealt with in a Bill which deals only with increases in pensions paid by Her Majesty's Government, I can assure honourable Members that the Government have and will keep this matter under review."
I hope I got Lord Milverton's point correctly about the Governors' pensions. The position is that the basis of Governors' pensions was changed in 1956 and improvements were made for all such pensions that began after August 31, 1955. Under this Bill increases will be paid on the Governors' pensions and, of course, they will be larger for those pensions which began before August 31, 1955, under the old arrangements, than for those to which the new arrangements apply.
With regard to widows' pensions the Bill, of course, increases any existing widows' pensions. Obviously, it cannot increase pensions which do not exist, but I will draw the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the view that there should be a system of widows' pensions for Colonial Governors which was argued by the noble

667
Lord. I am sure that everything he has said will be given due weight by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, asked me two questions one of which I can answer and the other I cannot. His question about the number of ex-Government employees receiving National Assistance was asked in another place. The reply was that the information was not available. I have made inquiries, and I find that it is still not available. It has not so far been found possible to extricate the figures from those which the National Assistance Board have, but I will certainly ask again and see whether it would be possible to do this without undue trouble and expense to the officials of the Board. To the noble Lord's other question, whether the increase in pensions goes right up to the top and includes the highest pensions of the highest grade of civil servants, the answer here is, Yes, it does. There is no ceiling at all. I conclude by saying that all your Lordships have said will be considered, and by thanking your Lordships for the unanimous support which you have been good enough to give to the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, before the Motion is put may I ask one question? The noble Earl referred to the local authorities, and paid a tribute to them for their helpful assistance, late though the proposals were. Can he say whether the general block grant to the local authorities—who will, of course, have extra expenditure cast upon them in respect of increased pensions for their pensionable retired servants—will be increased to take account of that extra expenditure?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think I ought to answer that question without notice, because I might not give the right answer. I should have thought the answer would be, Yes, but I would ask the noble Lord if he would be good enough to let me write to him.
LORD SILKIN: It ought to be, Yes.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Variation of rules of common law as to duty of care owed by occupiers]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES): I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. At the end of subsection (1) of this clause your Lordships will see the words, "for which he is in law responsible." As the subsection now stands, there is a doubt whether this phrase relates to the word "dangers" in line 11 or to some or all of the words "the state of the premises or to anything done or omitted to be done on them." What we aim to do by these Amendments is to put it beyond doubt that this phrase qualifies the word "dangers", since it is only in respect of those dangers for which the occupier is in law responsible that the Bill defines his duty towards his visitors. As this is lawyer's law, not being a lawyer myself I have attempted and I shall continue to attempt to keep the ball in my own court. I only hope that noble Lords will not hit the ball too hard out of my court, because if they do it will be a lost ball as far as I am concerned, and I shall have to invite my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to retrieve it for me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after ("dangers") insert ("which are").—(Lord Forbes.)
LORD REID: As this and the following Amendments, which are really drafting Amendments, give effect to certain suggestions made by my noble and learned friend, Lord Keith of Avonholm, and myself, I think it only right to express our satisfaction that the Government have seen fit to adopt our suggestions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("them") insert ("and").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES: For the convenience of the Committee I should like to speak on Amendments 3, 4 and 5. These Amendments effect slight improvements in the drafting of subsection (3) of Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("in relation to").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("(a)") insert ("in relation to").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, after ("(b)") insert ("in relation to").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Extent of occupier's duty to show care]:
LORD FORBES: I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. These Amendments are consequential on Amendments 1 and 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("dangers") insert ("which are").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("them") insert ("and").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES LORD FORBES moved in subsection (1) to leave out "or otherwise,". The noble Lord said: To put it in the broadest terms, Clause 2 provides that the standard of care which an occupier owes to persons on his premises shall be such as is reasonable in all the circumstances. But an occupier may seek to modify his obligations towards his visitors, except in so far as they are obligations laid on him, for example by
670
Statutes such as the Factories Acts, out of which he cannot lawfully contract. Where he alters his obligations by agreement, express or implied, no difficulty arises. But as the clause is drafted at present it covers the case where the occupier seeks to alter his obligations otherwise than by agreement, for example, by notice. If this happens, questions may arise whether the notice was adequate to inform the visitor of any risks he might be incurring in entering the premises and for which the occupier assumed a different degree of liability, whether the visitor saw or ought to have seen the notice, and so forth. We therefore propose, by this Amendment, that the clause should refer only to alterations of liability made by agreement. If an occupier claims to have altered his obligations in any other fashion—for example, by putting up the notice I have referred to—this will be one of the circumstances of the case to which the court will have regard in determining the degree of responsibility which in the particular case rested on the occupier.
Perhaps I might give some examples of this. A joiner comes to repair a window in a loft. The loft floor is rotten. The occupier says to him, "You go in there at your own risk." The joiner says, "I will accept that". That is an agreement, and if the joiner suffered any injury he would have no claim against the occupier. If, on the other hand, the occupier merely puts up a notice saying, "Dangerous floor", and somebody injures himself, that person can sue the owner. In the case of a normal adult the court would consider that the occupier had taken reasonable care, but in the case of small children the notice would not amount to reasonable care having been taken. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("or otherwise,").—(Lord Forbes.)
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is not putting on the occupier a greater responsibility than that which is assumed by people who repair our roads. It seems to me that they are getting off very much more cheaply than the occupier under this Amendment.
LORD FORBES: In this case it is entirely for the courts to decide whether the occupier has taken reasonable care to safeguard any visitor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES: During Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, drew attention to a possible defect in the wording of Clause 2. The Bill at present provides that the care required of the occupier must be such as to "secure" his visitor's safety. The noble and learned Lord suggested that "secure" pitches the duty unreasonably high and carries the implication that the occupier's duty amounts to an absolute guarantee to his visitor against injury. We have looked at this matter carefully since Second Reading and have come to the conclusion that the noble and learned Lord is right. Since the Bill provides that the occupier's duty is to take reasonable care, no more and no less, we think that the more neutral wording, to "see" that the visitor is not injured, should be substituted. I may mention that the word "see" is used in a similar context in the English Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("secure") and insert ("see").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
As to injuries suffered by intruders
" . In any claim arising out of injury suffered on any premises by a person who has entered thereon without the consent of the occupier or person having control thereof it shall be a defence for the occupier or person having control thereof to show that having regard to all the circumstances of the case all reasonable steps had been taken to prevent access to the premises by any person not having his consent or to give warning of any danger thereon."
The noble Viscount said: This is the point of the trespassers or, as I have chosen not to call them trespassers, those who enter premises without the occupier's consent, which was raised by the two noble and learned Lords and by others on Second Reading. I have put down this Amendment in this form with the full awareness that I shall probably
672
get the answer that that, in fact, is what the law, as the Bill is intended to make it, will be in any case. But I have had to do that because I realise that the question of juries is not one that can be raised to-day.
I do not want to ask Her Majesty's Government any questions or press for answers about juries, because I know that a Committee is sitting on that subject at the moment. But the decision of that Committee has not yet come and this Bill will soon become law. The decision of the Committee may be that juries should go, or it may equally be that juries should stay. If they stay, and in any case until the Committee have reported, we are still going to have juries who will decide this class of case. I have therefore thought fit to put down this Amendment, for the reason that juries never give reasons for their decisions, and one may suppose that it is more likely that they will not perhaps take as full an account of the strict law as a judge would if he were making the decision.
What I wish to do is to be able to strengthen the hand of the defence, particularly in a case where somebody who has not the consent of the occupier to enter has none the less done so and been injured. The sort of thing I am thinking of is the ruined house in the middle of a city; or it may be ruins on an unfrequented part of a country estate, or almost any dangerous thing, like a tree or one of those magic attractions which will always induce small boys to climb up them. I have no illusions about the agility of Scottish small boys to climb anything that they have set their hearts to climb; yet do what you will—block up the entrances and put barbed wire round them—they will still get in. I am afraid that there may be hard cases where the landlord has tried extremely hard to keep out these children—or they may be grown-ups—and yet has failed, and they suffer injury.
I hope that this Amendment is a constructive suggestion. It will certainly, I think, be useful in the meantime until the jury situation is decided; and as I have no doubt that, were juries to be abolished in this class of case, it would need legislation thereafter, if it was felt that this clause was not needed, it could perhaps be repealed at the same time.

673
Therefore, I shall be most interested to hear the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, as to whether he thinks it would in fact be an asset to have some such defence as this in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: I appreciate the purpose of this Amendment but I am not at all happy about it. I would ask the noble Viscount, for instance, what exactly is mean by "consent"? If a person comes up to my doorstep or comes up my drive to make an inquiry about something, I should not have thought that he had my consent. Take the case of the person who digs a trench in his field, and suppose a trespasser—I mean a poacher, or some person with a nefarious design—enters the field in the middle of the night and falls into this trench. All this clause says is "not having his consent". That person certainly has not got the occupier's consent. But I am going to assume that he has given no warning of this particular trench. The poacher falls into this trench, and he may come forward and say, "No warning of this trench was given. I have fallen into it. I am entitled under this clause to get damages." I do not say that he might not have his claim thrown out upon some other ground; but it seems to me that if one looks at it from that point of view, this clause does not really cover exactly what is in my noble friend's mind.
My view is that, particularly looking at the position with regard to juries, the matter is adequately covered by Clause 2 as it stands, because the clause provides that the occupier shall show
"such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable."
I should think that the question of the trespasser was adequately covered by that provision, and that it would be a safer clause to meet the trespasser than the clause proposed to be introduced directly to meet that situation. I do not think that the new clause does meet the situation adequately. But I am prepared, if on the Government side it is proposed that this clause shall be accepted, to say nothing more about it. I just want to make it clear to my noble
674
friend that I do not think that the clause is really adequate for the purpose for which he intends it.
LORD REID: I think it was clear on Second Reading that my noble friend and I took a slightly different view on one point, and I think we still do. As regards the second point in this new clause, that it should be a defence to give warning, I would agree that that can hardly be proved because it is so indefinite that it would give rise to great difficulties. I would therefore agree with my noble and learned friend in urging the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, not to press that part of the clause. But I am bound to say that I feel more difficulty about the first half of the clause, where it provides that it shall be a defence to show that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent access. Not infrequently, there have been cases where children, in particular, have broken through fences, notwithstanding the repeated attempts of the landowner to stop them.
I am thinking in particular of a case where an action for damages was brought against British Railways although they had done their best, by mending a fence time and again, to keep the children out. Under the existing law it was held authoritatively that because of that fact there was no case against them. But under the Bill the matter is left at large. It may well be—I think I indicated this view on Second Reading—that some juries will accept the view that if a landowner has done his best to keep the children out he has exercised all reasonable care. But he may have on his ground some fairly obvious danger which he might, without undue expense, have fenced or removed. At present he is not bound to do that, and it may be said "You knew that these children were defeating your efforts in that they were getting through. You knew that an accident might be very serious, yet you did not spend the few necessary pounds to put this right."
That situation always arises, and one is apt to be wise after the event. In a case like that, the occupier might never have really considered the matter; he might have done it if he had been obliged to. He will he told "You ought to have considered it". I am bound to

675
say that I have a fear, particularly so long as these cases go to juries, that children who persist in breaking in and then fall into some kind of danger and, it may be, sustain serious injuries, will recover damages in future in circumstances where they are not able to do so at present. I am not going to express any view about whether that is a good or a bad thing. If there was a division of opinion upon this I do not think that I should wish to press the matter one way or the other. It is a question of policy and I feel that the considerations are pretty evenly balanced. But I think it right to say that there is a point, and a very good point; but I would not support the other part of the clause.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. I really do not understand why, in a case of this kind, just because the whole position of juries has been questioned by a Committee, Her Majesty's Government should refuse to give us a judge in this particular case which is so well fitted for it. Juries are often swayed by their sympathy for the victim and have no particular care for the actual law on the matter. I, for my sins (though it is not a case I am thinking very much about), have a very old tower which is an ancient monument, which is gradually being destroyed by the children of the town whom I am unable to keep away; and no expenditure on my part has ever enabled me to succeed in doing so. I am afraid that ultimately the ancient monument will disappear and then I shall have no liability. But it seems to me that under this Bill I might be caught by a jury in a very unfortunate way.
I am thinking, however, much more of the countryside and of country life. If a man has to drain his field, he must leave an open trench, which is a very nasty place for a farm servant to fall into when crossing at night. I am also inclined to wonder who owns Ben Nevis and the Cairngorms, and whether juries will consider that sufficient notice boards have been put round those great areas to prevent people from hurting themselves when they go up. All those things are particularly important, especially at Ben Nevis, where in one area one can see many feet down into the mountain.
676
There are great rocks, each the size of an ordinary room, piled one on top of another, with no earth covering them, where one could easily fall down. I wonder who would be responsible and who is the owner who might be liable should someone fall.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to support the idea behind this Amendment by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, although I agree that there may be practical difficulties to the Amendment as it stands at the moment—for this reason. I believe that at present if one puts a cattle grid in a private road, and someone who has not asked permission walking down the road at night falls into the cattle grid and breaks a leg, one is responsible. At any rate, when we put cattle grids into some of our private roads our lawyers said we must put wire netting over them—which was defeating the point, for it meant that sheep could run straight across, as well as strange children. Accidents are much more likely to happen at night, so that it is no good putting up a warning sign saying, "Cattle grid ahead", because no one will see it at night. I feel that there should be some clause such as this which would enable the owner of land to avoid having any responsibility towards trespassers who, through their own carelessness, hurt themselves while they are on his land.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I also wish to support the spirit behind this Amendment. I am in very great doubt as to the liability involved where children climb over a fence. That fence may be perfectly secure when the first child goes over it, but he may swing on it and a staple may come out so that the second child, trespassing, may catch its leg upon it and may fall and break a limb. That kind of thing has happened in the past and will happen again. I do not quite see where the liability is going to rest in a case of that kind where children are climbing, perhaps on ruins. One cannot keep them out, for children are children; but I think that something is necessary at the present time to give a reasonable degree of safeguard to occupiers of land and premises of the kind where this can happen, perhaps during the night when they have no possibility of control. I think that either the position should be clarified or some Amendment of this kind should be considered.
5.5 p.m.
LORD FORBES: If I have understood noble Lords correctly, I think we shall all sympathise with the intention of this Amendment, which is to cover the position when, say, a trespasser (as we may loosely call him), climbs over a barbed wire fence, ignoring a notice which says "Danger: keep away from edge", and falls into a quarry. The Amendment seeks to give the occupier in such cases a defence against liability for the resulting injuries. But surely the point is that the occupier already has such a defence. The Bill lays upon him the duty to take reasonable care, and he can maintain that he has done so by putting up the fence or exhibiting a notice. That is his defence, which obviously the court will take into account along with all the other relevant circumstances.
I submit that the Amendment does not give any further advantage to the occupier. It provides that he must take all reasonable steps to prevent access or give warning of the danger. In fact it brings us back to the question of what is "reasonable". It will be for the court to decide what are "reasonable steps", just as under the Bill as it stands at present the court must decide what is "reasonable care". Thus, under the Amendment, as under the Bill in its present form, the occupier's liability rests firmly upon the decision of the Court. But the difference is that the Amendment attempts to specify the kind of reasonable care which must be taken—in this case, of course, care to prevent access. This is contrary to the view of the Law Reform Committee which recommended that:
"detailed elaborate codification of this branch of the law of Scotland should not be attempted but rather that liability should be made to depend upon the broad general principle of culpa."
I am sure the Committee were right in this recommendation.
The circumstances in which people can enter on to land, whether with or without the consent of the occupier, are infinitely varied, and if we try to provide for each type of case we shall find ourselves once more in the kind of confusion which the Bill seeks to remedy. If we take the case of children who, as we have already heard, are notoriously undeterred by warnings of
678
danger—indeed they may be attracted by them—is the occupier of premises containing dangerous machinery on which he knows children are in the habit of trespassing to be absolved from liability merely because he puts up a warning notice? Surely the occupier should do more than that. In such circumstances it might well be right for an occupier to take greater precautions against injuries to trespassers than the occupier of, say, an ordinary house and garden ought to take towards his invited visitors. For instance, it might be more important to see that a well is fenced against trespassers than that the bannisters of a staircase are in good repair for guests. It is for this very reason that the whole aim of the Bill is to give the fullest discretion to the courts. I hope that, with what I have said, the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw his Amendment, though I will undertake to look at this whole matter before the Report stage.
LORD SALTOUN: There is just one point on which the noble Lord did not touch. There is a very old adage which has always been dinned into my ears until I am sick of it:
"Justice should not only be done but be seen to be done."
The general public have a firm conviction that most judges are reasonable men, and they are perfectly convinced that a judge will take a reasonable view of an occupier's liability. I am sorry to say that the general public are not convinced that a jury will take a reasonable view in every case, and I should be very interested to learn the view of Her Majesty's Government on what would be "reasonable precautions" in the case of a place like Ben Nevis.
LORD FORBES: As has already been said, I cannot go into the question of judges and juries to-day, as that matter is at present being considered, and I cannot, of course, prejudge the issue.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and, of course, to Her Majesty's Government for their answer. I thought I was going to have to say that I was sorry the answer was so unsympathetic, but I am delighted that the noble Lord has said he will look at this matter again. I am sorry that the

679
clause I have suggested is so full of mistakes; and I should not dream of disagreeing with the two noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches over the particular mistakes they pointed out. The crux of the matter is this. I believe that the present law is that there is a specified and very low liability towards trespassers as such. We are now bringing in this Bill which produces merely a standard of reasonable care in the circumstances. What we are afraid of is that the "reasonable care" standard that will be laid upon an occupier will result in a higher liability towards the trespasser than we have had heretofore. Therefore, I really think this is something that ought to be looked at again. I, of course, will not dream of pressing this Amendment as such, but I hope that the noble Lord will succeed in finding some answer to this matter on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Landlord's liability by virtue of responsibility for repairs]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS had given Notice of three Amendments, the first being at the beginning of subsection (1) to insert:
"Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section".
The noble Viscount said: With the Committee's indulgence, I will speak to the next three Amendments together because they are really on the same point. I am afraid that on Second Reading I brought up these two rather detailed matters which perhaps should have been reserved for this stage, and I must confess that I was not altogether satisfied with the answer that I received on that occasion. I am afraid it was perhaps because I had not given proper notice of them. The point is this. The landlord, when he is under a lease to maintain and repair, is not liable for defects on the premises unless he knows about them. That view was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm. If the landlord does not know about them and the tenant does, it may well be that the tenant would in fact not have shown reasonable care. But it seemed from speeches on the Second Reading that this is by no means certain. What I seek to do is to lay upon the tenant in the cases where he
680
knows there is something wrong the duty to tell the landlord that this is so; because otherwise, as I explained on Second Reading, I am afraid that there may be cases where the person who is injured should have reparation but does not get any, because the duty of the tenant was not clear. Therefore I am seeking to insert in the Bill, by this Amendment, a specific duty on the tenant to make quite sure that the land-lord knows about these defects on the premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section,").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD REID: Perhaps as I said a word of two previously I might add a further word. I, of course, entirely sympathise with the desires of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and it would be very desirable that there should be no loopholes. But I think the position really is all right, because the tenant is the occupier and the primary liability is on him. If he knows about some defect and does nothing at all, then I should have no hesitation in saying that he has failed to exercise the care which he ought to have exercised towards his visitors. He can do one or other of two things. If the duty is on him to repair, then obviously he must repair; but if the duty is not on him to repair, then common sense demands that he shall tell the landlord as soon as possible so as to get the thing put right. In most cases he would do it in his own interest, but perhaps he is not much interested. But, even so, he knows that he is inviting people in, or people are coming who he knows may be injured. He knows he has a duty to take such care as the circumstances allow towards them; and in those circumstances, where an occupier knew of a defect but failed to intimate to the landlord that he wanted it put right, I do not think any jury would say that that occupier had fulfilled his duty. Therefore, I think that in this case there really is no loophole that has to be stopped up.
LORD FORBES: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, for explaining so well why it is not necessary to accept this Amendment. I would just go one stage further and say that I believe that this Amendment

681
might have the opposite effect to that intended by the noble Viscount. Let us consider the case, as may happen under the terms of a particular lease, where the onus is on the landlord to remedy any defect, whether he has been notified of the defect or not—it happens that sometimes the whole onus is on the landlord. In that case the proposed new subsection might be held to cut clean across the terms of the lease and to restrict the landlord's obligations. I suggest that this is another example of the dangers of trying to cater for particular cases, and I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful again to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, and to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. That is, in fact, exactly the answer I hoped to get; and it is only because it was perhaps not quite so clearly expressed on Second Reading that I thought I ought to put down this Amendment. However, I am glad the position is now quite clear, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (4):
"; and 'tenancy under which the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises' shall include a tenancy under which the landlord is under an obligation to renew and replace fixtures during the term of the demise."
The noble Viscount said: This concerns the other point that I raised on Second Reading, and again, if I may say so, I do not think the answer I received was altogether clear; therefore I hope that it may be extended this afternoon. The situation I envisage is this. A landlord who is under liability in his lease to repair and maintain has an obligation put upon him by this clause. There are, however, cases of leases where the landlord does not expressly say he will repair and maintain—in fact, that obligation may be upon the tenant—but what the landlord retains unto himself is the liability to replace and renew fixtures during the terms of the lease. What I want to know is this: in such a case will he have
682
the same liability if injury is suffered as the result of a defect in one of the fixtures which he has undertaken to replace and renew, and the injury is caused by a defect which ought to have been put right by him under that liability? I do not think it particularly matters whether this Amendment is phrased
"…'tenancy under which the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises' shall include",
or whether I say, "shall not include". The point is that I want it made quite clear that this is, in fact, the case and it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government under this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 47, at end insert ("; and 'tenancy under which the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises' shall include a tenancy under which the landlord is under an obligation to renew and replace fixtures during the term of the demise.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: On Second Reading I was not entirely clear what the noble Viscount had in mind, but seeing now the Amendment that he is proposing I have no doubt in saying that I do not think that there is any real trouble about the matter. In Scotland there are two forms of lease: an urban lease—that is to say, the lease of a dwellinghouse—and an agricultural lease. But if a landlord Is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises, that certainly includes an obligation to renew and replace what is part of the premises—that is to say, the fixtures. You cannot dissociate the fixtures attached to the premises from the premises themselves; and if the obligation is to be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises, I should not think there is the slightest doubt that that would cover fixtures, which are a part of the premises. He will be bound to renew and replace these, if they require renewal and replacement, just as much as he is responsible for general maintenance and repair.
LORD FORBES: Once more, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, for answering the noble Viscount so adequately. I hope the noble Viscount will now be able to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am afraid not quite, because it is not exactly the point I had in mind—and I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, will forgive me when I say this. I envisage the sort of tenancy where the landlord is not under a liability to maintain and repair the premises but is under a liability to replace and renew fixtures, in which case there seems to me to be a certain amount of doubt whether the liability under the clause will apply to him.
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: I must confess that I never heard of such an obligation. I cannot myself quite appreciate how a landlord is liable to repair and maintain fixtures, which are part of the premises, and is not liable to repair and maintain the premises generally. It is not a case I have ever come across; and unless the noble Viscount has an actual case in mind, I must confess I shall not think that there is anything whatever in this Amendment. I say so, with all respect to the doubts and difficulty that the noble Viscount has; but I think that really his doubts are without any solid foundation.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I am in a deeper fog. In all the leases with which I am connected I think fireplaces and grates would normally be considered fixtures; but the fireplaces and grates are the tenants' property, and when the lease changes they are taken over at valuation by the incoming tenant. Who is responsible, for what, to whom?
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: I am not going to offer opinions upon legal questions. I do not think that that is really the point that is covered by this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If there is no such animal, I am sorry; but I was under the impression that this sort of lease did exist. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, would once more see whether there is anything in what I say. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
House resumed.

LEGITIMACY BILL
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of Legitimacy Act, 1926
1.—(1) Subsection (2) of section one of the Legitimacy Act, 1926 (which restricts the operation of that Act in relation to any illegitimate person born when his father or mother was married to a third person) is hereby repealed.
(2) In relation to an illegitimate person to whom it applies by virtue of this section, the Legitimacy Act, 1926, shall have effect as if for references to the commencement of that Act there were substituted references to the commencement of this Act.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: In the debate on the Second Reading on June 16 I gave notice that, when the Bill reached the Committee stage, I should move the Amendment which I am now moving, to leave out Clause 1. Those attending the Committee this afternoon are not necessarily the same noble Lords who were present on that occasion, and I must apologise to any who were present on the previous occasion if I repeat, necessarily, this afternoon some of the arguments which convinced me, and which I hope will convince the Committee, that this clause is a bad one.
Since 1926, under the Act of Parliament of that year, the law of England has allowed legitimation of an illegitimate child by the subsequent marriage of its parents, provided always that neither of those parents was married to a third person at the time of the birth of the child. This reform of our law made our law substantially the same as it had been for many centuries in Scotland. There was the slight difference in the Scottish law that the requirement of being unmarried to a third party had to be fulfilled at the date of conception, and not the date of birth; but, subject to that difference, the law of England since 1926 has been the

685
same as it has been for centuries in Scotland. The reform of our law by the Act of 1926 was, I think, universally recognised as a humane measure. It benefited some innocent children, and it harmed no one. The law as it stands today, both of England and of Scotland, draws a clear distinction between promiscuous intercourse of the unmarried and adulterous intercourse in which one party at least is married. It is that distinction which Clause 1 of this Bill seeks to abolish, and I propose to give reasons to the Committee why this distinction should be maintained.
My view that the distinction should be maintained is supported not only by the views of this House when the matter was debated in 1924, and by the view of the most reverend Primate and the Bishops at that time: it is also strongly supported by the large majority of the recent Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. My noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton and eleven of his colleagues strongly advised against the change in the law which Clause 1 of this Bill proposes. I agree with almost the whole of the reasoning of those twelve members of the Royal Commission. I would make only this one modification. I have never argued, and I do not argue now, that the prospect of the child's being illegitimate constitutes a deterrent against adultery. I have never used the argument of deterrence. But I agree with the views expressed by the majority of the Royal Commission, that the implication of the change in the law now proposed is deeply injurious to the whole institution of Christian marriage, and indeed of monogamy.
May I read again a few words?—
"It is untrue to say that the principle underlying the present law is that of penalising the child or its parents. So long as marriage is held to be the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman, that conception is wholly incompatible with the provision that one or other of the parties can, during the subsistence of the marriage, beget by some other person children who may later be legitimated. This, indeed, is the essence of the objection to the proposal. Legitimacy is the status held by a lawful child of the marriage. Any departure from that conception can only be made by ignoring the essential moral principle that a man cannot, during the subsistence of his marriage, beget lawful children by another woman."
May I invite the Committee to consider separately the case where the mother
686
is unmarried but the father of the illegitimate child is married, and the other case where the mother herself is a married woman? Let me take first the case where the mother is unmarried. In that case, the wife of the father of the illegitimate child is entitled to seek a divorce, but she is not compelled to seek a divorce. She may well think that her duty lies in seeking to preserve the marriage. She may be led to that conclusion by the deepest religious convictions, or by other considerations—by considering the interests of the children of the marriage, or perhaps by her love for her erring husband. Any of these reasons may induce her not to seek a divorce and to do everything in her power to preserve her marriage. I find it abhorrent, as I think other noble Lords may find it, that such a woman should have a new pressure brought to hear upon her, that people should say that she is cruel in not seeking a divorce because thereby she is preventing the child from being legitimated. Not only is that conception abhorrent to me; I very much doubt whether noble Lords who take the other view can be quite satisfied that the legitimacy of the child should depend on the decision of the injured wife whether to seek a divorce or not.
Let me pass to the other case, where the mother of the illegitimate child is a married woman. In that case, the child will not be born illegitimate at all. It will be born apparently in wedlock, and the presumption of legitimacy will apply until that presumption is displaced. The child is born the legitimate child of the existing marriage of the mother. If Clause 1 of the present Bill becomes law, it will be possible first to bastardise a child in relation to the family into which it was born and then to legitimate it as the child of the subsequent marriage of its natural parents.
In the debate on Second Reading, I ventured to quote some sentences from the speech of Lord Phillimore, which he made in the debate in your Lordships' House on February 21, 1924. I shall not repeat the whole of the quotation, but let me remind the Committee that Lord Phillimore considered the case where the mother, unknown to the husband, had a lover and the illegitimate child was the result. The husband remained ignorant of the intrigue until his

687
death. What then became the position? Let me quote Lord Phillimore's words dealing with the child [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 56, col. 260]:
"Is he then to be the legitimated child of his actual parents? Is he to he bastardised from being what he has always grown up in the belief that he was? He has always supposed that he was the son of the husband of his mother, he has lived with his brothers and sisters in that belief, and has enjoyed all the comforts of the family. Is he then to find that his real parents are going to say that he was their child, and therefore he is to be legitimated as their child, and necessarily bastardised as regards the position he has always been in before?"
I pointed out that this was not an imaginary example or difficulty, and that two earlier Lord Chancellors, Lord Finlay and Lord Cave, had spoken in the same sense in the debates in 1924. I am delighted to see on the Cross-Benches my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, and to know that he will be intervening later upon this Amendment.
On Second Reading, when the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor came to deal with this passage in my speech—I will not quote his exact words but I know that he will not quarrel with my description—he said quite fairly that the problem of the bastardisation of the child might conceivably arise apart from the present measure altogether and, secondly, that the courts would be able to sort the matter out when the question arose. Let me say a word about each of these points. I admit that this question of the bastardisation of the child could conceivably arise apart from this Bill altogether, but I think that noble and learned Lords will probably agree with me when I say that in most cases it is unlikely that the presumption of legitimacy could be displaced unless the mother were prepared to give evidence to secure that result, and that the mother would have little reason to give evidence to secure that result, unless the bait were held out to her by Clause 1 of the present measure, whereby she could secure the legitimacy of the child with a different father.
I do not doubt for one moment that, if we were so ill-advised as to allow Clause 1 to become law, our judges would sort out the ensuing problems. It is not any doubt about the ability of the
688
courts that troubles me. What I ask your Lordships to consider is this: whether your Lordships feel that such legal proceedings, first to bastardise and then to legitimate a child, is in the interests of that child. I ask your Lordships to assume a sensitive child, perhaps of seven years of age, who has grown up happily in a family with elder brothers and sisters, a child who loved the husband of his mother, who always believed that that husband was his father and who always called him "father". Then that husband dies. On that man's death the child can then become the victim and the subject of these hideous legal proceedings, first to bastardise him, and then to legitimate him under a new name. To me, if words have their ordinary meaning, such treatment of the child is cruelty.
I know that noble Lords who take differing views on the merits of Clause 1 all wish to benefit the child and to do the best for the child. But if the innocence of the child is itself a ground for the legitimation of that child, then all children are innocent; and that is a ground, not for this Bill, but for the abolition of illegitimacy. Illegitimacy could be abolished by law, as I pointed out on the last occasion; but it is not done by Clause 1 of this Bill. The authors of this Bill seem to waver by making too little of marriage, on the one hand, and too much of it, on the other. They make, in my opinion, too little of marriage when they say that a husband during his marriage can beget a legitimate child by some mother other than his wife. On the other hand, having done that, as it seems to me, great wrong, they then say that the child can be legitimated only if the parties, who have already outraged one marriage, go through the form of entering another. Quite frankly, my own view is that less injury would be done to the institution of Christian marriage, and indeed to the institution of monogamy, if all illegitimacy were abolished by Act of Parliament and the law said frankly that legitimacy had nothing to do with marriage at all.
There is one other argument that might conceivably be put forward against me. It does not concern the merits of Clause 1, but concerns the propriety of our reaching our own decision on those

689
merits. It may possibly be urged that Clause 1 of the present Bill is a most important clause, perhaps the most important in the whole Bill, and that the House of Commons has passed it. If such an argument against our voting on the merits is put forward, I shall be very happy to deal with it in reply; but I think I shall best serve the convenience of the Committee if I do not deal in advance with an argument which no noble Lord may put forward. I believe that Clause 1 of the present Bill is unprincipled and wrong, and I believe that, if it were passed into law, it would cause more misery than it cured. I ask the Committee to reject it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Conesford.)
5.44 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: I should like to support this Amendment and to oppose Clause 1, for the reason that it seems to me quite clear that this clause undermines the principle upon which English marriage law is based—that is to say, the principle of monogamy—and, indeed, is totally inconsistent with it. For by this clause the law will be made to say that it is possible for a man Legally to beget children of two women during the same time. That seems to me to be completely inconsistent with monogamy. The clause will make the law say that the law can pretend by means of a legal fiction that a man married at one time to a particular lady was nevertheless, for the purpose of the legitimation of a child, at the same time to be deemed to be married to another lady. That seems to me to be totally inconsistent with the principle of monogamy.
This whole question arises, of course, as an offshoot of the legal device of legitimation by subsequent marriage; and that device has a very ancient history. It was the brain child, I believe, of the first Christian Emperor, Constantine. He devised it as a temporary measure in order to persuade persons living in the quasi-legal state of concubini to advance from that into the state of full legal marriage. It was a temporary bribe, so to speak, to get rid of concubini, so far as possible, and to substitute for it proper marriage. The
690
Emperor Justinian made this temporary provision a permanent part of the Roman Law; and so it remains.
The years passed by; the Empire was divided, and the jurisdiction of marriage questions in the West of Europe passed into the hands of the Church. But this law of Justinian was never entirely forgotten, although there was a doubt as to whether or how far it applied. I am glad to think that it was a predecessor of mine in the See of Exeter who, tired of the conflicting opinions of lawyers and irritated by the ambiguity of the law, wrote to the then Pope to ask for a clear answer; and he got one. The very clear answer was that subsequent marriage legitimates children born before the marriage of two people in all cases—not only of concubines, but in all cases—except the issue of an adulterous union or the issue of incest.
The extension of this device of legitimation by subsequent marriage had as its motive, for the most part, sympathy and understanding for children otherwise illegitimate. There is no question here of hard-heartedness on the part of the Church or of the Christian lawyers. Nor was the exception depriving of this benefit the children of an adulterous union the result of hard-heartedness or lack of sympathy; it was the result of a refusal to allow the heart to rule the head. Legitimation by subsequent marriage has a workable principle. It is that the father and mother may be deemed to have married one another at the time when the child was either conceived or born. And so considerate were lawyers of those days of the interests of the child that they made it a principle that the date should be either the conception or the birth, whichever was more favourable to the child: it had not to be always one or the other, as is the case now in England and in Scotland.
The principle was that the law might pretend that the father and the mother married one another at the time of the conception, or else of the birth, But, of course, in those days, when the legal formalities for marriage were not so precise and clear as they are now, and when a marriage could be established by repute—that is to say, by the private exchange of vows between the man and woman, followed by a period of cohabitation and the setting up of a general

691
reputation that they were man and wife—it was not altogether unreasonable to assume that the marriage had, in fact begun at the moment when the two parties first had intercourse and the child was conceived. In the Middle Ages it was often difficult to say with absolute certainty of any marriage, other than a marriage formally celebrated in facie Ecclesiae, precisely at what date the marriage did begin. Lawyers therefore implemented these types of legitimation by subsequent marriage, assuming always the father and mother did marry in facie Ecclesiae and put the marriage beyond all doubt.
The law is indeed very powerful, but I cannot for the life of me see how it lies even within the power of the law to be able to pretend that a man and a woman were married to one another at a time when that same law says it was legally impossible for them to be so married. I cannot see that this is to do anything but hold the law up to contempt—to presume that the law can just imagine, pretend and deem what it itself says is impossible. It is distasteful to oppose this clause, because it exposes anybody to the objection that he is unsympathetic, unimaginative and indifferent to the sufferings of those who are illegitimate. I wonder why it is that, if the main motive of the promoters of this Bill is simply that illegitimate children, some of whose misfortune can be remedied by the proposed terms of this Bill, they have not at the same time taken the opportunity to amend the Act of 1926 by extending the provisions of legitimation by subsequent marriage to the succession to titles of honour? After all, if that restriction is left, in some cases at least the purposes of this clause may be totally defeated.
I will not take an example from your Lordships' House. If it is, or was, the privilege of your Lordships in the common mind always to be titled, it is, or was, the common view that baronets were always bold and bad. The bold and bad baronet commits adultery and begets a son. He is divorced by his wife, he marries his mistress and in a year or two he has another son. Ten years later, having mellowed and become more cautious and less bad, he sends these two boys to a preparatory school. He
692
sends them to the same school because he is less bad, and there is only one best school in the country and he wants both boys equally to go to it. There we have them in the fifth form, Smith Major and Smith Minor. The baronet has the misfortune to break his neck in the hunting field, or more probably on the Great North Road or the Preston Motorway; and then, all of a sudden, before the astonished gaze of all the other small and curious preparatory school boys, Smith Major becomes Smith Minor and Smith Minor becomes Smith Major; and the preparatory schoolboys, like so many Cornishmen, will know the reason why, and the whole purpose of this clause is destroyed. If this clause becomes law these two little boys are exposed to what seems to me an unnecessary ignominy.
It is from no lack of sympathy or understanding that I and other noble Lords oppose this clause. But one must face the truths of life. It does happen that the fathers eat sour grapes and it is the children's teeth which are set on edge. We are tempted to think that that is in all cases unjust. That may be because our human conception of justice is imperfect. I do not wish to impose upon the House a tedious theodicy, but it is possible that we underestimate the close nexus there is between children and their parents and the two-way traffic of credit and discredit, advantage and disadvantage, and benefit and evil which is continually passing between the two. Every child owes a great deal of gratitude for good to its parents. One must tell them, also, how they have received a certain amount of evil in, by or from their parents. That has to be taken and set against the many benefits which they have received. So it comes that the father has eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. But it is not necessarily so very unjust as is sometimes maintained. However that may be, it is a fact that the sins of the fathers have evil consequences for the children, and we cannot always do anything about it. We hang a murderer, or we sentence him to life imprisonment, but the matter does not end there. A heavy cloud of shame hangs over the heads of the children for the rest of their lives. But no one would argue that, because the children are innocent, they ought not to suffer that shame and that

693
therefore the murderer should be reprieved The interests of justice would not permit it.
I think that here is a similar position in a matter of less importance. The parents commit adultery, and the children are not born of a lawful marriage. I should have thought that the right way for society to discharge its duty of mitigating the evil consequences to the children as much as possible was not by setting up a legal pretence that their parents were married when in fact they clearly were not, but so to manage our own behaviour as to remove from illegitimate children the very last vestiges of social stigma. I cannot think that illegitimate children suffer very much because of their legal disabilities. I can imagine that they would suffer a good deal if they were made the object of scorn, or were treated differently in ordinary matters of day-to-day living from a legitimate person. If that is so, if they are so treated, that is a grave indictment on us, on society; for what it means is that, in effect, we are condoning the sins of the parents and passing moral judgment on the children. We could correct that if we could cease to pass any moral judgment on the children but passed a much more severe moral judgment on the parents. Then, I believe, there would be fewer illegitimate children born; the stigma which attaches to them would he more bearable, less onerous than it is now, and society would not be threatened at its very roots, the principle of monogamous marriage.
6.0 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I find the arguments that are being used a little puzzling. It has been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—and he quoted the Royal Commission in support of the argument—and also by the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, that if this Bill passes, a man who begets a child by his mistress will be held to be begetting legal children by two women during the currency of his marriage, and that therefore the institution of monogamous marriage will he completely undermined. Surely that is not so. A man who makes an adulterous union with his mistress and begets a child will beget an illegitimate child. It will be born illegitimate;
694
it will remain illegitimate all its life unless the previous marriage is subsequently dissolved in accordance with the law and the child is subsequently legitimated.
Surely the fallacy of this argument can be seen by the parallel case of the law of marriage. A man may live with his mistress and he may be divorced by his wife on that account. Subsequently he marries his mistress. According to the secular law of this country the second marriage is perfectly valid. No one argues that because the first marriage is dissolved and the second is legal, therefore at the time he entered into the adulterous union with his mistress he was in fact contracting two marriages at the same time. I think the parallel is exact. In each case, during the currency of the first marriage the union is adulterous, the offspring is illegitimate. The union may become regularised if the first marriage is dissolved, and by the same logic the offspring of that union may become legitimated in the same circumstances.
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, as one who supported this proposal on the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, may I say a few words? Of course, I recognise that this proposal is contrary to the Canon Law, to the law of Scotland and to the law of England as it at present exists. But we are faced here with a real problem. As the noble Lady who has just spoken has said, the question can never arise so long as the first marriage is maintained. But there are two situations: first, the married man may have intercourse with a mistress and beget by her a child. That child can never be legitimated so long as the marriage subsists. But it may happen that the wife of that man brings divorce proceedings against him on the ground of adultery and obtains a divorce. In that case, if the man then marries his mistress, this Bill, if passed, would legitimate that child.
The other case may seem, and I think it is, a more difficult case. A married woman as a result of adulterous intercourse has a child, and again so long as that marriage subsists the child can never be legitimated. If the husband brings an action of divorce against his wife, as he may very well do if he is aware of this adulterous intercourse, and

695
obtains a divorce, then the adulterer and the adulterous wife may marry, and again, if this Bill passes, the child will be legitimated. That is a situation that, as things exist, however much we may regret it, is happening very frequently.
A great deal has been said about a child being at once a legitimated child and a bastard, or bastardising the child that is presumed to be legitimate; and, of course, a child that is born during wedlock is presumed to be legitimate. But it may well be that the husband of the marriage in which that child is born may repudiate the child merely because he is satisfied that the child is not his child, and on that ground he obtains a divorce. I am going to say nothing—because I am not entirely familiar with it—about the procedure of having that child declared an illegitimate child in England, but there would be no trouble about it in Scotland. It may well be that the husband may bring an action to have it declared that that was not his child and that it was a bastard. In Scotland I think that that could be done. It may be that the other interested parties—it may be the father of the child or the mother of the child—could bring similar proceedings. And, of course, in that situation I can see that no harm could be done by that child being legitimated by the marriage of its parents.
That is the sort of situation which is arising one might almost say daily. During the war it was a situation which obviously arose. A child would be born to a married woman. The husband had been away for two years or longer at the war; and it was perfectly obvious that that child was not a child of the marriage. It was born in wedlock in the sense that the marriage was still subsisting, and it would be presumed legitimate until in some way it was found or declared to be illegitimate. And, again, in that situation the child could be legitimated, if this were the law, by the marriage of the parents. That is, as I see it, a real situation that is happening to-day. So long as the marriage subsists of course there can be no question of legitimation at all. But if the marriage is dissolved, then the proposal is that in that case, if the father and mother marry, the child should be legitimated.
696
Extreme cases have been suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford. I must confess that I myself have some difficulty in thinking that the cases that he suggests are cases that are very likely to arise. I can hardly imagine, in the case of a child who was born in wedlock, who has not been repudiated as the child of the husband, where the marriage has subsisted for ten or fifteen years and the child has gone to school and so on as the legitimate child of that marriage, that after that long period of time the child is going to be bastardised and going to be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents. Theoretically it is the sort of case that can arise, but in real life and real fact I hardly see that it could arise. For those reasons I am prepared to support this clause.
6.10 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to ask for some explanation about this Bill as it stands. I come from a country where it was so extremely necessary for poor people to have children that for many ages it was the custom for unmarried people to live together and only to marry when it was clear that a child was to result from the marriage. Among the wealthier classes it was the case that often before their marriage they had to get a dispensation from the Pope which, if it was given at all, took three years to come. That led to the system of hand-fasting, as it was called, and it was perfectly natural. But in the Bill as it stands we are asked to extend that to cases where children are born in adultery—I will put it that way.
It seems to me that two questions arise. First, is it wise to legislate in such a fashion that you say a thing is a fact when it is not a fact? I have read a great deal in the Press about the stigma of bastardy. As a matter of fact, in my experience I have known many people who are illegitimate and I do not think that they really suffer very much from the stigma—and, as we know, it was a title not of shame but of pride to William the Conqueror. But if there is a stigma, I would point out that it is not affixed by the parents, it is affixed by the people; and it seems to me that in this case we are merely adding another term of abuse to the English language in the word "legitimated." But the question

697
that worries me is, does legitimation convey rights to property and rights of succession? It seems to me that that is a most important question. I do not know the law of England and I should be most happy if some noble Lord would enlighten me.
6.12 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When I had the temerity at the end of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill to ask for some indication of the Government's views on the issues raised by Clause 1, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gently rebuked me by saying that it was hardly for me to reproach the Government for their silence when I had not expressed any view of my own. Well, I do not complain about that; I think it was what I believe is called, in legal parlance, "fair comment." But actually, I still think it rather odd that the Government have no advice at all to give to the Committee on this particular clause. After all, I think it is generally agreed, whatever view we take about it that the clause raises most important issues, both of law and of morals. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to whom the House always listens with such respect—I am sorry not to see him here this afternoon—made this clear when he said at the outset of his speech on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 216, col. 1190]:
"Your Lordships are asked this afternoon to set your seal on a great change in the law of England."
Those were Lord Denning's words. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking in the same debate, said that the Bill raised great moral issues on both sides.
This, as I see it, is not in fact, as the Lord Chancellor seemed to think, an ordinary Private Member's Bill dealing with some question of secondary importance which does not matter very much one way or another. I submit that it is a measure—this is particularly true of Clause 1—that raises very wide issues indeed. In those circumstances, I cannot help regretting that the Government have thought it right to adopt the attitude that they have no particular views of their own as a Government, but would be content, to quote the words of the Lord Chancellor:
"to be guided by the wishes of the House."
698
However, having said that in my own defence, I feel, in view of what my noble and learned friend has said, that I ought at any rate to try, though with great deference, for I am not a lawyer, to give my views, for what they are worth, on Clause 1. Quite briefly, I am against Clause 1 for the simple reason that, as I understand it, it requires the law to lend itself to something that is patently not true. The broad principle of legitimacy as it has been long understood in English law is, after all, clear, simple and unequivocal. It is defined with crystal clear accuracy in the great new English Dictionary. There it is said that the definition of "legitimate" is
"Of a child having the status of one lawfully begotten; entitled to full filial rights."
There then follows a note which I would commend to the particular attention of the Committee. This note says:
"According to English law all children are legitimate who are born in lawful wedlock, and no others."
That is a perfectly clear, simple, definite statement, and that, I think, is a fair definition of what Lord Denning in his speech on Second Reading called "the old Common Law argument", which has been, I believe I am right in saying, the basis of British law on legitimacy for many centuries now.
But, as I understand them, the promoters of this Bill say that, while that may be good law, it is very hard on the child who, through no fault of his own, but entirely through the fault of his mother (in the case with which I am particularly concerned), has to bear throughout his life the stigma of illegitimacy. I think that that is a fair statement of their point of view. In their view, that is a wrong which must be expunged. They say that it is not very difficult to expunge it; all that is needed is to make use of a legal fiction. By this convenient fiction the court, should the matter come to court, will, in certain circumstances, be empowered legally to declare that a child that has hitherto been regarded as the offspring, born at a certain date in lawful wedlock, to a certain woman and one man, shall henceforth in certain circumstances be legally transformed into the offspring, born equally in lawful wedlock, on one and the same date, of the

699
same woman and an entirely different man. That, in effect, is, as I understand it in plain words, what Clause 1 proposes.
I do not for one moment question the purity of the motives that have actuated those who support this Bill. I fully realise that their only motive is to try to save the child from the unhappy results of his mother's sin. But that does not, to my mind, alter the fact, however one may try to wrap it up, that, apart from any injury which the proposal does to the institution of Christian marriage—the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, has already dealt with this—what the clause asks the law to do is solemnly to declare something which the judge, counsel and everybody else in court will know to be nothing else than a thumping lie—and that is what it is. All those people must be aware that at the date of the birth of the child—and I would say, if I may, to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger that that is the relevant date, and not some subsequent date—the natural father and mother of it were in fact not joined in lawful wedlock with each other. On the contrary, at any rate one, and maybe both, were joined in lawful wedlock with somebody else. How can any legal fiction, however ingenious and well-intentioned, alter that hard fact?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, if I understood his speech aright, thought that the institution of marriage was so tarnished already that to besmirch it a little more would not matter very much. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 216, col. 1192]:
"In the present day, we have divorce and people can re-marry. When the union is made lawful by marriage, the fruit of that union, either before or since, should be rendered legitimate too. The only argument one can find against it is the old Common Law argument.…"
With all deference to the noble Lord, I still prefer what he dismissed briefly as "the old Common Law argument." At any rate—and I will say this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm—it does not condone adultery. If I am told that the principle of the Common Law has already been breached by the Act of 1926, I would answer that, whether it was right or wrong to make that breach—and we are
700
not concerned with that to-day—the deviation from this great principle in the 1926 Act, as the most reverend Primate himself recognised in the Second Reading debate, is very different from that proposed in the present Bill. For the provision in the 1926 Act applies only to persons who at the time of the birth of the child, though not married to each other, were, at any rate, not married to anyone else. Surely, in comparison with the present proposal that may be described as a "white" legal fiction.
It may be pointed out by those who support this clause that in all I have said I have not spoken one single word about the position of the children who are the fons et origo this particular measure. If I have not, it is not because I have not the deepest sympathy for those who suffer from the result of their parents' sin. But, as has already been pointed out, there is the question: will their situation really be much better as a result of this Bill? A child may be quite happy to be regarded as a child of Mr. A. Will it really help him to have the true story exposed in court? Will it help him to be declared a bastard of Mr. A. and then a legitimate son of Mr. B., when everybody there and everybody outside will know perfectly well that in fact Mrs. A. and Mr. B. were not married at the time of his birth? And what would happen if Mrs. A.—a lady of very free and easy morals—had two children by two lovers? That is something which happens, I am sorry to say, not infrequently. That is a possibility which your Lordships must not ignore.
In the event of the happy disappearance of Mr. A. by divorce or death, which father of the children does she marry? Under the Bill one child can be legitimised and one cannot. Who does Mrs. A. choose, and how does she choose? I feel that it is an impossible dilemma for her and very hard on the other child. I am putting that particular instance forward not in any frivolous spirit, but merely to indicate into what deep waters we may get if we depart from the fundamental principles which hitherto have governed the laws of legitimacy in this country. I believe that this Bill, however well-intentioned—and I am sure that it is extremely well-intentioned—is based on sentiment and not on morality; and we really must not confuse the two. For that reason,

701
reluctantly—because I sympathise so deeply with the motives of those who have promoted the Bill—but with deep conviction, I shall be obliged to vote against this clause if the matter is carried to a vote. That is the reason why I believe that, whatever personal feelings noble Lords may have, the Committee would be wise to reject this clause.
6.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I propose to be very brief. Indeed, after the powerful speech of the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this clause, and other speeches that I have heard, I should not have thought it necessary to say one word but for the fact that my noble friend Lord Conesford, in opening, said he had my support, and that I took the view which my predecessors in office as Lord Chancellor had taken of this clause in the years 1924 and 1926. I want to say at once that having given, I hope, the most earnest consideration I could to this matter, I do most heartily support the Amendment. I regard this as a bad clause, had in principle and in law, and likely to undermine, to some extent, the ideal of Christian marriage and to lead to grave confusion in the administration of the law.
I am going to ask something very pedestrian. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill in language which, if I may say so, was temperate and fair, said something which caused me great astonishment. I am not for one moment disputing the importance of this Bill, because the status of 100 or even 10 children is a matter of great importance; but I am wondering whether, in its scope, it is not far less wide than the noble Lord said. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, V01. 216, col. 1183]:
"I have obtained the figures for 1955, when the total stood as 32,000, and for 1957 when it had reached as many as 35,500—an increase of 3,500 in two years. I am, of course, giving round figures. Quite a substantial number of these illegitimate children must have been born in wedlock."
I wonder upon what foundation that statement was built. Let me say at once that, had I had anything to do with it, I should have supported the Bill of 1926, which did remove the slur or stigma which rested on illegitimate children; but I find very great difficulty in sup-
702
posing that even a substantial number of this 35,500 were children born in wedlock.
Let me remind the House of the position. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has already done so. I should like to quote from the Third Edition of a book which I have reason to hope, and indeed believe, is an accurate statement of the law. I refer to Halsbury's Laws of England, where it is stated:
"Every child born of a married woman during the subsistence of the marriage is prima facie legitimate and the presumption of legitimacy arises also where the child is born not more than the possible period after the dissolution of the marriage by death or other wise."
That means the period of gestation which the law admits. I am dealing now, as your Lordships will see, with the case of an adulterous union with a married woman; for this purpose, it does not matter whether the man is married or not. Now the married woman has a child, and that child is regarded as legitimate and born in wedlock; and that presumption can be displaced only by the most cogent proof. Anybody who has any experience of these matters knows how difficult it is to displace that presumption of legitimacy; and when the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, speaks of 35,000 in respect of whom that presumption has been displaced I must say that I wonder how he got his figure.
Let me again cite from the book to which I have referred:
"Where, however, in any legal proceedings the enforcement of a legal right or the establishment of a claim to property or a dignity or the making of an order for custody or maintenance of a child of the marriage depends on the legitimacy of a particular person, the court in determining the existence of the right or claim will determine also the question of legitimacy. Where, however, no such right or claim is involved the court will not entertain the question of a person's legitimacy on the application of any person but himself."
How many cases have there been where the court, in such proceedings as that, has bastardised a child? If I may say so, it is not at all fair to take the case of the period during the war when, of course, there were very special circumstances. But how often does it happen in the experience of any of your Lordships that a person in such proceedings as I have mentioned is declared to be illegitimate? I am saying that only for

703
the purpose of showing that the scope of the Bill, even if it becomes law, will be small. The number of grievances of illegitimate children removed will be comparatively small, but there will be a grave violation of the principle for which we have always stood and for which the Law of Scotland has stood until this moment. And let me add this: I am sure of one thing in the world: that my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Avonholm would not dare to get up in Scotland and make, in regard to the law of Scotland, a proposal that he is prepared to sanction in regard to the law of England.
Now I said I would be brief, and I will be brief. I regard this as a grave intrusion upon our law. I would just add this, because I know some of your Lordships have referred to it. There is the case where there has been a divorce and where the suggestion may be that the woman is pregnant with the child of her lover. That may be; but there again may I venture to quote what I have found written somewhere:
"The presumption of legitimacy is not affected by the fact that the wife is shown to have committed adultery with any number of men. It must be affirmatively proved, before the child can be bastardised, that the husband did not have sexual intercourse with his wife at the time when it was conceived."
It is not a matter of the gossip in the market place or anything of that kind; it must be strictly proved in court, in proceedings in which such a matter is admissible, that the child is not legitimate. I would regret anything which made any intrusion upon that whatever, and, as I say, not only is this a violation of a principle which many people hold sacred and which therefore your Lordships should, I think, be very reluctant to impinge upon, but I believe it will cause quite as much difficulty and hardship as the law as it now stands.
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: May I just say that I would not say for England what I was not prepared to say for Scotland, and as a matter of fact the minority in the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce was composed of quite a number of Scotsmen and Scotswomen, including one of the present incumbents of the Scottish Bench.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My noble friend must allow me to say that he has not the opportunity of saying it in regard to the law of Scotland.
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: I know.
6.33 p.m.
LORD COHEN: I venture with some hesitation to speak after the speeches of my two learned brethren. Let me say at once that I particularly agree with one observation made by the noble Marquess regretting the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning; and I would only add that I regret even more the absence of the most reverend Primate. I had the good fortune to hear his speech on the Second Reading and I read the whole debate, and in the end I found myself completely convinced by what the most reverend Primate and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning said. I had hoped on this occasion to leave it to them to repeat what they said and to remain silent, but in their absence I feel I must just state briefly my reasons for differing from my noble friend Lord Conesford and my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds.
First of all, I would refer to the definition which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, quoted from the dictionary—the definition of "legitimate" as born in lawful wedlock. It seems to me, while fully accepting that definition, that that pass was sold when the Legitimacy Act was passed. My main reason for supporting Clause 1 of the present Bill is that it seems to me a reasonable and logical extension of what was then done. I quite recognise that it may give rise to difficult cases. I confess that, despite the high authority from which it came, I was not impressed by the citation that my noble friend Lord Conesford gave as from Lord Phillimore, backed, as I understand it, by what Lord Finlay and Lord Cave said in a previous debate in this House, because I regard that as a case so unlikely to occur that it can be safely disregarded.
If I followed him aright, what he said was that we were to deal with the position of a child born of an adulterous union with a man but living for years in happy belief with the original husband and wife, when after an interval the husband died and then proceedings started. I

705
cannot think it likely that, if nothing had been done before that, after that interval of time steps would be taken to bastardise that child. I would add that I should have thought that that was so exceptional a case that it was not a reason for leaving in this position a disputable number of children—I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds on that point; but at any rate a substantially larger number than there would be in the position of the case cited by the noble Lord. I think that that was not sufficient reason for abandoning what I believe to be a good change in the law.
Then there was the case given by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter of the bold, bad baronet. That is a possible case. But there, again, I think it is such an exceptional case that it is not a reason for deviating from what would otherwise, one would believe, be the right principle. My chief reason for supporting this proposal—if I may cite just one passage from the speech of the most reverend Primate made in the previous debate—is to be found in his words where he says [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 216, col. 1186]:
"The purpose of the Bill is a very simple one and one that attracts our natural sympathy; it is to relieve some children, or perhaps I should say some more children, of the title and status of illegitimacy which they derived from the moral illegitimacy of their parents. They were born out of wedlock. Nothing can ever alter that fact. The fault of it is in no sense the fault of the children, but they are penalised by bearing the stigma of illegitimacy for what is not their fault. Is that to go on?"
My Lords, I believe it ought not to go on, and that we can do justice and treat kindly these children without adding any further serious risk to the moral principle which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter has stated and with which I respectfully agree. My noble and learned friend Lord Simonds has said that we should be altering the question of the onus of proof. I do not think that that is so. I think the proof would still be where it lies now, and it is a difficult onus to prove. We certainly might increase the number of cases in which the courts had to decide, but the difficulty of that decision does not seem to me to be a reason why we should continue to leave these children exposed for life to the slur of illegitimacy. I must
706
apologise for detaining your Lordships, but I thought I ought to state my reasons for opposing this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Salisbury chides me for two reasons—believe me, when I say "chides" I do not mean that I am in the least offended, but I should like to answer them because I value his opinion. I think the first was that the Government of which I have the honour to be a member did not take up a governmental view on this point. Well, I would remind my noble friend that in 1926 when this actual point came up in an Amendment to the Bill in the House of Commons, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, my noble friend Lord Swinton and Sir Winston Churchill (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) were—I am sure my memory is right—members of the Government and voted for the principle of Clause 1; as did the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who were not members of the Government. Those three members of the Government voted for the principle of this clause, which was defeated, and the two prospective Prime Ministers whom I have mentioned also voted for it. But I think that it is fair to say that this Government is not taking up an attitude which is unusual, and my noble friend was inclined——
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I think that what actually happened was that the Government put up the Under-Secretary at the Home Office to make a speech, and he spoke, presumably representing the Home Office view, in the contrary sense to which Sir Winston Churchill and I and others voted. Oddly enough, apparently, he voted against the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At any rate, it was not a Government view. If three so distinguished members of the Government as my noble friend Lord Swinton, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and Sir Winston Churchill voted the other way, I think it is fair to say that there was no Government view de facto—though I am not prepared to argue whether there was one de jure. But I think I am right that, in regard to Sir Alan Herbert's Bill in 1937, the Government, of which the noble Marquess was a member, left it to the House, and after the House had approved the principle

707
they then gave assistance to it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess (I think his uncle was still a member of the Government in 1926; and he himself was a member of the Government in 1937) will not suggest a higher standard of perfection for a Government of which he is not a member than for one of which he was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is fair to say that, if I was a member of the Government, I was an extremely junior member, and certainly not a member of the Cabinet. I do not know what view I would have taken then. I do not say that I would have taken a different view; but I was not consulted on the line the Government took on that important matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Government took the view that they should get the opinion of the House, of course it was open to the noble Marquess to make an objection to their taking that view; but history does not relate that he did so: and after twenty-two years he must be taken to have acquiesced, whether he agreed impliedly or not. Therefore, on that point, I hope that, on reflection, he will not continue to chide the present advisers of Her Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course—but no, I will not interrupt again.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess may not know it, but I have firmly resolved to encourage interruptions from everybody who wants to interrupt me. I am looking forward to someone beating the record of the most reverend Primate and to interrupt me more than nine times in one speech.
That was the first point. Therefore, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, I think that it is in accordance with precedent that, on a matter of this kind, Her Majesty's Government leave it to the House to declare its view. The second point on which my noble and learned friend chid me was that he said that this involved very important legal matters and that I had not advised the House. That is an entirely personal imperfection. I spent some two to three columns of Hansard informing the House of the difficulties that arose on this point,
708
and I did my best to put before noble Lords the legal difficulties and the full implications of the clause. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford was good enough to deal with my arguments to-day, and to say that of course the clause is workable; and he went on to argue, as he was perfectly entitled to do, that it is undesirable.
I only wanted to make these points because I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Salisbury that I did my best to put the legal difficulties that arose, and I leave it to noble Lords who were present and who listened to my speech to decide whether I fulfilled my duty on that point. I have tried very hard, ever since this matter was mooted, to see if it was workable, because it naturally would be the duty of the Attorney-General in another place and myself to inform the House if we did not think it was workable. I still come to the conclusion that it is workable; but, as those of your Lordships who are good enough to listen to me (very often, I am afraid) in your Lordships' House know, there is nothing on which I am more reluctant not to express my own opinion. I call it my firmness of opinion; my friends call it my crass obstinacy, which is one of my characteristics. Whichever it is, I do make the habit of expressing my own opinion; and while I take the view—and so do Her Majesty's Government—that this is not a matter for a Cabinet decision or a Government decision, I should not like my noble friend Lord Salisbury to feel that I was afraid to express my view and to give my reasons for it.
I have tried to weigh up what it comes to at the end of the day—and that is, on the one side, as the majority of the Royal Commission put it, the harm that may be done to the institution of marriage; and, on the other side, the position of the child. My noble friend Lord Keith of Avonholm has told us his view to-day, and I hope he will agree with me that I put it fairly when I repeat my summary of his view—and I ask him to correct me if I am wrong. They called it illogical and unjust that in some cases the parents should be able to regularise their union while the innocent child was deprived of the benefit of legitimation and was left to suffer the stigma of illegitimacy; and they found no reason

709
to suppose that the restriction was in any way a deterrent to illicit unions, particularly as the parents could, for all practical purposes, legitimate the child by the circuitous and somewhat absurd method of adopting it. I think that summarises the view.
Now I come to the issue which has been put before your Lordships with such strength this afternoon. I have listened with great care and attention to the most eloquent speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, and to the most moving and strongly expressed view of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter. I find that they cannot expel from my mind the view put forward by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. This is, I think, essentially a matter for our consciences and moral views. At the foot of column 1188 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 216], after dealing with the position of the Church and with the arguments that we have heard to-day, he said:
"Personally, I think it is more straightforward, and therefore morally preferable, to drop the legal fictions of any kind"—
such as adoption—
"and to argue as follows. This child was born out of wedlock and in adultery. The adulterous parents have, by divorce, set themselves legally free to marry one another. They, the natural parents, are now legally married. Therefore, let the child have the status which by nature belongs to him, and of which he has been deprived by the ill-doing of his parents; and let it be called, naturally and legally, the child of its parents—that is, legitimate it."
That language has neither the emphasis nor the force, in a fundamental sense, of the language used by my noble and learned friend and the most reverend Prelate in their speeches, but it seems to me to set out in simple, natural and, above all, kindly terms one great argument for the principle of this clause.
The other passage from the most reverend Primate's speech which I venture to quote (it appears in the middle of column 1189) is this:
"Indeed, my Lords, I think that, on the whole, if the clause be passed, it may help Churchmen and others in our by no means unsuccessful attempts to restore the waste places of married fidelity and integrity; for we shall not be using a legal argument to prevent the bringing of relief to an illegitimate child."
I find those words sufficient, for my own moral views and conscience, to support
710
this clause. I am not going to detain your Lordships longer; but in view of what had been said, I felt that I should not have slept easily to-night if I had not expressed my own view.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount one question? In the case of an intestacy, under the law of England, does a child so legitimated derive a title to property to defeat other claims which might otherwise be put forward?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the position was fully explained on Second Reading. The noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Conesford, will correct me if I am wrong. For this purpose this Bill becomes part of the Act of 1926. Speaking without the book, Section 10 (I think it is) of the 1926 Act states that legitimation under the Act does not affect succession to honours or property. Therefore, this clause makes no difference to the succession to honours or property from the position under the 1926 Act; and the 1926 Act, in turn, made no difference from the position before it. I think that there is no disagreement on that point. I should welcome being told if anyone takes a contrary view.
6.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I will not say that my name has been taken in vain, but a vote which I gave in another place a good many years ago, in very good company, has been cited in this debate, and therefore I should like to say shortly why I shall give a vote to-day if this matter goes to a Division. As I remember it, the debate in another place, apart from the speech of the Under-Secretary, was wholly in favour of the argument for which I voted and which is now to be found in the first clause of this Bill. To-day we have heard, as forcibly and sincerely as we could possibly have them, the arguments against this clause. With much more hesitation than in 1926 I shall still adhere, if this comes to a Division, to the vote which I then gave, and I shall support the clause in the Bill—and entirely for one reason.
I have tried to look at this matter from the point of view of what is in the best interests of the children themselves, and I cannot resist the conclusion that

711
the clause in the Bill is in the better interests of these children. I am impressed by the argument that, in a sense, this is a legal fiction. I would rather it were put more simply, but I think that what we have to look at is the result. I do not feel that this is going to be a great incentive to more people to commit adultery. If I thought that this was likely still further to undermine the greatest of all human institutions, perhaps, the institution of marriage, I should vote against it. But I cannot believe that. After all, the adultery has taken place in these cases, and it has taken place in spite of the law being what it is to-day. I do not believe—it is entirely a matter of opinion—that there will be more or less adultery because of this Bill, or that this clause will act as an incitement.
I was impressed by the example given of the child who has been born legitimate and has lived for years as a member of the family. I have myself known an instance of that kind. It would be very hard on that child if it were bastardised years and years afterwards, but I think that it is extremely unlikely that that would happen. If, as I originally thought, a sort of automatic bastardy followed in this case, then I should be against this clause, but that is not so. In the case of parents who on the face of it have lived happily together, although somebody may have committed adultery a long time ago, and who have brought up a family together and the family is happy together, I do not think that the survivor, on the death of one of them, is going to take steps to bastardise the child. Therefore, for the reason that I believe it is in the interest of the child that this ought to happen, if this matter goes to a Division, I shall support the clause in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would your Lordships allow me to make an explanation? My noble friend Lord Saltoun asked me a question rather suddenly. The position is that the 1926 Act did not affect a disposition which came into operation before the Act, but a disposition which came into operation after the Act would treat the child as legitimate except in the case where property was connected with an honour, in which it would not affect it. It
712
made special provisions for the order of seniority of the original and legitimated children. I must apologise to my noble friend. When I gave my answer, I was thinking of Section 10 which deals only with dispositions which were made before the Act came into force and before the children were legitimated.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I should like to say in a few words that I am opposed to this Amendment and 100 per cent. in favour of the clause. Clause 1 is designed with one object, and one only—that is, entirely out of kindness to the children. If we are to look for legal principles, we can find legal principles, if we want to, to prove that the earth is flat and not round. We shall get nowhere if we are going to be bound by ancient legal principles. Amongst other matters, Parliament exists for the purpose of displacing old legal principles and creating new ones. In this case, everyone, I know, is actuated by kindness and good feeling towards the children. If your Lordships do not vote in favour of Clause 1, I shall be greatly disappointed.
7.0 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I think it would be a mistake to detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two but, on the other hand, I feel that I ought to say a few words about this matter. The arguments which have been deployed, particularly by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, are so powerful that I do not wish to go over that ground again. But I do feel that I should remind your Lordships of a point made by my noble friend Lord Conesford: that this Bill was passed by the other House by a large majority, only four people voting against it on the Second Reading, and that in the subsequent proceedings there was no Division against it at all. The defeated minority accepted the position and the Bill went through.
I do not think one could do better than adopt the position taken up by the most reverend Primate himself in regard to this matter, as was emphasized by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, when he said that this clause was attacked on the ground that it would weaken the institution of matrimony, and that that was guesswork. I ask your

713
Lordships to accept that view and to say that what this Bill does to legitimate children, and to remove the stigma on many thousands of children—because I maintain that that will be so—is concrete and not a question of guesswork at all.
The problem here is whether we are going to help these children. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter said—and I paraphrase: "The sins of the fathers have evil consequences for the children, and we too often cannot do anything about it." This is one of the occasions when we can do something about it: we can do it by passing this clause into law. I ask your Lordships to take that view and to reject this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I only wish to say a word in response to the last point raised—namely, how the House of Commons voted. On the Second Reading there voted 45 in the "Aye" Lobby and 4 in the "No" Lobby. If you add the four Tellers, that makes a total of just over one-twelfth of the House of Commons. I submit to the Committee that the other House has certainly no legal, and certainly no moral right to insist that this Bill should go through unamended, against the convictions of your Lordships, in the present Session. But fortunately it is unnecessary to decide
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: It has been agreed that we should postpone further consideration of this Committee stage, and therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
that question to-day. There are later Amendments on the Marshalled List by the promoter of the Bill himself, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Therefore, in any event, if those Amendments are adopted, the Bill will go back amended to the other place. If the Committee adopts my advice, then it will be for the other place to decide whether or not they agree with the Amendment to leave out Clause 1. The matter will then come back to this House. I do not disguise my intention to ask the House again, if necessary, to reject it; but the House may not follow that advice. Your Lordships do not bind yourselves to-day as to what you will do in those circumstances. I shall not repeat the arguments. I believe that this is the most important Amendment on which I have ever had the honour to address this House.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that it is not practical politics to oppose this Bill at this stage, and for the Bill to go backwards and forwards between the two Houses in that way.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 27; Not-Contents 19.

CONTENTS

Ammon, L.

Craven, E.

Iddesleigh, E.[Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Denham, L.

Jessel, L.

Auckland, L.

Dormer, L.

Morley, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Birdwood, L

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Pakenham, L.

Braye, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Salisbury, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

Simonds, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Swanborough, Baroness

NOT-CONTENTS

Amulree, L.[Teller.]

Keith of Avonholm, L.

Stonham, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Lucan, E.

Swinton, E.

Chorley, L.[Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Taylor, L.

Cohen, L.

Merthyr, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Crook. L.

Meston, L.

Williams, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Baroness

Stansgate, V.

Wootton of Abinger, Baroness

Faringdon, L.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

EDUCATION BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill was a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill was a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past seven o'clock.