Sitting of 16 July 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    New Graving Dock, Greenock
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to announce a favourable decision on the application by Inch-green Development Company Limited for financial assistance in the construction of the proposed graving dock at Greenock.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Not yet, Sir. However, at a meeting on 9th July with the promoters, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered a substantial measure of Government assistance for the project. This offer is at present being urgently considered by the interests concerned.
    Dr. Mabon: In view of the Prime Minister's welcome intervention in the matter, may I take it that it is now out-with the normal mechanism of D.A.T.A.C. in view of the large sum of money involved? Also, is there a time limit attached to the offer from the Government? Are the promoters expected to give an answer one way or the other within a certain time?
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir; it is certainly not outwith D.A.T.A.C.; nor for the time being is there any time limit on it.

    Arts Council
    Mr. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the rise in the cost of maintaining those enterprises assisted by the Arts Council since he informed that Council that its Exchequer grant for 1958–59 would not be increased before 1962–63, he will reconsider his decision in respect of enterprises other than opera, whose claims he has recognised.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): No, Sir. The triennium during which my right hon. Friend informed the Arts Council it could rely on the considerably increased annual grant being made available to it ends with the year 1960–61 and not 1961–62.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the letter sent out by the Arts Council to various receiving bodies states that the Chancellor had put a ceiling on the grant to the Arts Council for the years 1960–61 and 1961–62 on the basis of the year 1958–59? May we take it from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that the information in the Arts Council letter is incorrect?
    Mr. Simon: I have not seen the Arts Council letter. I can only say that the information that I have given the House is correct.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have since been authorised in the Royal Charter granted to the Arts Council in August, 1946.
    Mr. Simon: None, Sir.
    Mr. Jeger: May I take it that the Charter still stands as originally given and that the clause which relates in particular to improving the accessibility of the fine arts to the public is still valid? Does the statement issued by the late Lord Keynes still stand, that
    "… the Arts Council would be greatly concerned to decentralise and disperse the dramatic and musical and artistic life of the country and to build up provincial centres".
    Will the Minister draw these facts to the attention of the Secretary-General of the Arts Council?
    Mr. Simon: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir". The statement which he read from the Charter

    559
    stands and is unimpaired. I will draw the attention of the Arts Council to what he said in the second part of his supplementary question.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that while the grants to the Arts Council have been increased annually, its activities in the provinces have been reduced; and whether he will arrange for an independent inquiry into the work and administration of the Arts Council.
    Mr. Simon: The answer to both parts of the question is "No, Sir." The Arts Council's direct assistance to provincial activities has increased considerably in recent years.
    Mr. Jeger: Is not the hon. and learned Member aware that the Arts Council has closed down its regional offices and has reduced the amount of opera touring in the provinces from thirty-six to eighteen weeks in the year, and that the Secretary-General has announced that he proposes to put before the Arts Council the idea of throwing twenty provincial repertory companies—in his own words—to the wolves"? Would the hon. and learned Member cease covering up these reprehensible activities of the Arts Council and take up the matter with the Council so that its scandalous behaviour might be stopped?
    Mr. Simon: I certainly do not accept for a moment the opprobrious epithets in which that supplementary question was clothed. The regional reorganisation was an administrative measure which saved about £20,000, which the Council undertook to apply only to expenditure in the provinces. Answering the second part of the supplementary question, the fact remains that expenditure by the Arts Council in the English provinces alone has increased since 1954–55 by over 50 per cent. Answering the third part of the supplementary question, the statement or the proposal, or whatever one might call it, by the Secretary-General of the Arts Council has not been considered by the Arts Council, according to my information.
    Mr. Strauss: Does not the Financial Secretary agree that in so far as the activities of the Arts Council fall below what is required to support the arts in
    560
    the country, particularly in the provinces, properly, it is not the fault of the Arts Council but is because it receives insufficient funds from the Treasury?
    Mr. Simon: I am satisfied that the Arts Council does good work within the funds which are made available. I am also satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessors have treated the Arts Council extremely well in the way of grants. Indeed, apart from special grants for the Festival of Britain, the Arts Council grant this year is double what it was in 1951–52.

    British Aluminium Company
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what exchange control or other official action was taken by Her Majesty's Government during the recent negotiations for the control of the British Aluminium Company; what directions were given to the Bank of England in this connection; and if he will move for a judicial inquiry into the proceedings in view of the Treasury's interest in the matter.
    Mr. Erroll: As the House was then I informed, the Treasury on 20th January I last gave the necessary consents in connection with the transfer of control of the British Aluminium Company Limited to Reynolds-T.I. Aluminium Company t Limited, a United Kingdom company, No directions were given to the Bank of England. The Answer to the third part of the Question is "No, Sir"
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the British I Civil Service has a very high standard? If so, has he seen the very serious allegations made in the publications Life and if Fortune, and, if so, does not this warrant a judicial inquiry? If it was right to treat working men as they were treated during the Lynskey Tribunal when what was at stake was relatively little com-I pared with this, has the hon. Gentleman considered that aspect?
    Mr. Erroll: I would certainly agree with the hon. Member about the high standard of the British Civil Service. I have read one of the articles to which he referred, but I do not think that in itself would call for a judicial inquiry.

    Companies (Political Expenditure)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals have been made over allowances against taxable profits of company expenditure on political campaigns.
    Mr. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 14th July to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd).
    Mr. Allaun: As two days ago the Chancellor stated that expenditure of a political character was prima facie not allowable, will the hon. and learned Gentleman now state definitely whether the vast expenditure of this kind by the steel firms is being allowed or not, since the House and the public have been denied this information for nearly eighteen months?
    Mr. Simon: This matter has been explained to the House many times by my right hon. Friend and myself. In any case, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees has given notice that he proposes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and if the hon. Gentleman will come along on that occasion I will try to relieve his mind permanently of the misconceptions and prejudices which seem to inform it at the moment.
    Mr. Chetwynd: As I have not yet had your notification, Mr. Speaker, that I may raise the matter on the Adjournment, may I ask whether the Financial Secretary can tell me who comprise the appellate tribunal?
    Mr. Simon: The appellate tribunal here is generally the General Commissioners of Taxation but may in certain cases be the Special Commissioners.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the concern of those citizens from whose post-war credits deductions are being made on account of alleged arrears of Income Tax; and if he will take steps to stop this practice in cases where it can be shown that the Inland Revenue failed to issue revised certificate and to cancel those originally issued or to present the tax demand in subsequent years.
    Mr. Simon: I have noted the hon. Member's views. It was made clear
    562
    when post-war credit certificates were issued that title to the credit for any year depended on payment of the tax for the year. Where the full tax was not paid the full credit was not earned, and the Exchequer cannot now make a payment in respect of tax which it did not receive.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that it appears that certain citizens are being informed for the first time of tax arrears dating back sixteen or seventeen years and that sums are being deducted from the amount shown on the post-war credit certificates with which they were issued? Is not this grossly incompetent administration and very unfair on the citizens concerned? Surely, where it can be shown that revised post-war credit certificates were not issued and that the Inland Revenue has not attempted to collect the tax in the intervening fifteen or sixteen years, the Treasury should issue waivers in this kind of case.
    Mr. Simon: We went into this matter very fully when we debated the Income Tax (Repayment of Post-War Credits) Act. It was generally agreed that the Exchequer could not repay the credits in the circumstances which the hon. Member mentions. I do not think that any Amendment was moved, and certainly none was pressed to a Division, after we had discussed the matter. It was by no means invariably the fault of the Inland Revenue in the years concerned that it lost sight of the taxpayer and failed to recover the tax in question.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that the Revenue cannot pay back tax which it has not received and I hope that he will apply that rule more widely in the case of dividend stripping. Will he answer two supplementary questions? Is there any withholding of the repayment of post-war credits in respect of tax arrears for a date later than the year to which the credit applies? Secondly, in cases such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler)—these are genuine cases—where there has been no previous notification, or no traceable notification of liability, will the Revenue give to the holder of the credit in each case a full statement of the tax position

    563
    for the year in question so that, if necessary, even at this late date and with great difficulty, it can be challenged?
    Mr. Simon: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is, "No, Sir". The answer to the second part is, "Yes, Sir". I may add that I realise that it is very disappointing for the person who was expecting a credit not to receive it.
    Mr. Jay: Is it the case that credit certificates were issued by the Inland Revenue which afterwards turned out to be invalid?
    Mr. Simon: I think that "invalid" is the wrong way to put it. Credit certificates were issued in advance of the setting up of the P.A.Y.E. system, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, but on the back they carried a warning that the right to the post-war credit depended upon the payment of the full amount of Income Tax due for the year.
    Mr. Wilson: If the Revenue cannot prove that it sought recovery of this tax at the time, is the Minister prepared to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) suggested and give waivers? Most of these matters are settled within six years or they lapse, and it is a bit thick if sixteen years afterwards the Revenue suddenly produces some claim which is sixteen years old. Where the Revenue fails to prove that it sought recovery of the tax, will the hon. and learned Member issue a waiver?
    Mr. Simon: No, Sir. We went into the matter very fully and discussed it at great length, as I think the right hon. Gentleman remembers, although he was not in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Opposition.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Provincial Art Galleries and Museums
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to make further sums available for assisting the improvement of provincial art galleries and museums.
    Mr. Simon: Provincial galleries and museums are primarily the responsibility of the local authorities, which have full statutory powers to support them. But as an earnest of the Government's good will towards local collections, the grants to assist their purchases, which are administered by the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Royal Scottish Museum, were raised this year from £2,000 to £15,000 and from £210 to £1,000, respectively; and they were extended to allow assistance towards purchases of oil paintings.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister bear in mind the recommendations of the Committee over which Lord Bridges recently presided, pointing out the necessity of giving much further assistance to provincial galleries and museums? In view of the fact that the Financial Secretary said during the debate on the Finance Bill that he preferred direct grants to tax remissions, will he consider what further assistance could be given to these provincial galleries and museums?
    Mr. Simon: I have seen the very useful and thought-provoking report by Lord Bridges' Committee to the Gulbenkian Trustees. For myself, I think that it is a mistake to believe that it is for the benefit of the arts to have everything done by the central Government. On the contrary, I think that there are great advantages in local initiative and enthusiasm, and it is that, equally, which we should try to foster.

    Food (Expenditure)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent upon food in 1951 and 1958; and how much of the latter figure is due to increased retail prices.
    Mr. Enroll: Consumers' expenditure on food is estimated at £2,949 million in 1951 and £4,672 million in 1958. It is not possible to isolate the effect of price movements with any precision because of changes in the pattern of consumption, but comparison of these figures with the corresponding estimates re-valued at average 1954 prices suggests that roughly a quarter of total expenditure on food in 1958 was attributable to increases in prices since 1951.
    Mr. Sparks: Why have retail food prices risen so high, and why have the

    565
    Government taken no step to keep them down?
    Mr. Erroll: Retail prices during this period have risen less than those in other countries.
    Mr. H. Wilson: That statement is quite incorrect and, in any case, does not relate to import prices. The supplementary question I wish to put is not controversial. Will the hon. Gentleman clear up something which was not clear from his Answer? Did he say that a quarter of the 1958 expenditure on food—it sounded like this—was due to increased prices or was a quarter of the increase between 1951 and 1958?
    Mr. Erroll: In order to avoid any error I will read that part of my Answer again:
    "but comparison of these figures"—
    namely, the figures I gave in the earlier part of my Answer—
    "with the corresponding estimates re-valued at average 1954 prices suggests that roughly a quarter of total expenditure on food in 1958 was attributable to increases in prices since 1951."
    Mr. H. Wilson: That is a meaningless figure. Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, say what proportion of the increase in food consumption as between 1951 and 1958 was attributable to increased prices and increased consumption respectively?
    Mr. Erroll: I shall have to see that question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Jay: Are we to assume that, so far as the Economic Secretary knows, the whole increase in apparent consumption may have been due to higher prices?
    Mr. Erroll: Very much the reverse. This Question is a difficult one to which to give a complete and accurate Answer, as it involves making certain estimates and calculations. We have done our best to provide an accurate comparison, but it would be quite misleading and incorrect to draw the deduction which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn.
    Colonel Beamish: Are we to assume also that, so long as the Conservatives remain in power, there will be no return to a weekly meat ration the size of a matchbox?
    Mr. H. Wilson: Although the Economic Secretary wants to see the question on the Order Paper, does it not follow from
    566
    what he has said that a quarter of the 1958 figure would represent about £1,150 million? Since the total increase is only £1,700 million, would we not be justified in saying that £1,150 million of the £1,700 million increase was due to increased prices?
    Mr. Erroll: The right hon. Gentleman is playing with percentages and aggregates in a way which is only too familiar.

    Industrial Production
    Mr. Sparksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rate of industrial production each year since 1945, taking the year 1945 as 100.
    Mr. Erroll: I regret that figures for industrial production in 1945 are not available. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the figures based on 1946 given in the first column of my reply to a Question from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 13th July last.
    Mr. Sparks: Was the rate of industrial production between 1946 and 1955 much higher than the rate of industrial production from 1951 to the nearest current date? Why has the rate of industrial production in the past nine years slowed down considerably compared with the previous period?
    Mr. Erroll: This subject has been argued over and over again, but one reason for the apparently good figures in the early post-war years was the changeover from war-time to peace-time production.

    £5 Note (Colour)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will for the future direct that the £5 note be printed in colours different from those of the present series in order to avoid confusion with the £1 note.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend does not consider that the change proposed by my hon. Friend is needed.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my hon. Friend take note of the warnings issued by members of the Metropolitan bench to the effect that the £5 note in its present form is a dangerous instrument and, in certain lights, can be very readily confused with the £1 note, as has been the

    567
    experience of many members of the population, including my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who handed a £1 note over the counter the other day and received £4 10s. in change? In those circumstances, would it not be for the protection of the Revenue, apart from anything else, to look into this matter more closely than my hon. Friend is prepared to do?
    Mr. Erroll: During the last two years there have been very few complaints from the public, but in view of what my hon. Friend has said, and in view of the experience of the noble Lady, my right hon. Friend will certainly look into the matter.
    Mr. H. Wilson: While all of us would like more notes of this denomination, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take the point, I am sure from both sides of the House, that probably the Bank of England has made a mistake on this occasion without realising it and that it is not necessary to back the Bank of England up to the hilt? Let the mistake be admitted. Remembering also the confusion with the Scottish £1 note, apart altogether from English £1 notes, would it not be wise, as soon as the present printed stock is exhausted, to issue a different colour, which I am sure most people would like to see?
    Mr. Erroll: We were going on the very small number of complaints which have been received during the last two years since the subject was last raised. In view of this isolated example of a further complaint, I do not think that it would be justifiable to suggest a complete reprinting, but the Bank of England will certainly take account of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Motor Vehicles and Tyres (Import Duty)
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will abolish the 30 per cent. import duty on motor vehicles;
    (2) if he will abolish the 30 per cent. import duty on rubber tyres.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): No, Sir.
    Mr. Holt: Will the President of the Board of Trade say why? Why should the motor car industry be in this especially highly protected position, far higher than many other industries? In view of the Monopolies Commission's finding that there is very little competition in the tyre industry, is not this an added reason for reducing the protection on tyres?
    Sir D. Eccles: As I think that I explained to the hon. Gentleman in a recent debate, the tariff is a bargaining instrument, and to abolish the tariff on motor cars and rubber tyres without receiving anything in return would be wrong. Therefore, I cannot even consider the Question tabled by the hon. Gentleman.

    Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken by his Department concerning the three cases there was aprima facie assumption that a deliberate breach of the law had been committed under the requirements of the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957.
    Sir D. Eccles: Such information as I have received does not lead me to think prosecutions by the Board would be warranted.
    Miss Burton: What is the public to do? Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that we would not have learned even this information if I had not raised this subject in the House on 7th May, 14th May, 4th June, 16th June and today? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that on 16th June his Parliamentary Secretary told us that, of the nine cases that the Department had actually looked at, three seemed to show a deliberate breach of the Act? Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling the House that none of those three cases showed any breach whatsoever?
    Sir D. Eccles: On examination, they proved to be trivial. I have tried to find out whether the advertisements complained of have been repeated after we explained to these people that they should not do it. I cannot obtain any information that the advertisements have been repeated.
    Miss Burton: What happens to the consumers who have bought goods and suffered? What use is it to them that the advertisements may not be repeated? They have already been sold a pup. Why does not the President of the Board of Trade do something about it?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am sorry, but I do not think that the Board of Trade should prosecute without really good grounds. In these cases, which I looked at very carefully again because the hon. Lady brought them to my attention, I have come to the conclusion that there are not sufficient grounds for prosecution.

    Trading Activities (Complaints)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the firm about which the hon. Member for Fife, West, has been in correspondence with him; how many further complaints have been received about its activities; how many of the total complaints have been from Scotland; and to what extent the complaints conform to a uniform pattern.
    Sir D. Eccles: Seventeen complaints in all have now reached me. Seven of these are from Scotland. They have variously alleged that through bad siting the profits forecast have not materialised, that repair facilities were inadequate, and that machines ordered shortly before the company's collapse were not delivered. I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on 9th July.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman yet convinced that he can do something in this matter? Can he give me any indication of the progress that he has made in his talks with the Home Secretary to bring back to this country the managing director of the firm, who mysteriously disappeared some weeks ago?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am in touch with the Home Office—and, of course, extradition is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has any progress been made?

    Development Areas (Industrial Schemes)
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new Government-financed factory building schemes,
    570
    including extensions, and how many private schemes, have been approved in Development Areas in 1959; what were the corresponding figures for 1958; and what was the volume of new employment in each year.
    Sir D. Eccles: Industrial schemes approved during the first six months of this year were 71 Government-financed and 131 private, estimated to employ 16,800 workers. In the corresponding period last year, 8 and 128 schemes respectively with potential employment for 11,250 workers.
    Mr. Jay: Do not those figures show what a very feeble effort the Government were making last year?

    International Trade (Havana Charter)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have yet ratified the Havana Charter providing for an international trade organisation; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. The Government adhere to the decision taken in February, 1951, not to ratify.
    Mr. Hynd: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that the British delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference to be held next month will be somewhat embarrassed when they discuss the question of the removal of obstacles to international trade, as this Government are not showing an example in this matter?
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir, I did not realise that, because I thought that the G.A.T.T., which is the provisional instrument, had, in fact, done the job.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Were not the principles and provisions of the Havana Charter entirely injurious to the economic interests of the British Commonwealth?
    Sir D. Eccles: Not entirely.

    Hire-Purchase and Credit-Sale Agreements
    Mr. Oliverasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large number of complaints about shoddy and unreliable articles sold

    571
    under hire-purchase or credit-sale agreements which, in a very short time, become almost worthless for their purpose and for which there is no legal redress, as such agreements exclude the provisions of Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (Implied conditions as to quality or fitness); and whether he will introduce legislation to make void contracting out of the protection afforded to the public by the Sale of Goods Act.
    Sir D. Eccles: I am not aware that complaints are widespread. The hon. and learned Member may have overlooked the protection given in many cases by Section 8 of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938. If there is evidence that further protection is desirable, the Committee on Consumer Protection may wish to consider this at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Oliver: Can the President of the Board of Trade say what evidence he requires to show that this is a pretty general complaint? Unfortunately, most of the unlucky people who pay for, or claim, their goods under hire-purchase agreements are not in a position, until they are in difficulties, to understand that the Act of 1893 has no application?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have some sympathy with that point, and I think that this question will be looked at by the new Committee.

    Consumer Protection (Committee)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the need to give greater protection to the consuming public, why he has omitted to appoint to the Committee on Consumer Protection anyone with knowledge of the Co-operative movement, which is a departure from the policy followed in respect of marketing boards.
    Sir D. Eccles: This Committee of Inquiry is not intended to be composed of representatives of particular bodies. The Co-operative movement will have every opportunity to put its views before the Committee.
    Mr. Dodds: But can the right hon. Gentleman explain why four members of the Committee have fifty-seven directorships of private companies, including Bon Marché and Selfridges? Is he not
    572
    aware that the Committee that had terms of reference most closely representing those of this Committee was the Hodgson Committee on Weights and Measures; and that on that Committee the Co-operative movement had two members—Mrs. Rosa Pearson and Mr. F. W. Warwick? Does he not think that it would have been at least helpful to appoint to this Committee some representative of the 13 million members of this movement, with its unrivalled knowledge?
    Sir D. Eccles: I suppose that one can compose a Committee in two ways; either by appointing people who are the representatives of particular bodies outside, or by appointing people for their own sake, having regard to their individual experience. It was the second method that I adopted.
    Mr. H. Morrison: But surely it is the case that some of the members of the Committee are associated with private interests? I do not complain about that, but is it not the case that the outstanding representative organisation for the consumers is the Co-operative movement, which has about 13 million members? Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he has deliberately, and of calculation, gone out of his way to boycott representatives of that movement from serving on the Committee?
    Sir D. Eccles: I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have done nothing of the kind. I have gone out of my way not to put on this body a representative of a particular association.

    Factories, Coatbridge
    Mrs. Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade the size of the experiment factory for Coatbridge, the stage of building operations, and the product to be engaged in, with the approximate number of men and women who will be employed therein.
    Sir D. Eccles: The size of this advance factory will be 45,000 sq. ft. Site preparation is going ahead, and building work should start next month. I have not yet selected the tenant. But I expect employment to be round 250.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the factory will employ fully male or fully female labour?
    Sir D. Eccles: That depends on the tenant, and we have not yet been able to make a decision.
    Mrs. Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now give further information in respect of the additional factories discussed at the time of the Parliamentary Secretary's visit to Coatbridge during his tour of the industrial areas of Scotland.
    Sir D. Eccles: I regret that the smaller of the two firms has quite recently withdrawn. Discussions with the other firm continue, but its plans are not yet complete.
    Mrs. Mann: This will be a great disappointment to the people in my constituency. Is it not disappointing that, though the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade comes to Coatbridge and promises two factories, we should find when he returns to London that one of the offers has been withdrawn?
    Sir D. Eccles: It is disappointing, but I can tell the hon. Lady that the firm that has withdrawn expected to employ 28 persons, while the firm with which we are still in touch, and with which we hope to be successful, hopes to employ 600.

    Dundee Development Area
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what application he has received from Dundee jute firms for an industrial development certificate in respect of a paper-bag-making factory; and whether he will withhold his consent pending further efforts to persuade the firms to site this factory in the Dundee Development Area.
    Sir D. Eccles: None, Sir. I shall consider any application I receive on its merits.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that this is a case, not of trying to bring employment from outside into a Development Area, but of a firm inside a Development Area proposing to develop outside it; and that it is very much a test case of the Government's willingness to act decisively in the distribution-of-industry policy? Will he make every effort, when dealing with the application for an industrial development certificate, to persuade this
    574
    firm to carry out its developments within the Development Area where, over the years, it has earned the capital that it will use for this present purpose?
    Sir D. Eccles: We have made that point clear, but we understand that the firm wishes to go to Hull. In Hull there are empty factories, and if the firm takes an empty factory no certificate is required.

    Films (Trade with Russia)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage increasing mutual trade in cinematograph films between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Sir D. Eccles: Films will be included in the scope of cultural discussions with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which we hope will be held in the autumn under the terms of the annex to the communiqué issued after the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow.
    Mr. Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he had discussions on this subject while he was in Moscow, and what are the prospects of developing this trade?
    Sir D. Eccles: It was agreed before I went that we should leave films, in which I am very interested, to this particular set of discussions.

    Goatskins
    Mr. Pagetasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will inform the British kid industry from where in the British Commonwealth it can obtain supplies of raw goatskins of a quality suitable for the production of glacé kid, to compensate for the continued reduction in the shipments from India.
    Sir D. Eccles: The decline in imports from India has been made up by extra imports from other Commonwealth countries, especially East and West Africa.
    Mr. Paget: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the kidskins from East and West Africa, which are attacked by both fly and thorn, are totally unsuitable for the manufacture of glacé kid; that the only alternative source within the Commonwealth is

    575
    Aden, where the supplies are trivial; and that the effect of the preference, now that the Indian skins are going to Russia, is that the glacé kid manufacturer here is at a 10 per cent. disadvantage as against his European rival in the export trade?
    Sir D. Eccles: As I understand it, there has been a slight change in fashion between glacé kid and suede, and if we add together the production figures of the two kinds of leather we find that production has increased.
    Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is quite wrong about that; that the suede trade and the glacé kid trade are quite different trades, and that it is the glacé kid trade that has been cut off? Is he further aware that his confusion is causing the country considerable losses?

    Paper-making Industry, Scotland
    Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from Scotland concerning the paper-making trade and the proposed Outer Seven Free Trade Area; and what reply he has made.
    Sir D. Eccles: A number of Scottish paper mills have made representations. I have replied that their views will be given full consideration in assessing the balance of advantage of a Free Trade Area of the Seven.
    Mr. Willis: Is not the President of the Board of Trade aware that what he has so far said is quite unsatisfactory to the 17,000 men and women employed in the industry, and also to the burghs built up around these mills? What we would really like is some assurance that the Government will take the necessary precautions to safeguard these people's employment.
    Sir D. Eccles: There are certain safeguards that we can take; for example, to see that the mills have access to pulp at the same price as have Scandinavian mills, and to see that, if they wish, our mills can make investments in Scandinavia. We hope that we will be able to secure those safeguards.
    Mr. Willis: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that to invest in Sweden does not provide employment for people in Scotland?
    Sir D. Eccles: If it secures the pulp, it is worth doing.

    Wool Cloth (U.S. Tariff Quota)
    Mr. Hirstasked the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has made to the United States Government, in view of the quantity of British wool cloth caught by the unexpectedly early filling of the tariff quota.
    Sir D. Eccles: I have been in communication with our Embassy in Washington and it has made further strong representations.
    Mr. Hirst: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether it has been made absolutely clear that the closing of this tariff quota so much earlier than last year—indeed, less than a month after it was announced—has entailed roughly£1½ million in value of wool cloth paying 80 per cent. higher than would otherwise have been the case?
    Sir D. Eccles: My hon. Friend is right, and this is a severe blow to the Yorkshire industry.
    Mr. Rhodes: Will the President of the Board of Trade seek to get altered the basis on which this tariff is made? Is he aware that in years to come the time within which this amount is allowed into America will become shorter and shorter as each year goes by and as the Japanese step up their production?
    Sir D. Eccles: I fear that this is bound to be so, as the hon. Gentleman says. We have brought this point to the notice of the United States Government on several occasions.

    Peterlee and Easington (New Industry)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the provision of industries for the new town of Peterlee and the adjoining district in the Easington Parliamentary division.
    Sir D. Eccles: Two new projects are due to start soon in Peterlee; these should provide more than 150 additional jobs, rising later to over 350. Other developments within travelling distance

    577
    of the Easington Parliamentary division are expected to provide nearly 3,000 additional jobs.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what is the first satisfactory reply that I have had from him since he became President of the Board of Trade?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am very glad to have been able to give that much satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Textile Machinery (Import Duty)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, under his regulations, in order to secure remission of duty on imported textile machinery, the importing firm has to satisfy the Board of Trade or the British manufacturers of textile machinery;
    (2) why, since W. T. Taylor's of Horwich and John Dugdale's of Blackburn were granted duty free licences for the Schlafhorst BKN winding machine, the same remission of duty has not yet been granted to Ashton Brothers and Co Ltd., Hyde, who imported the machine for more specialised work.
    Sir D. Eccles: Before recommending duty remission, the Board of Trade has to be satisfied that the foreign machine has a marked technical superiority over any comparable and available British machine. In the case of the machines imported by W. T. Taylor Ltd. and John Dugdale Ltd., the evidence on the availability of a similar British machine was unsatisfactory and licences were therefore issued. In the case of Ashton Bros., whose machine is somewhat different, the evidence so far provided is not sufficient to justify duty remission.
    Mr. Blackburn: On Question No. 40, is the President of the Board of Trade aware that although the matter referred to in Question No. 41 has been proceeding for some sixteen months, and although his officials say that they were satisfied on all the points, they still insist on referring the matter back to the textile machinery manufacturers? Does not that give the impression that it is not the Board of Trade that makes the decision?
    With regard to Question No. 41, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the
    578
    firm of consulting engineers which imported these machines cannot understand the discrimination against the firm in my constituency?
    Sir D. Eccles: The Board of Trade has to make the decision, but it also has to get technical advice. I would assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no discrimination. If further tests should prove the case of Ashton Brothers, whom we know do very well in the export market, of course I shall accept that.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Protectorate Status
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what efforts are being made by the Northern Rhodesian Government, and by what methods, to ascertain the opinion of the African population towards the ending of the protectorate status of the territory;
    (2) What efforts are being made to ascertain the attitude of British protected persons in Nyasaland towards the continuation or otherwise of British responsibilities towards the Protectorate.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): As there is no intention to end the protected status either of Northern Rhodesia or of Nyasaland unless their respective peoples so desire, the question does not arise.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great importance of this question to the 5 million British-protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland? How does he intend to honour the pledge in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution? Does he undertake to consult all the people concerned or has he in mind consulting only a few representatives?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I answered a Question on that point about a fortnight ago.

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Federal Prime

  579
  Minister, with particular reference to the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission to Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have had a number of valuable discussions with the Federal Prime Minister, whom we are always glad to see in London, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is no anxiety on this side of the House to have a Parliamentary Commission to Rhodesia and Nyasaland which has on it representatives from within the Federation? There will be no value in such a Parliamentary Commission with back-seat drivers.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is making a statement, but I am afraid that I cannot yet make mine.

  PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN (VISIT)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister the subjects he recently discussed with the Prime Minister of Japan.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the joint communiqué issued at the end of the visit.
  Mr. Hughes: Could the Prime Minister say whether the Japanese Prime Minister explained to him that his Government would not manufacture or buy nuclear arms? Is it not a fact that the Japanese Prime Minister came into the conference naked, and seems to have been negotiating very successfully without the H-bomb? Could the Prime Minister also explain why Japan, without spending enormous sums on H-bombs and armaments, is successfully competing and driving us out of the world markets?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I hardly like to interfere in any way between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). The question of disarmament was not discussed with the Japanese Prime Minister. The subjects which were laid down are shown in the communiqué.

  KENYA

    Ex-Senior Chief Koinange
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of his renewed illness, ex-Senior Chief Koinange will now be permitted to return to his home in Kiambu; and if his two sons in Great Britain will be permitted to proceed to Kenya to visit him.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 30th June, ex-Senior Chief Koinange's illness makes it impossible for him to return to Kiambu, even if the Governor were prepared to allow him to go.
    On the second part of the Question, I am aware of no difficulty about Mr. Joseph Karuga's return to Kenya. As regards Mr. Peter Mbiyu Koinange, the Governor has indicated that, provided he complies with certain conditions, he may pay a short visit to Kenya to see his father without having a detention or restriction order made against him.
    Mr. Brockway: While expressing appreciation of that change in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman since I put my Question a few days ago, may I ask him whether, on reflection, he does not consider it a terrible tragedy that this old man was not allowed to go home while he was in a condition to be moved there?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I have given, except to say that it is now open to Mr. Peter Koinange, if he complies with the arrangements, to pay a short visit to see his father.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) and I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and asked him if it was at all possible to make arrangements for Mr. Peter Koinange to see his father while there was time, may I say that I am very much obliged to him for the consideration that he and the Government have given to our requests?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

    Electoral Laws
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what changes are proposed in the electoral laws of

    581
    Kenya, in view of the finding by the Council of State that they are discriminatory against Africans.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There will be no changes in the electoral law of Kenya until after the forthcoming conference on constitutional matters.
    The Council of State's findings were that the recently introduced Legislative Council Bill was a differentiating Measure with certain provisions operating either in favour of the Africans or in favour of the other races. These findings and the recommendations of the Council of State for the removal of the differentiating provisions will be placed before the conference for its consideration.
    I am sure the House will be as gratified as I am to observe the manifest objectivity and impartiality with which the Council of State has fulfilled, in this the first major matter on which it has had occasion to report, the functions for which it was created.
    Mr. Brockway: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether it is not the case that the Council of State said that discrimination could be ended either by extending to the Africans the adult suffrage enjoyed by Europeans and Asians or by limiting the Europeans and Asians to the electoral restrictions of the Africans? May we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will press for adult suffrage all round when this matter is reconsidered?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman's last statement is not a fair inference to draw from the conclusions of the Council of State, which was not concerned with the relative merits of different forms of franchise. It is much better that these should be discussed at the conference of which I have already informed the House.
    Mr. Callaghan: As one who has always believed that the Council of State was a necessity, may I associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said? Will he tell us when the conference is likely to be held?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I have nothing to add to the statement that I have already made on that point.

    Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Coutts
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken following the Report of the tribunal that considered the disciplinary charges against Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Coutts.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not yet completed my consideration of the Governor's recommendations on the Report of the disciplinary inquiry, but I expect to be able to publish my conclusions during the course of next week.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that publication seems to be moving further and further off? He originally promised it for the end of this week. Will he give an assurance that, when the Report is published, he will make a statement to the House so that he may be questioned in the House?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It will be published along with another document which, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, may well meet his point.
    Mr. Callaghan: If publication is to be unduly delayed, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what the conclusions are without waiting for the full details of the Report?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It will not be unduly delayed.

  NYASALAND

    Detainees
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons have been released from detention in Nyasaland in each month since March; and what compensation has been paid to those discovered to be innocent of any offence.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): The monthly figures for detainees released in Nyasaland are not immediately available, but I have asked the Governor for this information, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT when I receive it.
    The total number released up to 30th June is 639. No compensation has been paid since the Governor was

    583
    satisfied that it was necessary to exercise control over detainees for the purpose of maintaining public order.
    Mr. Swingler: As there are, presumably, over 600 Africans who have managed to prove that they ought never to have been detained, and, at the same time, they have been denied the right to any judicial process to remove any smear which has been put upon them by their being detained, are they not entitled to some sort of compensation for the period during which they have been arbitrarily locked up before being released?
    Mr. Amery: In this case, we followed the precedent established by the Labour Government during the Malaya emergency, when no compensation was paid.
    Mr. Wade: Will the Minister give an assuance that all the detainees against whom no charge has been made will be released?
    Mr. Amery: That raises a different question.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the composition, constitution, and procedure of the Advisory Committee which hears appeals from Africans under detention in Nyasaland; and if he will publish regular reports of its proceedings.
    Mr. J. Amery: The advisory Committee consists of three members; Mr. Justice Figgis, acting Puisne Judge; Mr. A. H. Watson, a Government officer with legal qualifications; and Mr. C. E. Snell, O.B.E., a retired tea estate manager.
    The Committee is appointed under Regulation 24 (4, a) of the Emergency Regulations, and its procedure is set out under Regulation 24 (4, c).
    The Regulations provide that the proceedings are confidential, and regular reports will not, therefore, be published.
    Mr. Swingler: What are the terms of reference of this Committee? Are those who apply for release from detention compelled to attempt to prove their innocence, or are they released by the Advisory Committee on application, if there is no evidence of their being guilty of something which formed the
    584
    basis of a charge? Which is the method used?
    Mr. Amery: It is not quite as simple as that. Each detainee, at the time he is detained, is informed of his right of appeal to the Committee and of his right of appeal to the Governor. He has two rights. The detainees then make their appeal to the Committee, the details of which I have described. The Committee makes its recommendations to the Governor. Up to 11th June, fifty-six detainees had appealed to the Committee. Fifty-three of these cases have been considered. Conditional release has been recommended in eighteen cases. The Governor has accepted ten such recommendations, and six are still under consideration.

    African National Congress
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information has been circulated to the African population in Nyasaland in official Government bulletins concerning the future of the African National Congress and the length of time its leaders are to remain in detention.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My present information is that the future of Congress and its members has been mentioned only in the Nyasaland Information Bulletin of 6th May, 1959.
    I have, however, asked the Governor whether any further information has been circulated to the African population, and I will write to the hon. Member when I have the reply.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been reports of official bulletins to the African population indicating that it is the Government's intention to keep Congress leaders in detention for a very long time? Further, is he aware that the Governor himself made a similar statement only a few days ago? Is it not most unfortunate that statements of this kind should be made prejudging the conclusions of the Devlin Commission only a few days before their publication?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They do not prejudge the report of the Devlin Commission. It is the responsibility of the Governor to see that law and order are preserved. As I have told the hon.

    585
    Gentleman, I am asking the Governor whether there have been any further statements to this effect other than the one I quoted, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

  NIGERIA

    Niger Delta Development Board
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been or will be taken by his Department or by the Government of Nigeria to implement the recommendation of the Willink Commission that a Federal Board should be appointed to consider the problems of the Niger Delta area.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The 1958 Nigeria Constitutional Conference agreed that a Niger Delta Development Board should be established, and provision for its establishment was made in the Nigeria (Constitution) (Amendment No. 2) Order in Council, 1959. I believe that the Federal Government hope to introduce the necessary Nigerian legislation in August. The Board will be set up as soon as possible thereafter.

  WEST INDIES

    Citrus Industry (Negotiations)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the citrus trade negotiations with the West Indies.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly: I hope to make a statement very soon but cannot do so today.
    Mr. Fisher: Will my right hon. Friend agree—I am sure he will—that the implementation of the dollar trade liberalisation policy will be disastrous to the West Indies citrus industry, and, in order to mitigate its effects, will the Government at least give a preferred position in the United Kingdom market to the West Indies industry as compared, for instance, with Spain or the United States?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not dispute that, if it were fully implemented in respect of the citrus trade, it would have very serious consequences; but I would rather not anticipate my fuller Answer later.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Refugees (Tuberculosis)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has received from the General Committee of the World Refugee Year regarding the acceptance by Great Britain of refugees suffering from tuberculosis, either as immigrants with their families, or for treatment pending emigration elsewhere to join their families.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Among the proposals put forward by the Committee is the admission of 150 refugees comprising both families and single persons, some of whom may require treatment or supervision for tubercular infection.
    Mr. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is his response to this very modest request of the Committee? Will he give an assurance that it will be favourably considered, and will he give the Committee a prompt reply?
    Mr. Butler: Her Majesty's Government have accepted, in principle, the Committee's proposals, which were submitted on 1st July. I think that that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

    Probation Service (Committee)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Departmental Committee appointed to examine all aspects of the work of the probation service, and whether he will propose to the Committee that on the conclusion of its examination of all the other matters involved, but before making its final report, it will also investigate appropriate conditions and scales of salaries for the probation service to ensure an adequate number of new entrants into the service.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Committee has just begun its inquiry and I cannot forecast when its report will be ready. Its terms of reference, which I announced in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 16th April, include pay and conditions of service and the recruitment of probation officers, and the hon.

    587
    Member can rest assured that it will investigate these matters before it reports.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking for an interim report in respect of salaries and other such matters so that some action could be taken to clear up the present position in which there are so many difficulties in the probation service?
    Mr. Butler: I did reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Body) on 12th June on this subject, when I said that the Committee had newly embarked upon its inquiry and I did not think that it would be right to ask it to make a report about salaries before it had completed its examination of the many other matters embraced in its terms of reference.

    Homicide Act, 1957 (Section 2)
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has examined the working of the diminished responsibility provisions of Section 2 of the Homicide Act, 1957, with relevance in particular to such cases as that of Ernest Campbell, found guilty of manslaughter by strangling a six-year-old boy, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with a possibility of remission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am keeping the operation of Section 2 of the Homicide Act under review. It is too early to reach any firm conclusion about its working. Nearly 40 per cent. of the offenders whose conviction of manslaughter appears to have been based on a plea of diminished responsibility have been given sentences of life imprisonment, which means that they may be detained as long as may be necessary for the protection of the public. There is no close parallel among those sentenced to fixed terms of imprisonment to the case of Ernest Campbell.
    Dr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he not, nevertheless, agree that a case such as this, which has strong superficial resemblances to that of Straffen, gives a firm basis to the anxieties expressed from time to time on this side of the House? In this case, is it not a fact that there are
    588
    really no means of detaining this man when his sentence has expired?
    Mr. Butler: I should not like to comment further on this particular case without notice. I know that this man is at present under observation in the hospital at Wormwood Scrubs so that the doctors may have an opportunity to study his mental condition before any further decisions are taken. I will, if my hon. Friend desires it, keep in touch with him.

    Polythene Bags
    Mr. Bonham Carterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to inform parents of the danger of suffocation caused to children by the widespread use of polythene bags.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: A considerable amount of publicity has already been given in the Press to the danger which may arise through children putting these bags over their heads; and I hope that parents will heed it.

    Licensed Hotels and Public Houses, Carlisle
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will permit an increase in the number of licensed hotels and public houses run by private enterprise in the City of Carlisle.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. I do not think a departure from established policy in this respect would be consistent with my present statutory responsibilities for the control of the sales of liquor in the State Management District.
    Dr. Johnson: While we appreciate the improvements that have been made in State public houses in recent years, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that, none the less, there is still basis for the objection that they form a monopoly in the area? Will he look at that side of the matter and agree that they would be still further improved by competition?
    Mr. Butler: That might well be so. I can only tell my hon. Friend that I keep the working of this scheme under constant review and I have an open mind about its future, but I have no more to say today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. J. Griffiths: 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, 20TH JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee. Debate on Aid to Underdeveloped Areas until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, a debate on the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries relating to the air Corporations and the Report on the Civil Aircraft Accident at Southall.
Consideration of Motions to approve the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order; and the Purchase Tax (Lawn Mowers, &c) Order.
TUESDAY, 21ST JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Pig Production and the Bacon Industry, until 6.30 p.m.;
Afterwards, a debate on the Unemployment of Disabled Persons and the Position of Remploy.
At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Supply Votes.
Consideration of Motions to approve the Cotton Industry Reorganisation Orders.
Second Reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords]; and the Wages Councils Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Report.
Debate on Central Africa.
At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Factories Bill.
The Government also propose to afford time for the consideration of Lords Amendments to the following Private Members' Bills: Obscene Publications;
590
Fatal Accidents; and Landlord and Tenant (Furniture and Fittings).
THURSDAY, 23RD JULY—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Second Reading, which it is proposed to take formally.
Debate on Opposition Motion relating to the Coal Industry.
Motion to approve the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (Chemicals) Order.
FRIDAY, 24TH JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Mental Health Bill, which are expected to be received from another place today.
Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, which re-enacts the law.
Committee and remaining stages of the Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords]; and of the Wages Councils Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
Mr. Griffiths: Can the Leader of the House say when the Report of the Devlin Commission will be published?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I can only say that it was received by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary shortly before one o'clock today, and that it will be printed and published as soon as it is convenient to do so. It will take a little time under present circumstances, but we shall publish it as soon as we reasonably can.
Mr. Hirst: In relation to Thursday's business, could my right hon. Friend explain the Import Duties Order, which revokes the temporary exemption of import duty on rutin?
Mr. Butler: I am informed that rutin is a drug used in the treatment of disease states which are characterised by capillary bleeding associated with increased capillary fragility, such as degenerative vascular diseases, allergic states, diabetes mellitus—commonly known as sugar diabetes—and other disorders.
Mr. Grimond: If the Devlin Commission's Report is published, will hon. Members be able to debate it on Wednesday, or is the debate to be about the future constitution of Central Africa? If the debate is not to include discussion

591
of the Devlin Report, even if it is published by then, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that time will be given to debate the Report before we rise?
Mr. Butler: As I understand, the debate on Wednesday, which has the wish of the Opposition behind it, is to be on matters concerning the constitution, federation and things of that sort in Central Africa. There has been no agreement or understanding yet about a debate on the Devlin Report, which, as I have said, my right hon. Friend received this morning. I suggest that we discuss that matter through the usual channels.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: May I direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), which concerns the pensions of ex-colonial civil servants? Can time be afforded to discuss this important and pressing subject?
[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 He 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: I do not think that we have time for any further additions to our programme in view of the present very heavy programme. Although I realise the importance of this matter, I doubt whether there will be time to discuss it unless there are facilities on the Adjournment, or anything of that sort.
Mr. Rhodes: Throughout the passage of the Cotton Industry Bill we were continually told that it was an enabling Bill. Many questions were left unanswered because we were told by the President of the Board of Trade that the important part of the scheme would be in the Orders to be put before the House. We asked the right hon. Gentle-
592
man to give us adequate time to discuss the matter. I notice that the three Orders on the Order Paper are to be puckered into about half an hour on Tuesday night, when £30 million of public money will be given to private industry in a few minutes. This really will not do.
Mr. Butler: First, I would counter the hon. Gentleman's observation that the matter will necessarily be dealt with in half an hour. It is to come on at 9.30 and I see no reason why the Orders should not be discussed for a reasonable time. Furthermore, this matter was discussed through the usual channels and I think that the arrangement was thought to be reasonable; and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find it so on Tuesday.
Sir S. Summers: Has my right hon. Friend any information to give us about the rising of the House for the Summer Recess? If he is not in a position to make a statement on the subject today, will he consider making an announcement earlier than this time next week?
Mr. Butler: I will certainly do my best to make an announcement before this time next week if I can. I am not yet in a position to name the exact date. We have a full week's business next week and other business to complete during the week after next. I realise that it will suit the convenience of hon. Members to know the date as soon as possible. I will, therefore, simply make an announcement when we are clear as to the date.
Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that it will be possible to continue the cotton industry discussion after ten o'clock on Tuesday night?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We have looked into that matter, and that is so.
Mr. Jennings: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there will be a debate on the reappraisal proposals of the British Transport Commission before the Recess?
Mr. Butler: I think that that is possible. The matter is under discussion and I will inform my hon. Friend.
Mr. Holt: May I urge the Home Secretary to have another look at the

593
way in which the cotton industry is to be dealt with on Tuesday? The fact that discussion can go on after ten o'clock is beside the point. I should have thought that such an important matter should be discussed at a proper hour, and should not be allowed to continue, with dwindling numbers of Members present, right on until midnight. This is an extremely important matter. A promise was given to the House when the Bill was under discussion. Constantly matters were pushed on one side and we were told that we should have an opportunity for debate when the Orders were brought before the House.
Mr. Butler: I think that there will be reasonable time in which to consider the matter and I do not think that the number of Members need necessarily dwindle if the interest shown this afternoon is maintained at 9.30 in the evening. I would, therefore, hope that we might at least make a legitimate effort to consider the Orders at that hour.
Mr. Short: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have the statement which he promised us on the proposals of the Cunard Company?
Mr. Butler: It is not literally a business question, but I will confer with my right hon. Friend. If it is possible to give any information, we shall endeavour to do so.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the answers he has given concerning the Cotton Industry Reorganisation Orders? Will he bear in mind that the procedure he mentioned has usually been accepted by
594
the House when all matters of principle have already been discussed and agreed, but that that is not the case in this instance, because a great many matters which we wished to pursue in the earlier discussions were, at the request of the Minister, deferred until the Orders came before the House and the scheme had been worked out and agreed?
Considering the importance, the amount of public money involved and the widespread interest in the matter in Lancashire, would it not be much better to have a proper, half-day debate earlier in the day so that it can be discussed properly?
Mr. Butler: We have got very near the end of the Session and these Motions are necessary to assist the cotton industry. They must be taken in a certain degree of hurry, in any event. I feel that we shall have an opportunity on Tuesday evening and I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied when he sees what an opportunity there is.
Mr. Rankin: Concerning the second part of Monday's business, will the debate on the Report of the Select Committee on the air Corporations and the Southall disaster continue after 10 o'clock? If not, it will be rather farcical because of the lack of time.
Mr. Butler: This business has been put down by the Government at the request of the Opposition and the debate in question has been chosen by the Opposition to come on at 7 o'clock and to end at 10 o'clock, which is the time when a normal Supply Day ends. I must, therefore, refer the hon. Member to those who sit immediately in front of him.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [23RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a further sum, not exceeding £45, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the following Services connected with Aircraft Production for Civil and Military Purposes, namely:—

  Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimate, 1959–60

  £

  Class VI, Vote 10 (Ministry of Supply)

  10

  Class VI, Vote 11 (Ministry of Supply) (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

  10

  Class VI, Vote 10 (Ministry of Supply) (Supplementary Estimate)

  5

  Class IX, Vote 1 (Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation)

  10

  Class IX, Vote 4 (Civil Aviation)

  10

  Total

  £45

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION
3.43 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: Today we are to have a discussion about the affairs of the aircraft industry, an industry which is one of our most vital and important from any point of view, and which, quite apart from the issues of national policy, involves the livelihood of a very large number of people. This industry employs about a quarter of a million people, it has many of our best technical experts in its design teams, and it has some of the ablest, toughest younger executives that are to be found in the engineering industry.
We are discussing it, however, because, to quote the Minister of Supply, it is an industry which, for all its importance, is in a very sad state. It is an industry whose affairs, the Minister said, cannot bring a touch of satisfaction to the breast of anyone. That, as The Times leader says this morning, must be the text from which any of us speak.
596
On any of the industries that have a good deal of defence content, there is inevitably a tremendous amount of secrecy. Under the present Government, there has been far more than a necessary amount of secrecy. One must assume that locked in Ministers' breasts is a great deal of knowledge that is denied to the rest of us. If Ministers, with all the information which is locked in their breasts, do not feel any satisfaction at all about an industry of this size and importance, for which they have been responsible so long, one can only conclude that we are dealing with a serious situation indeed We should face it in that way.
One of the difficulties about discussing an industry of this nature is the peculiar fiction that is growing up as to what is political and what is non-political. I often listen to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who seem to have a simple way of deciding this. If the industry concerned is publicly owned, and one can suggest that it has not been making the profits that it should, or anything else, one blames that on to nationalisation, and that is a non-political observation. If, however, the industry concerned is privately owned, and receiving vast sums of public money and getting into a very difficult situation at the end of it, and one draws attention to it, that, I gather, is a very political observation.
Clearly, I am running a risk today when we have before us a private enterprise industry and we also have Government responsibility. It is no use pretending that the faults, if faults there be, the disadvantages or the suffering, or whatever the inadequacies are, can be laid at the door of nationalisation. Therefore, I cannot take the non-party line of attacking nationalisation. I must take the highly political line of making observations about how private enterprise itself comes off in this case.
Despite the workers in the industry, the first-class nature of many of our most highly-skilled workmen employed in it, the ability of our technicians and our design teams, and the ability of many of its executives, the fact has to be faced that this industry is one of the lame ducks of private enterprise. The aircraft industry is today a lame duck industry by any test. It has not gone short of public money. It has had vast amounts of it.

597
Somebody said the other day that about £3,500 million has been put into the ordering of aircraft over a period of years, 85 per cent. of which has been on military orders.
The other day, the Minister of Supply, when answering one of his hon. Friends, said that £550 million of public money had gone into research and development work in this industry in ten years. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has not been a very great deal of involvement of the public purse in supporting this industry, far more, in fact, than could by any stretch of the facts be said to apply to any nationalised industry.
When discussing the industry, many people now seem to suggest that all that one need say is to give an assurance to the industry that the Government will continue to support it, by which is meant, I gather, that the Government will continue to dole out these large financial subsidies or grants of one kind or another. I read the speeches that were made in another place the last time a debate on this subject was held there, when a whole succession of chairmen of the various large enterprises involved in this industry stood up one after the other and the burden of their whole story simply was that the uncertainty in the industry could be resolved if they could be assured that the Government would go on standing behind them financially.
I will say later what I feel about the nation's continuing financial responsibility in this field. I am, however, bound to put it on record, to begin with, that to suggest that that is all that is required, in the light of what has happened over the past, and all the public money that has been available, is to miss all the essential problems in this industry.
The industry has, of course, had some successes. I do not want to underplay that by any means. After all, an industry could not justify itself if it had no successes. The truth of the matter, however, is that it has had surprisingly few successes. Indeed, I read the other day a lecture given by, I think, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, in which he pointed out that only three airplanes that we have produced during this period have been sold overseas in even a minimum number that could entitle them to be called successes. He mentioned the Viking and the two different marks of Viscounts. It might
598
be possible to add to that the Britannia, except that one is not comparing like with like, because the Britannia has been backed by a tremendous amount of deliberate Government purchasing and Government support.
When we talk of this industry making a £150 million a year contribution to our export trade, that is very good and I do not decry it any more than when I last spoke on this subject. But let us bear in mind what a narrow field this has been earned in—among airframe firms. If we take out the one aero engine firm of Rolls-Royce there is very little left to spread among the other aero engine firms as evidence of their contribution on this side.
On the military side, there have also been surprisingly few successes. There have been some, but there has been a tremendously long list of failures and, perhaps as bad, of incredible delays and time-lags. There is no need for me now to go over all that ground again. We did it when we last debated this subject in the House. Hon. Members have only to refresh their minds by looking at the Select Committee's Report on the industry to see the position there. It is pointed out again by the announcement made during the last week or so.
I saw panegyrics by the Air Force, who said that the first squadron of Sea Vixens had now arrived in service. This was hailed as something tremendously new. The Sea Vixen has been reported on and claimed credit for by Ministers again and again for what must be nine or ten years. Similarly, we are told that the Lightnings should be in squadron service by the end of this year. We get very suspicious whenever the Government use the words "should be". We know by now that it often means "will not be". Even if they were in service by the end of this year, that is seven years after the first P.1 flew and it is, again, nine or ten years since the job was really begun.
Against that story has to be set the financial story, which is quite a different one. It is a long history of capitalisation by the industry of the public assistance that it has received, of the making of bonus capital issues on a fantastically large scale, and the subsequent payment of quite large dividends on the capital which has been watered many times over

599
with the aid of public assistance. We do not need to be told that this is just Socialist sniping. We have the authority of Lord Hives. Hon. Members will have writ very large in their minds his remark that "the only thing that many companies have produced has been a good balance sheet". This is the situation and not an unfair picture of the state which this industry has got into. Clearly, one cannot claim that the failure to subsidise it from public funds has been either an explanation of its difficulties, or any guarantee of success by it.
The Government, on their side, now allege, and the Minister of Supply has been alleging for a long time, that part of the trouble is that there are too many undertakings in the industry. He went so far a year ago as to commit himself as to the number of airframe firms and the number of aero engine firms that we could support in this country. I think that it was four or five in the case of the former and two in the case of the latter. Several other people have used figures of the same kind. The fact remains that it does not happen, it has not happened, and it is not happening now, although some coming together—I use that phrase rather than merger, or rationalisation—has taken place; but whether that coming together has been in a form to ensure that both can remain financially in being rather than anything else, is a suspicion which I have very much in mind.
In its turn, the industry has blamed the Government. It says that there have been too many changes of mind by the Government. It says that on the industrial level there has been too much interference and too great an attempt to supervise. I was told the other day by one of the executives in the industry that this business of having numbers of inspectors and accountants inside the factories, far from producing any real checks or aid, is acting as a very considerable brake on effective work inside the industry.
On the other hand, the industry says that the Government have no clear policy about what they want from the industry, or what kind of industry they want to produce it. I do not know whether this joint slanging between the Government and the industry is getting us very far, but I know that it is having
600
two effects. Good firms—efficient undertakings—are resenting very much, and leaving one in no doubt about it, the extent to which other companies in the industry are "getting away with it", as they put it—getting away with large financial cosseting without, in fact, producing anything that can be called industrial success.
I think that the young designers and other technicians in the industry, and the workpeople, who are all doing their best so far as they are able to do it, resent very much the slur that they are working in an inefficient industry when they know very well that, in so far as they are given a chance, they are not inefficient. Quite apart from any other reason for bringing this to a head, there are very great risks that if we do not do something about it the morale of the industry will get considerably out of hand.
It is my case that there is no confidence that the Government are mending their ways at all, no confidence of any real change in the Government's attitude and approach, and no confidence that the industry is able, by itself, to rationalise or radically change itself in the way that has constantly been urged upon it by the Government and by others. In other words, the Government say what is wrong with the industry and, clearly, the industry is unable to put that right. The industry says what is wrong with the Government, and it looks as though the Government are unable to put that right. It is becoming frightening when one looks at what has happened.
The Minister of Supply, last year, talked—as he has done since—about the rundown in this industry to pre-Korean levels. He said that our rundown in employment was about 20,000 a year. Looking at the figures for last year, I see that the actual decline in employment, if the figures given to me are correct, is not more than 8,000. That means, as I understand it, that the industry and the Minister are both forecasting a fall by 40 per cent. in the volume of work and the requirements and the size of the industry by about 1962. That is on the air frame side.
I am told that the figure for the aero engine side is somewhat less, about 10

601
to 15 per cent. Since both are forecasting a drop of that order, we are laying up for ourselves an almighty crash towards the end of the period, or, alternatively, the Government will dash along to stop that by shoving in ambulance work—there are already signs of this—which does nothing but intensify the problem that we are facing.
I think that there is a good deal of evidence that firms even today, with all "the warnings and with all that they themselves claim to know and suspect, are desperately hanging on to teams which they are unwilling to break up and let go because of uncertainty about what Government policy will be, and the thought that they might need these people at some future time and that there will be a contract which they can get if only they can keep the design teams together and the other resources behind them.
So far as the workers in the industry are concerned, we are running again into the situation which we have found again and again, of people lecturing the trade unions for being unable to face inevitable problems, and for clinging to restrictive practices for fear of redundancy, when the fact is that neither the workers nor the unions are ever given enough advance information to have a rational, planned operation. We are asked to be responsible, when all that happens is that a trade union official is expected at the very last minute to go along to his men and assure them that there is nothing for them to do but to accept the sack quietly and look around for work somewhere else. If we were given advance knowledge and planning were carried out with sufficiently advanced timing, we could assist in this problem.
Meanwhile, there is no sense of purpose in any of the current Government decisions. I am not going into many details today, because they have been raised many times before and, no doubt, other hon. Members will raise some of them in this debate, but I will give one or two examples from among the military transports. I fail to see what sense, in terms of the industry, its long-term operation and its long-term prospects, there is in the decisions taken. Nor am I quite sure what decisions have been taken.
602
We are told that the AW660 is to be the tactical freighter. What stage has it reached? I am not very clear whether production orders have been given for this aircraft. What are they? What sort of orders have been placed? One of the difficulties with all the Ministers is that they talk about what they have in their minds so charmingly and engagingly that one is left assuming that they are doing something, but then one discovers, a year or two years later, that they were only canvassing ideas. I think that the Minister of Supply or the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation should come clean and tell us what the position is about the AW660, the Argosy, what orders have been given, what the engines are to be and exactly what the set-up is for that.
Then there is the Britannic, the other freighter. It is difficult to see why we chose that, in any case, either to make any contribution to the long-term position of the industry and to our competitive sales position overseas, or, indeed, any aspect of the real requirements of the Army. I would say that the decision to order it was about as foolish a decision as could have been taken. If it was taken to put work into Northern Ireland just because Short and Harland's are associated with Bristol's, I can see no relevance in that at all. There is no reason why Short and Harland could not have made another aeroplane in Northern Ireland, or parts of another aeroplane. The same machines and the same people are used, and if there was to be sub-contracting there could have been sub-contracting for anything else.
I have never seen the case for this. I should like to hear it from the Minister of Supply, who comes along so pathetically to us almost every week and says. "I have no power to command orders." Indeed, I thought, when he last said that a fortnight ago, that it was a major understatement, for he seemed to have no power to do anything, but was only the tool of much more powerful Ministers around him. However, since he is to speak today for the Government, I should like him to state the case for ordering it rather than ordering the other possible machines which were available then. Apart from that, I think that it is time we knew when it is expected to arrive.

603
Of course, the Minister of Defence is in difficulty, not for the first or last time, I imagine, but he or his right hon. Friend should tell us about the actual time schedule, and when we can expect this aeroplane. When do the Government expect the Britannic to be in service? What stage has it reached now? Has it been ordered? What orders have been placed? I have grave doubts whether we have, in fact, got very far down the schedule here at all. One has only to see, as I have been able to see, the silhouette of the proposed Britannic placed over the silhouette of the Britannia to realise that the association between them is more tenuous and coincidental than we had been led to believe from Answers from the Treasury Bench.
If the Minister of Defence has tied himself to the idea of mobility for a small Army, mobility which is important immediately after the end of 1962, and if we have not got that mobility, then he will have an Army which he has planned for the purposes for which he has planned it without the essential means of operating it for those purposes and in those places; and in view of the loss of our bases overseas and the air barrier problem, there are many reasons why mobility over long range is tremendously important.
It is a matter of more than passing academic interest to know whether this plane will be in service in 1962, 1964, or, as I suspect is much more likely, 1967 at the earliest. I think that the Government ought to tie themselves to what they have planned here, otherwise it looks to me as though we shall certainly have a period of nakedness, and of inability to move our forces, which will be cursed, I have no doubt, by whoever follows the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Defence in the period from now beyond 1960.
Speaking for myself, I have a feeling—I confess it very freely—that probably the right decision here was politically a very inconvenient one, that probably the right decision was to go ahead with a tactical freighter, since we wanted only a dozen or thereabouts, and to have bought what already existed in the world for that purpose. I have a feeling that that was probably the correct decision.
604
It would have got us our mobility when we needed it and it would have done the job when we needed to do it. Politically it was not a convenient decision, because it meant buying those few from America. I think that one must say one could not have expected that decision to be made by the right hon. Gentleman, but even if that decision was felt, by those whose responsibility it was to take a political decision, to be too difficult to take, I still say that I think there were other aeroplanes which could have been ordered which had much more to be said for them than this one.
I should like to know, incidentally, what market the Minister of Supply thinks there will be for a civil version of this in 1967. Whom does he see willing to buy it?
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Very few.
Mr. Brown: I was not asking my hon. Friend. I have a great admiration for him, but he did not place the order, or take the decision. I am clear that he would not have taken such a decision.
I am entitled to ask what was in the Minister's mind, because he must have thought of this and must have thought that there would be a market. Otherwise, we shall produce an aeroplane for which our total requirement cannot be more than a dozen—can it?—cannot be much more than that, and which, I would have thought, will cost us, in the end, £10 million to £15 million apiece, if it is to have no other purpose. However much it costs, it cannot be cheap.
I turn to fighting planes, and mention only one. The decision there seems to me to be equally peculiar, if we were thinking of long-term possibilities in this industry. I refer to the decision to proceed with the plane known as the TSR2. I have not hidden my view here either that the right decision almost certainly was to have had the NA39 as equal to the Royal Air Force requirement, and to have pushed ahead with it and got it, for many reasons, not least among them the fact that that plane again could be got very much sooner in that form.
We are in the position—the Minister of Defence, I am sure, cannot deny this—of carrying on with the Canberra for the low-level work, when everybody who has had anything to do with it knows that it

605
is considered at best unsuitable for the job, and that its flying even at low level and in exercise has to be rigidly controlled. The sooner we can replace this with a low-level strike aeroplane for the job the better, but it will be 1969 before the TSR2 is in service, if ever it is in service, and that means relying on the Canberra jets for this rôle, for which we have not got the plane to do the job. I think that it is extremely questionable whether that is a sensible decision to have taken.
The only reason I can discover why the TSR2 was refused was that given me by a very distinguished Service man, who said, "You have to understand that there is one label which, if it is ever attached to anything, destroys its validity". I said, "What is that?" He said, "N.I.H." I said, "What is N.I.H.?" He said, "Not invented here." Once the R.A.F. had put the label "N.I.H." on the NA39, then the TSR2 had to be the only possible chance.
Will the Minister of Supply come clean on this, too? The assumption is that there is such an aircraft. It does not physically exist, but we know its limitations, what it can do and what its purpose is, and in that sense it exists But does it? It is a long time since was announced that we were going on with the aircraft. Can the Minister say that the aircraft exists in that sense? I am not an expert on the stages, but I understand that there is the operational requirement stage, the detailed specifications stage, the design study stage, and all sorts of stages. At what stage is the TSR2? Unless we know that we cannot form any view about when we shall get it.
Our best time from first flying to operational use in service seems to be about seven and a half years. How far is the aircraft from the first flying stage'.' I believe I am right in saying that it does not even exist yet, that it is not much more than a conception of ideas which change every time the members of the Air Council have another look at the possibilities of warfare ten years' hence. Until we get over that stage, this is a rather shocking situation.
Meanwhile, there is not only our own situation to be considered. I come back to the aircraft industry and its relevance
606
to that. It is a fact that we are losing chances of orders. A very distinguished industrialist in the industry said to me today, "The tragedy is that we have lost every N.A.T.O. order. We are getting beaten all the time". Had we had a low-level strike bomber which had been ordered by the Royal Air Force, the chances of the Germans taking it, and, certainly, of the Canadians taking it, would have been very much greater. But we cannot go to another air force and ask it to take an aircraft which we ourselves are not taking, for it means that it has to set up a whole line for itself as a first charge to deal with supplies, services, replacement parts, and so on. I believe that this decision has very much increased the difficulties on that side.
I propose to say very little about the civil side, because my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who will wind up the debate from our side, is much more an authority on that than I am. We are, however, bound to ask the Minister to explain the present state of the confused game with regard to the DH121. There has been ordering and counter-ordering and movement and counter-movement over this. We ought to know what stage the game has reached and what will happen there in regard to the air frame and the engine. A lot of rumours are circulating around my constituency about the engine for the DH121, and we ought to have that matter cleared up.
I have another question to ask on this subject. I cannot understand why the Minister of Supply intervened to order, or to get ordered, the three Handley-Page Dart Heralds. The purpose of that puzzles me very much, unless it is a piece of ambulance work for Handley-Page, and ambulance work has been done for Handley-Page from time to time over the years. It seems rather peculiar, because I am now told that Handley-Page is rushing out advertisements all over the place for other people's employees to come and build the aircraft. Beyond that, I cannot see what the purpose of the order is, nor am I very clear about the financial responsibility of the Ministry for purchasing the aircraft and operating it. I should very much like to know that.
As I say, this is a crisis point for the industry, because, apart from the general

607
build-up, there is the other factor that just at the very moment when order books are very small and getting smaller, either because fewer of these new aircraft are built or because there are cancellations, the requirement for investment in technical research and development, and so on, becomes very much higher. This is a growing problem in the industry, and it will grow very much larger.
We shall require much more money at one end of the scale with a much smaller output on which to recoup it at the other. I suspect that either a great deal more public money will have to be put into the industry in an unplanned, disorganised way if the present situation continues, or that in four years' time there will be an almighty crash which will be a tremendous nuisance to those engaged in the industry and a very great disaster to the country.
What ought to be done? Obviously, an Opposition can only list ideas. The Government have the information, but they sit tight on it. Therefore, I can only put forward to the Committee some views of my own and of my right hon. and hon. Friends, none of them new but some of them with a very large degree of respectable outside support. However, one thing which none of us can make up for is a Government who will not make decisions or, in the very few cases where they do, consistently make wrong ones. This is true of the present Government and that is the real problem; and the only remedy for an incapacity to make up one's mind or an incapacity to hold to one's mind once one has made it up is to get out of the way and let somebody else do it. I believe that that is probably the real remedy for this situation.
I will now put forward some ideas. First, I should have thought that it was true without any doubt that Government machinery for dealing with this matter needs overhauling. There are, it seems, five Ministers who must be concerned in the affairs of the aircraft industry. There is the Secretary of State for Air, who is concerned as one of the users. There is the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who is responsible for other users and for facilities. There is the Minister of Supply himself, who, if his
608
own story is to be accepted, is responsible for nothing but acts as a post box between his Ministerial colleagues and as another post box between them and the industry.
I have many times resisted my right hon. and hon. Friends who have said that there is no case for a Ministry of Supply. I have never been sure about that, but I am bound to say that if the present Minister continues to say that his function is what he says it is, then I shall become a little more convinced that as things are there is no case for a Ministry of Supply. However, at the moment the Minister of Supply is in the field, somehow.
Then there is the President of the Board of Trade, who is the man responsible for our overseas sales and for our credit policy, which becomes an increasingly important policy as we face much more vigorous and sometimes—let us not mince words—almost unscrupulous American pressure in this field. The whole question of the terms on which we can offer things overseas takes on an enormously increased importance.
The Lord President of the Council must be in it somewhere, for some of the research must be his. Over all these five Ministers, if that were not enough in this confused situation, there hovers the shadow of the Defence Minister, who, as far as I can see, when anybody else makes up his mind steps in and changes it and also changes his own frequently into the bargain. So there are six Ministers, none of whom is co-ordinating the others and, as far as I can see, all of whom are very much in each other's way
Major H. Legge-Bonrke Major H. Legge-Bonrke (Isle of Ely)rose—
Mr. Brown: We shall be glad to have assistance from the other side of the Committee, because we do not wish to make all their speeches for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they can add to this catalogue of gloom, we shall be delighted, because we have no proprietorial vested interest in it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am bound to say, as an ex-Minister of Works, is an ever-present trouble to all of us. There are certainly six Ministers

609
here, all involved, none of whom appears to me to have the power to co-ordinate the others or to direct them, and this is probably one of our basic problems in getting any intelligent, long-term policy for the industry.
There is probably a case here for a Minister of Aeronautics or Minister of Aviation., call him what you will, who could be responsible for users' policy, whoever the users are, who could be responsible for research and development policy, for Government strategic policy, for export policy and credits. I am not prepared to assert—it would be ridiculous to do so from this side of the Committee—that this is so, but I am certain that it is no use the Minister of Supply merely smiling in a superior way—
The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones)The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones)indicated dissent.
Mr. Brown:—because it is clear that the present situation is bad. If there are strong compelling arguments against a Minister of Aeronautics, there must be some improvement in the present situation, some effective co-ordination of the Ministries now existing; or, perhaps, some of the functions can be merged.
Secondly, there must be some arrangement from outside for two-way advice, both to and from the industry and to and from the Government, on policy and its effect on the industry, on the state of the industry and its relevance to policy. At the moment, that is not coming from anywhere in any authoritative or acceptable sense. We have suggested before that something like the Iron and Steel Board might be a way of getting this done. Certainly, there is a great need for some such council or board which could fill what appears to be a great gap in the present position. So far, we have had no real argument from the Ministry of Supply that it really believes that this work is being done by the Ministry now. Whenever I suggest to my friends in the industry that it is so, they give a hearty, horse laugh at the idea entering anyone's head.
Thirdly, we must accept the fact that further public funds to support the industry are inevitable. Obviously, we cannot not have an aircraft industry. That, by definition, is ridiculous. On the other hand, we cannot go from a position where
610
85 per cent. of the £3,500 million has been spent on ordinary aircraft over to military orders, and a lot of other public money as well; we cannot go direct from that and ignore the fact that, even in the course of four years, the cost of the projects is likely to be a lot higher in the future than in the past, which brings clearly home the point that public finance will inevitably be involved in the industry.
What I do not believe is that we shall ever have an acceptable situation where there will be merely public money standing behind a private industry over which we have no effective control, and in which we have no effective interest. It means, therefore, that we must have an effective partnership between the State and the private industry if we are to make this rather difficult situation work.
At present, Ministers have taken refuge in what, with respect, is humbug, in saying, "We will help the industry over the next year or two, and then gradually the burden will be shifted from us to the industry and gradually the industry can itself take on the job of financing development and research." I do not believe that that is a picture of what will happen or of what can happen. That is just dodging the problem.
When I talk to the better and younger men in the industry they understand this well and they accept the implications. I had many talks just before this debate, in preparation for it, with some of the younger executives, administrators and technicians in the industry. In no sense do they pretend that either they can find the money themselves or that, in coming to us for it, they can expect to have the whole show to run themselves when they get the money.
They realise that the industry must contract and rationalise into larger units. They recognise that it cannot itself finance the new projects. They realise that they are absolutely dependent on Government policy and Government support, both to establish the job they are to do and to enable them to do it. Further, they recognise that the day of individual private enterprise, started and run by the pioneer airmen, who were imbued with the mystique, is no more, even if it ever really existed.
They realise that there is no stigma in State and private initiative working as

611
a partnership, in combination. The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is peculiarly one of those who always seems to me to stumble whenever he has to pronounce the words "public enterprise" or "public and private partnership". It has a very disagreeable effect on the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that if ever he gets ulcers that, as much as anything else, will be responsible. I am bound to say that my friends in the industry, on the managerial and technical side, do not suggest that such a partnership would be difficult to accept.
This leads to something we have said before, namely, the greater urgency for the establishment of a top-level inquiry. I mentioned this last year, but I claim no vested interest in the idea. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have put forward some such idea. We really need such an inquiry because, for some people, the decision is politically inconvenient, and because it is a decision of far-reaching importance and will create something of a pattern.
So I advocate a top-level inquiry of distinguished people who know the industry, and also of others who know the circumstances outside it, who know something about Government policy and how it is arrived at, who know something about other forms of industry and about running them. If we pick the right men we can get a decision, and get it in not too long a time.
I urge this strongly. The idea was not dealt with by the Treasury Bench last year. They have had a year to think about it. Clearly, they have not been able to do it themselves. I suggest that it deserves more than a casual tossing aside this year. Such an inquiry would consider the problems and requirements of the industry, the means of meeting them, the way of bringing Government policy and those needs together. A man like Lord Hives, though not a Socialist, would be an excellent chairman and would help enormously.
To me, it is incredible that the Government should be as complacent and as Micawberlike as they are. The Minister of Supply appears at the Dispatch Box opposite wringing his
612
hands, sounding every bit like Micawber waiting for something to turn up every time he answers Questions. He is willing to hurt, but unable to help. He does not mind saying that the industry is in a sad state. He does not mind saying that it gives no satisfaction to anybody. Hurtful things may have to be said, but they should not be said without being accompanied by an obvious means of helping the industry out of its present situation. The Government are very insensitive to the fears of both the workers and the technicians and they are deaf to the pleas and advice of those who have experience of the industry.
If one considers the new problems, added to all the old ones which must be dealt with, and can only be dealt with by the Government, there is the question of supersonic transport. The Minister of Defence wants a decision made about the supersonic bombers, from which he has been retreating. The issue of supersonic transport is knocking about, and as long as it is knocking about someone will hope to get a contract for it. And, of course, someone will keep a team of workers together in the hope of getting the contract and making money.
There is the question of missile production. What are we to produce here? What kind of an industry is it to be, shall we need an aircraft industry in its old shape, or a more electronic industry in which the air frame is of much less importance? There is N.A.T.O. interdependence and American pressure. This is really a Government responsibility. If we are not to be beaten right out, a Government decision is needed.
There is the question of fares policy. Many people have said that we should concentrate on the intermediate range and not try to get into the blue riband range of air transport. All this is wrapped up with air policy and differentials, and how far the Government are prepared to go, and how far the Commonwealth can operate. This is, again, something for which there is no substitute for a declaration of Government policy, which we have not had so far.
There is great need—and I hope that that need will be met today—for a clear statement to the workers in the industry as to what redundancies they may expect

613
and how they will be dealt with. They need to know what provision is being made for their work, and what compensation they are likely to get if redundancy hits them. All these things are hanging about in the wind, and there is little hope that anything will emerge today. It would be so nearly a death-bed repentance on the part of the Treasury Bench that it would be extremely optimistic and foolish to expect it.
I would like to give three assurances to the industry, to the country and to the House. Labour, after November, will establish this top-level inquiry. We will see that Government policy decisions dealing with the issues I have raised on both the military and the civil side of the industry are clearly and unambiguously laid down. We will support a more efficient industry to do this vital job, but on the basis of a real partnership between the State and private enterprise.
4.32 p.m.
The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) opened his speech by taking as his text the extempore remark I made the other day that the state of the aircraft industry could not give rise to satisfaction in anyone's breast. Towards the close of his speech he accused me of complacency and of a Micawberlike attitude. How he reconciles the one with the other, I really do not know.
Had I pretended the other day that everything in the garden was lovely the right hon. Gentleman would have been absolutely right to accuse me of complacency, but I have never pretended that there is not a problem here. Of course there is a problem. My quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman is that his analysis of the problem appears to be too narrow. According to him, the problem just has one origin—the combination of private ownership in industry and a Tory Government. Oddly enough, however, exactly the same problem exists all over the world. It exists in the United States, where the industry is privately owned, and it exists in France, where practically every aircraft firm is virtually nationalised. We have to search more deeply than did the right hon. Gentleman for the cause of the problem.
If I may put a paradox—and all paradoxes are, in a sense, deliberate—I
614
would say that this industry is, in a way, the victim of its own success. The great thing about it is that it is a fast-moving industry. That, after all, is its fascination. But its very progress has exacted its penalties. In the military sphere, the industry, together with the electronics industry, has been responsible for the coming of the guided weapon, and the guided weapon has contracted the market for manned military aircraft. Similarly, on the civil side, new aircraft has followed upon new aircraft at such a pace that the world airlines are surfeited and their finances are strained. As I say, this problem is not unique to this country but is common to the whole world, although there are, I agree, special features appertaining to this country, with which I shall try to deal.
If this is the problem, I hope that we can all accept at the outset that there is one inevitable consequence. It is that in this situation the industry is over-large to the present and prospective volume of demand. That is why, as Question Time succeeds Question Time, hon. Members ask me about the aircraft firms in their constituencies. I cannot bring orders out of the hat. There is no magic that one can invoke to deal with this situation.
The broad, inescapable fact is that there must be some degree of contraction in the industry. We can argue about its degree, and I grant freely that we must do everything we can to abate the contraction and to smooth it. In fact, however, the contraction has not given rise to such difficulties as the right hon. Gentleman represented. The number of people made redundant over the past year is roughly 10,000, and of those 10,000 all but 500 have found other work. In other words, out of 20 people made redundant 19 have found other work.
Nevertheless, the broad fact has to be accepted that some contraction is inescapable, and I suggest that our objective must be a more limited one. That objective must clearly be to maintain a strong central core in the industry—a core of firms that can play a leading part in the technological momentum of the industry and withstand the shocks that that momentum brings with it.
In last year's debate on these Estimates, I described two strands of policy

615
to this end. The first was to maintain aeronautical research. It has been maintained. The broad volume of aeronautical research over the last few years has been unchanged. The second strand of the policy was, by the way in which contracts were placed, to strengthen individual units within the industry.
Despite everything the right hon. Gentleman has said, progress has been made in this direction. There is the fact, for instance, that the Hawker Group has fused the resources of its constituent firms. There is the fact that the Bristol Engine Company and the Armstrong Siddeley Company have come together. There is also the fact, announced only the other day, that Westland and Saunders-Roe have combined their helicopter activities. This is a strengthening of individual units, and it is progress, although I would hasten to add that more needs to be done.
I do not want today to traverse the same ground which was covered last year. The question I should now like to ask is this: what farther needs to be done, and, in particular, is further Government financial support all that is required? I thought the right hon. Gentleman a little ambivalent on the question, although I do not think that basically I quarrel with what he said. I am the first to say that Government finance is terribly important to the industry. There is not an aircraft industry in the whole world that can exist without Government finance. On the other hand, I do not think that inadequacy of Government finance is the real problem here, and I am concerned lest too much emphasis on the alleged inadequacy of Government finance may not, in fact, obscure the real problems. We do not want to get into a situation where more Government finance will merely prove a palliative and gloss over and leave untouched the more fundamental problems. If that was the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not differ from him.
These are the questions which I should like to try to answer and, in answering them, first to consider military aircraft and, secondly, civil aircraft. I take them in that order because the problem of military aircraft is much simpler than that of civil aircraft.
616
Interestingly enough, despite the 1957 Defence White Paper, the volume of work on military aircraft over the last two years has remained unchanged. Although there has been much misrepresentation of the 1957 White Paper, it must be accepted that there will be further manned military aircraft, in particular for the rôle of Army support, and that is what the TSR2 is. Military aircraft are Government supported. The finance for every military aircraft comes from the Government and, by and large, the investment has paid off. The export figure of £150 million which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper mentioned represents 40 per cent. of the output of the aircraft industry. That is a creditable achievement, and 50 per cent. of those exports are military aircraft.
Apart from the general figures, there are such individual successes as the Hunter, the Canberra and, of late, the Orpheus engine. However, I do not wish to stand at this Box and merely relate achievements. If I did that I should be failing in my duty.
In the case of military aircraft, there is a recent problem of some significance which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper did not mention. It is the inroad which American equipment has been making in the European market. In the last year the Germans have taken the American F104 fighter. The French have taken the American Pratt and Whitney engine for their strategic bomber, and Continental countries appear to have decided to adopt the Hawk surface-to-air missile. In none of these cases can it be said that the British product on offer was inferior. In some cases, it was technically superior.
Nor can it be said that the cause of this American inroad into the European market is niggardliness on the part of Her Majesty's Government. This was the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who, taking up one or two Press references after the Paris Air Show, questioned me about charges made by Her Majesty's Government when lending military equipment for display abroad. Whatever those charges were, the sin attributed to the Government is here negligible in proportion to the magnitude of the event.

617
There is something much more significant operating here, and we must ask ourselves what it is. The explanation that I offer is that the United States are immense givers of financial and military aid to the Continent of Europe. We all welcome that, but military and financial aid is not something intangible and gossamer-like; it consists of hard solid products. The European countries are taking American equipment because they see attached to that equipment some form or other of incidental aid. This is a fact which we have to face.
Mr. G. Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what planes we had on offer in place of which the F104 was chosen?
Mr. Jones: I maintain that we originally offered a technically superior aircraft in the P177. The aircraft was later cancelled.
The point that I am trying to make is that if American equipment is making inroads into the European Continent it is not because of any niggardliness on the part of Her Majesty's Government towards the aircraft industry. It is a reflection of the fundamental disparity between the strength of the United States and ourselves as a country.
What can we do about it? There is one thing that we must do. At the outset of a project we must seek to consolidate our market with that of the European Continent. In other words, where practicable and feasible, which may not always be the case, we must align our specification to that of the European countries. This is what we are trying to do in the case of the Hawker vertical take-off fighter. This is a project of immense promise, for which I am placing a design study contract.
If in this way we seek a consolidation of the market with the European Continent, clearly there must be some give and take. If they enlarge the market for our products, we in turn must offer an enlarged market for theirs and there must be some sharing of the work. It is important for the whole of the Western Alliance that European countries should be in a position to construct expensive and complicated military aircraft. They cannot do so without a consolidated market.
618
For this reason, I should be glad if aircraft and aero-engine firms in this country took the initiative in forming links with their opposite numbers on the Continent. If they desire my help in this, it will be at their disposal whenever they want it.
Mr. Mikardo: Will not some difficulties be created in that objective by the fact that a number of European countries are linked together in the Common Market and we are outside it?
Mr. Jones: Yes, I would not question that. All I am suggesting is that, whatever arrangements may exist in the field of trade, defence arrangements are something apart and different and we must have an eye to what I have said about defence arrangements. That is all I wish to say about military aircraft.
I now turn to the much more complicated problem of civil aircraft. What I should like to do first is to lay before the Committee certain facts and give a purely factual account. Having done that, I will then describe what seems to me to be the problem that emerges. I suggest that the problem is on an entirely different scale from that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper.
The Viscount, which has been supported by Government finance, has been a tremendous success. Approximately 400 of these aircraft have been sold, which is a brilliant achievement. Then there is the Britannia. This aircraft was not started under a Conservative régime but under the régime of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Britannia has received Government finance to the tune of £20 million for its airframe and its engines. It is a beautiful aircraft. It had its teething troubles, but what aircraft has not? It has overcome them, and it is a beautiful aircraft. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] May I remind the hon. Members that at the moment I am stating the facts. We will try in a moment to draw a lesson from the facts.
The number of Britannias sold is eighty, and eighty is not enough to allow the firm to break even, let alone to make the aircraft a commercial success. I think that in all these cases one ought roughly to reckon that a hundred is the breakeven point.
Mr. William Shepherd: My right hon. Friend said that eighty is not sufficient. Does that include Government support or not?
Mr. Jones: Subject to correction, I think that I am right in saying that it includes the number of Britannias bought for R.A.F. purposes.
Next we come to the Comet. I am not sure at what point of time this was started. Once again, for the Comet the Government have invested just under £20 million in both airframes and engines. It is a brilliant pioneering feat which everybody has acclaimed. The number ordered is thirty-three, which is far from the break-even point.
I come to the Vanguard. The Ministry of Supply is contributing to the cost of developing the engine for the Vanguard, but not to the cost of developing the airframe. Two prototypes of the Vanguard are flying and the performance is considerably above the paper promise. Nevertheless, the orders for the Vanguard at the moment total forty. At the moment, we are far from the break-even point.
I come to the VC10. Again, the Government are contributing no finance towards the airframe, but they are contributing to the cost of developing the engine. The number ordered so far is thirty-five, which is far from the breakeven point. I would only add that in both of these cases the private venture of the airframe was not imposed on the company by the Government. It was voluntarily accepted by the company in the light of the risks as they then appeared.
Finally, we come to the de Havilland 121. In this case, the Government are contributing neither to the cost of developing the airframe nor to that of developing the engine. The number ordered so far is only twenty-four. I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman to give one or two further facts about the de Havilland 121, and I should like first to explain how it came about that the Government are not contributing financially to the aircraft either in respect of the airframe or in respect of the engines.
The genesis of this story was that there were two contenders for the B.E.A, medium-range jet aircraft—Bristol-cum-Hawker, on the one hand, and the De Havilland Group, on the other hand. In the intensity of the competition between
620
these two quite large groups, there came a moment of time when one of the competitors offered his project without requiring any Government financial contribution. That was Bristol-cum-Hawker. The choice of the customer, B.E.A., on the other hand, inclined to the other competitor, De Havilland.
I as Minister of Supply would not have been doing justice either to the taxpayer or to the other competitor if I had decided in those circumstances to contribute to the cost of developing the De Havilland 121. There might possibly have been a case for doing so had there been in the De Havilland 121 a marked advantage over the other aircraft, but in the absence of a marked advantage this was clearly something which I could not do. There came a later point, therefore, at which De Havilland agreed to do their project without any Government financial contribution.
There was, however, still one further step which I as Minister of Supply had to take. I had to satisfy myself that the promise of a private venture was a genuine promise. In other words, I had to take some care lest I was being exposed to a specious promise—a promise to do the project without Government finance for the sake of getting the contract and then, later in the day, when the commitments had been entered into, the company might come back to the Ministry of Supply—to me or my successors—and ask for a Government contribution. I had to satisfy myself on that score.
In these circumstances, it was decided that the B.E.A. medium-range jet project should be conducted as a private venture. From the moment that the decision was reached of a private venture—that is, no Government finance—I as Minister of Supply had no standing in the negotiations between the customer and the manufacturer, and I have played no part in the discussions between the two on the specifications. Since the right hon. Gentleman asked me the question, my information is that customer and manufacturer are inclining, shall I say, to a specification which is somewhat smaller than the specification in mind some time ago and with a different engine from that in mind some time ago.
These are the facts, which I thought it right to lay before the House. What is the lesson to be derived from these facts?
Mr. Frank Beswick: I should like to fee clear about the De Havilland 121. Here is an aircraft upon which may well depend the fate of almost the whole of the aircraft industry. Unless we get a machine here which can go into the world market, a large part of the industry will fail. Is the Minister telling the Committee that he has washed his hands of this business altogether?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Member has asked me a most important question, to which I shall come in a moment. May I take the argument logically? I wanted first to state the facts. I will now try to see what lessons emerge from the facts.
I should have thought that the first thing which emerges from this catalogue is that no matter whether the Government have contributed financially to the project or not, in each of these cases, the Viscount apart, the trouble is the same; in other words, the sales are too small. This, and not Government finance, is the nub of the problem.
The market is small because of our inherent geographical circumstances. Our operators have a demand which by itself is uneconomic. If, despite this smallness and this uneconomic nature of the demand, the aircraft chosen is ahead of the rest of the world, then, as in the case of the Viscount, we can overcome the limitation of the small home market. If on the other hand, the aircraft is not ahead of the rest of the world, or if, while being ahead of the rest of the world in conception, it is produced slowly, then we are bound down by this limitation of the small home market and both the company and the Government lose their money.
This seems to me to be the essence of the problem. If the right hon. Gentleman set up an inquiry—any inquiry—1 do not think it would describe the problem any differently from the way in which I have described it. The question is, what do we do about it? I suggest three things. First of all, we have to do what we can, despite our natural geographical circumstances, to enlarge the market. Secondly—and this refers to the question posed to me a short while ago by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick)—we have to ask ourselves, are we pursuing the right method of choosing aircraft? Lastly, we have to secure quicker production. I do not propose
622
to say anything about that, but I will say that this mystical and most misconstrued word "rationalisation" has had no other objective than the creation of units which can produce fast.
I should like to say a word about the other two points, enlargement of the market and the method of choosing aircraft. We must do what we can to combine military demand with civil demand. This is what I am currently trying to do in the case of the Rotodyne. I am entering into negotiations with the company with a view to placing a possible military order for the Rotodyne. Whether there will be an order must depend on the outcome of the negotiations, and the Government must be satisfied about the specification, the cost and the date of delivery—in other words, quickness of production. Subject to satisfactory negotiations, there will be a military order for the Rotodyne to add to the civil order, and I should have thought that much more valuable to the company than any direct Government contribution to the cost of development.
Equally, this is what we are doing in the case of the Argosy. It is a private venture civil freighter. We have not put out a special specification for a military tactical freighter. We are adapting the civil aircraft for military purposes, again with a view to combining the military and civil markets.
Miss Elaine Burton: The Minister will probably have seen today's Manchester Guardian. He will remember that when the three hon. Members who represent the three Coventry divisions saw him on the question of a contract for the Argosy, he was courteous and gave full details which we took back to Coventry. But when we discussed the matter with shop stewards and workers, they were not convinced that the delay which ensued from the Ministry in placing these orders would obviate subsequent unemployment. Today, the Manchester Guardian carries the story that Armstrong-Whit-worth Aircraft Ltd. will have to dismiss 240 skilled fitters in September because of this delay. Can the Minister help us about that? If he should say that men who have already been dismissed have got other jobs is he aware that they have not got jobs comparable with their skill?
Mr. Jones: I will try to help the hon. Lady as best I can. As I said the other day, negotiations for the Argosy contract are well advanced, but I think the problem is that employment takes some time to mature in the case of an aircraft. The firm is already acting on the assumption that a contract is to be placed, but the initial work is mostly for technicians and only at a much later stage is a large volume of employment engendered. I think that with the Armstrong-Whitworth aircraft the redundancy is not because of any delay but because employment in connection with aircraft can, by the nature of things, mature only at a later date.
Lastly, this is also what I am trying to do in the case of the Britannic, combining the military with the civil market. The right hon. Gentleman asked why it was that the Britannic aircraft was chosen. I will tell him. It was for two reasons. The first was that alone of the aircraft offered by manufacturers to Her Majesty's Government the Britannic had an unobstructed fuselage. In the others, there was an obstruction in the fuselage and the accommodation was divided into two holds. In the Britannic there was an unobstructed hold. In addition, the volumetic capacity of that hold was greater than in any other aircraft on offer. In other words, it had a better carrying promise than any other aircraft.
There was another factor in the mind of the Government, I will not say a reason, but a factor. I think that it was on 8th December—I can never read dates on telegrams—that I received a telegram from Northern Ireland which read as follows:
"Following talks with workers here I very much hope the Britannia freighter contract will be given to Short's thus preventing already serious unemployment position being greatly aggravated."
That came from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. G. Brown: Let us get this clear. There was a telegram from my right hon. Friend asking that work should be placed in Northern Ireland. It did not tell the right hon. Gentleman which aeroplane to produce.
Hon. members: Read it again.
Mr. Jones: I should have thought that this wording was quite specific:
"I very 'much hope the freighter contract will be given to Short's …"
Mr. Brown: A freighter contract; it did not say which.
Mr. Jones: The Britannic freighter contract.
Mr. Brown: No.
Mr. Jones: Not for the first time it would appear that Her Majesty's Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition are in unison against the party opposite.
So much for the enlargement of the market. Now I come to the method of choosing the aircraft, and I think this the most difficult and delicate matter of all. We should all start from the presumption that when an aircraft is chosen the customer has a claim to freedom of choice. He knows what he wants and he is entitled to choose his aircraft and his own contractor. That has been the practice over the past eight years, I believe, in respect of all the aircraft I have mentioned, with the possible exception of the Viscount. Indeed, when last year I made a statement to the effect that normally—always admitting exceptional cases—the Government would expect a firm to develop aircraft out of its own resources, what lay at the back of that statement was a desire to allow customers full freedom of choice.
The moment that the Government are asked to invest money in a project, to contribute to the development of a project, clearly they must ask themselves, "Is this the right aircraft? Is this an exportable aircraft? Has the contractor the customer wishes to choose a command over a large export market?" In those circumstances, the customer can no longer have unquestioned and unqualified freedom of choice. To allow the customer complete freedom of choice of aircraft and contractor in those circumstances, when Government money is invested, would mean that the investment of Government money was directed, not by those responsible to the taxpayer, but by the customer, and surely that is quite inadmissible.
We have, therefore, a choice of courses. I do not think it is for me to indicate what the choice should be, but I am anxious to lay the alternatives clearly before the Committee. Here we have an inexorable choice of courses. On the one hand we may allow the customer full freedom of choice, with

625
its corollary that there is no Government contribution to the cost of developing the aircraft. On the other hand, if we say that a Government contribution is necessary for the development of the aircraft, then the Government must have some say in the aircraft chosen, and in the contractor chosen. In those circumstances, the choice must be the outcome of a partnership, a joint consideration between the customer, the industry and the Government.
In this very difficult and intricate matter, this is the most important question which concerns us. Which method do we choose? I do not wish to propound any views today, but I ask those outside who are interested in the problem to address their minds to this question. I should welcome any views which hon. Members might wish to express today.
I have looked at the problem of the aircraft industry in general as it obtains throughout the world, and have tried as far as I can to analyse the problem which we have in this country in regard to both military aircraft and civil aircraft. Before I sit down, I should like to say a word about the future. I have no doubt in my mind that the technical momentum of this industry will continue and that in about ten years—about a decade hence—the world will be entering upon supersonic civil travel. I think all of us would hope that this country, which has played a great part in aeronautical pioneering, can play a part in supersonic flight. What part it is a little early and premature to say at the moment, but certain things are clear.
After I received, some time ago, a report from a committee representative both of my Department and the industry, I sought the views of industrial managers on this question of supersonic civil aircraft. From the answers I have received, it has become reasonably clear that nobody believes that a medium-range supersonic aircraft would be an economic proposition, but that supersonic flight for the moment must be developed for long range distances rather than for medium range distances. It is equally clear that the minimum speed of such supersonic aircraft must be twice the speed of sound. That, at any rate, is clear.
626
We are not at the moment in a position to make a definitive decision, but I have the consensus of industrial opinion with me in saying that the next task is detailed design work by industry, and I am now urgently considering how and in what way that work can best be placed. Quite apart from following technical innovations for the sake of technical innovations, if I may express a personal view, it is that innovations should be sought with an eye to making flying available to the mass public. Supersonic flying will probably be costly, and however much supersonic flying there may be, there will always be subsonic flying, for which there will be a large demand, and we in this country should seek after innovations which can cheapen the operating costs of aircraft.
I think the broad question which this debate poses today is that of the volume and kind of Government support for the industry. I wish to leave the Committee in no doubt that the Government must support the aircraft industry.
Mr. Denis Howell: Heaven help them.
Mr. Jones: No, no. The hon. Gentleman in that remark is ignoring all the qualifications which I have tried to make throughout my speech. What I am saying is that no aircraft industry can subsist without a measure of Government support, and that support is merited to my mind for one reason, because the aircraft industry is now in the technological van.
I do not know how many hon. and right hon. Members have read Mr. Nehru's Discovery of India, but the theme which prompted him in writing it was this. Here was his country, with an ancient civilisation, having absorbed and assimilated one invader after another, and yet, after many centuries, it suddenly succumbs to an alien civilisation from the West—our own. He asked himself why this was, and the answer to which he came was that the Hindu civilisation had fallen behind in technique. I think there is a profound truth in this.
We commonly identify civilisation with moral values, aesthetic accomplishments and so forth, but, in fact, one of the main pillars of any civilisation and any culture is technique, and in this

627
country the aircraft industry is one of the main pillars of our technique. That is its claim to support, and, if I may answer the hon. Gentleman who interrupted, that support must be subject to this qualification. The purpose of support must not be to shore up the weaknesses of the industry. The object of the support is to reinforce the industry at its points of strength.
5.16 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I do not very often intervene in these debates, because I am fully aware that there are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have greater technical knowledge and greater experience than I have myself. I try to make it a practice not to inflict on the House or Committee a speech on a subject which I have not had time or opportunity to study.
This crisis in the aircraft industry in this country has been brought home to me because there is in my constituency a very large aircraft establishment of Messrs. De Havilland—their second largest establishment—where there are upwards of 5,000 workers. For the last few months, the problem of this industry has been brought home to me so emphatically that I have not been able to refrain from seeking to take part in this debate today.
The Minister has said that this is a fast-moving industry, and he also said, I think quite rightly, that it is only when we are ahead of the world that we, with our naturally small home market, will be able to achieve success. I should like to say to him that I agree entirely with both those sentiments, but that surely the corollary is that we should also have some fast-moving thinking on the part of the right hon. Gentleman himself and of his officials to keep pace with this very rapidly changing industry. With the experience that we have had with his Department over two aircraft with which De Havilland's were concerned—the Comet and the DH121—I am convinced that there is very little hope for the future health of the industry if we have to rely on the kind of attention given to those two aircraft.
I should like to say something about the history of the Comet. Everyone acknowledges that it has been a pioneering
628
achievement of very considerable value. Everyone recognises the setback in the disaster to the Comet I, and everyone also recognises the help given to the firm by B.O.A.C. on the financial side and by the Royal Air Force in development flying and in using the Comet II. On the other hand, one cannot possibly be satisfied with the position in which, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, the present orders for this aircraft stand at only 33, a figure far below anything required to make it an economic proposition.
I should like to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that this position was not entirely unforeseeable, and to ask him just what thought was given to his own recipe for enlarging the market, in which he said that there should be consideration of the possible dual use of these aircraft for civil and Services purposes. When it was first realised that the orders for Comet IVB were not coming forward with any speed, I went to see the officials of the company at the end of last year. I had had the pleasure of flying back from New York in the first Comet made at Broughton. Those officials told me that they were still hoping that there might be orders for Service purposes for the Comet IVB. An hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head. I am simply saying what was told to me at that point of time.
When, following that, I saw the Parliamentary Secretary with the officials of his Ministry, I asked them what consideration had been given at any stage to the possible dual-purpose use of this aircraft. They indicated that no consideration had been given to it and that it was then too late to do so because the design was settled and, for various technical reasons, nothing could be done at that late stage. That was one reason why the scale of production of this aircraft is restricted. Its use for the Services appears never to have been discussed.
The other restriction is a financial one. Very late in the day it was decided that the Comet was not entirely suitable for all the purposes of the B.O.A.C. and they proceeded to order an American 'plane, the Boeing 707. I would ask the Minister if he is completely satisfied that such a decision was justified and whether the decision should be persisted in. Can he really sit back and say that although

629
only 33 Comets have been ordered the Government propose to do nothing more about it? Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned about these purchases by the B.O.A.C. and the very considerable expense in dollars on a different type of aircraft? Admittedly this aircraft has advantages, but are the advantages of the Boeing 707 so great that they entirely displace the disadvantages of having such a very small and uneconomic order for the Comet?
I must put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the present situation of the Comet is extremely discouraging to the workers concerned. They put it to me not only that with a larger output the overheads would be relatively less, but that they themselves, in their work in the factory, could then speed up enormously the time taken in production. I have a copy of the latest De Havilland house magazine in which it is stated that the workers at Broughton have established a record—a "track record" they call it—of 11 weeks for Comet production, which I believe is a pretty good achievement.
Mr. David Price: Is not the hon. Lady aware that the Comet is hardly a trans-Atlantic aircraft and that it is only by the attachment of two extra fuel tanks to the ends of the wings that the Comets are able to make the Atlantic crossing, and that, on the other hand, the Boeing 707 is a larger and infinitely superior aircraft? Did the De Havilland people tell the hon. Lady that?
Mrs. White: As far as I understand it, the Comet has something which is on the wings while the Boeing has something under the wings.
I have the permission of Sir Miles Thomas, the former chairman of BO.A.C. to quote him as saying that the design was discussed of a larger version of the Comet, but was turned down.
"Had that been accepted"—
I am still quoting from Sir Miles Thomas—
"we would have been in a very much stronger competitive position with the Boeing 707."
Through some lack of foresight it was lost and we are now left in this lamentable position where we have an aircraft which is agreed to have been a technical
630
achievement but which is frankly a miserable commercial failure.
Part of the responsibility for this position rests upon the shoulders of the Government. They cannot sit back complacently—I use the word advisedly—and allow this achievement of British aircraft designers to go by the board through lack of foresight and adequate planning. If the Government are taking on responsibility for the aircraft industry, a situation of this kind cannot be left entirely to the private firm concerned. I still believe that it would be in our interests, even at this late stage, to concentrate more on the Comet and even, if necessary, to take steps about the Boeing 707 order.
I say that with this in view: how far does the Minister consider that the Government should never intervene as between the aircraft industry and the civil airlines? Is he really satisfied that he should leave it entirely to the civil airlines to decide what the British aircraft engineering industry is to do? Choices have sometimes to be made which cannot necessarily be made simply from the point of view of the customer, as the right hon. Gentleman said, or even necessarily from the point of view of an individual aircraft firm. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that if we buy an aircraft it does not stop there but goes on to the purchase of the subsequent spares. The transaction, from that point of view, takes on a different pattern.
I can only say again that the experience with the Comet IV and the Comet IVB is disturbing and distressing and that the workers in the industry feel that it ought not to have been allowed to arise. It cannot be explained simply by the admitted delays and difficulties following mishaps with the Comet I. There seems to have been a complete misunderstanding by the firm of the Government's intentions. They supposed that, because the Comet II had been used for R.A.F. transport, it would more or less automatically follow that something would come along for the Comet IVB, but this did not ensue.
I would now turn to the other aircraft which, when we first became apprehensive about the fate of the Comet IV, we were told would come on rapidly

631
after the Comet IV and that we need have no qualms about continuing employment and production. In December, I was told about the work on the D.H.121, which should have gone through its preliminary stages in Hatfield and so reach the North Wales factory by the end of this year. It seems obvious at the present time that this cannot happen. Again, some of the responsibility for the delay seems to me to rest with Her Majesty's Government. They put finance first. I am not clear whether they were more concerned with the Comptroller and Auditor General than—
Mr. Mikardo: They never worry about that.
Mrs. White: I do not know. Considerable criticisms were made by the Select Committee about delay in settling this question. From the answers given before the Select Committee, it was clear that the financial aspect of the matter would be responsible for upwards of six months' delay in production, quite apart from the other delays which are now taking place on specifications.
Mr. Aubrey Jones: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to know that after De Havilland's had agreed to do this project without any Government contribution, approval to go ahead with the DH121 was given less than two months later.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.30 p.m.
Whereupon The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
The House went:—and, having returned;
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
1. Town and Country Planning Act, 1959.
2. Weeds Act, 1959.
3. Dog Licences Act, 1959.
4. Rights of Light Act, 1959.
5. Street Offences Act, 1959.
6. Bucks Water Board Act, 1959.
7. Reading and Berkshire Water &c. Act, 1959.

SUPPLY
Again considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Question again proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £45, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Services connected with Aircraft Production for Civil and Military Purposes.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION
5.43 p.m.
Mrs. White: I was remarking when our attention was diverted that there had been this considerable delay in giving the green light to the DH121, whereupon the Minister intervened and said that, after the financial discussions had been concluded, the delay had been only a short one. The burden of my complaint was that the financial discussions had taken a time which, in the very highly competitive state of the world aircraft industry, was of very considerable importance.
Furthermore, I am sure that all hon. Members on this side of the Committee—and I should have thought a number of hon. Members opposite—would share the feeling expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) that the Government cannot now wash their hands altogether of concern or responsibility for this aircraft. Finance should be subservient. Finance is not the only consideration in these matters. I cannot feel happy at the situation in which the Government say that, as far as possible, they want all this done by private industry and want it to be privately financed. One feels that the fact that this is of extreme importance to our whole future standing in matters of technique, and so on, is of no account provided that the enterprise is privately finance. I cannot feel happy at that. The Government simply wash their hands of the whole matter, stand back and say that they are no longer interested; they are not interested apparently in the design, the number or anything else, because they have no penny piece committed to it.
That is not an attitude which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I can possibly accept. I do not think that I am being

633
unnecessarily doctrinaire. The whole attitude as expressed by the Minister, both in answering Questions recently and in his speech today, can cause us only considerable disquiet and apprehension. It is clear that there are difficulties over this aircraft, and changes have been made which will obviously very considerably add to its cost. There have been changes in the size which will involve changes in engines, and so on. It is a most disturbing situation. It is not good enough for the Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "I am not putting any money into this. Therefore, I have no further concern about it. I have no official cognisance of what is going on." That is what he said the other day.
Therefore, we are amply justified in asking for a very much more convincing statement than has been made so far. After all, those of us who are laymen in this matter are reinforced in our feelings of apprehension about this industry by a number of remarks made in the Report of the Select Committee. No one could be satisfied. I do not propose to go into more detail on that at this moment, because many of its aspects will be discussed on Monday. As far as the actual ordering and production of aircraft are concerned, it is only right to emphasise the considerable dissatisfaction expressed in this Report at the working of the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee, the fact that it does not seem to be endowed with much foresight and that it does not come into the picture early enough. I have marked one paragraph after another in this sense. We have a right to ask the Government to look very much more closely at co-ordination and choice.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Helper (Mr. G. Brown) spoke of the necessary partnership between private industry and the Government. We on this side of the House are often accused of being doctrinaire in this matter. As far as the aircraft production industry is concerned, it is the Government who are being doctrinaire. They are allowing their political ideology to stand in the way of their accepting responsibility and taking action which the workers in the industry and the public have a right to expect. When one has the Select Committee, the extremely active shop stewards in my constituency at Broughton and
634
The Times all in line, one has a very convincing case against the right hon. Gentleman.
5.49 p.m.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has made a helpful speech, certainly to her constituents. She was a little off the mark in comparing the Comet with the Boeing 707, because it is an entirely different proposition. The real snag is that when the long-range Boeing comes on to the Atlantic route later this year it will do the trip over the Atlantic both ways nonstop. Considering everything, the Comet has done a remarkable job in fitting into the picture at all and carrying a very-high payload of passengers.
I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and, if necessary, give De Havilland's a contract for Transport Command. I am far from satisfied that the 20 Britannias will fill the bill. We must have a larger Transport Command and one that moves fast, as has been said already today.
Dr. Horace King: Would the hon. Member not agree that if the Comet is not preeminently suitable for long-range flying there is a sphere of flying at less than long range for which it would be suitable?
Sir A. Harvey: The Comet suits the Commonwealth routes very well, but not against headwinds of 100 knots going east to west across the Atlantic.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) made a lively, good Opposition speech. It was a helpful speech, but the right hon. Gentleman skipped over matters concerned with the money spent since the war. He said nothing about the large sums spent on the Brabazon projects and the Princess flying boats. We on this side, when in opposition, pressed the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind about them. The Brabazon was broken up for scrap and the Princess flying boats are cocooned at Calshot.
Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Member talks about the Brabazon being broken up. It was realised when that aircraft was started that it was a new excursion into a quite different type and that it

635
would be made as a prototype and was not intended to be used as an aeroplane. But without the Brabazon we could not have had the Britannia.
Sir A. Harvey: Everybody says that the Britannia is out of date, with which I do not agree, but my criticism is that the Brabazon should have been scrapped earlier.
Had it not been for the Korean War, and even without missiles, the aircraft industry would have been going through at that time exactly what it is going through now. Reference has been made to the slow rundown of employment and its effect. I should have thought that it was an advantage to those in the industry to have a slower rundown than was anticipated. They have had adequate warning that the industry must contract. It gives people a long time to make up their minds where to go. It is far better for them than being pushed out on their ears at short notice.
Whether fortunately or not, I am not now engaged in the aircraft industry, but I was responsible at one time for conceiving the idea of building the Herald, and Handley Page was the first company to spend its own money on development. It spent about £3 million and not a penny of it was Government money. That aeroplane has recently flown the South Atlantic and has been successfully demonstrated in South America. Anything said here about the Herald not being any good does not help the firm or the industry. The hon. Member for Belper should weigh his words, because he knows the story of the Herald perfectly well.
Mr. G. Brown: I was not saying that it was no good, but asking why the Ministry was ordering three, and what was our responsibility, but I had no answer.
Sir A. Harvey: The Government, in the past, had no responsibility. I understand that three are being ordered at somewhere near the market price of £170,000 to £180,000 each. They are being delivered to B.E.A. They have the same engine as the Viscount and, presumably, will be operated on internal routes. As a North Country Member like myself, I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Belper would have been glad to have more aeroplanes
636
on the northern internal routes. I have great difficulty in securing a seat on aircraft on these routes. B.E.A. should ensure that it has sufficient number of aircraft on them.
Costs carried by the industry today are considerable. I ask hon. Members opposite to consider what is being done by the industry to help itself. First, there was the Hawker supersonic fighter, a private venture. It was a thin-winged fighter which I was sorry to see dropped. If only for research and technical reasons it might have led to greater things in the long run. Development of the Vanguard airframe is paid for by the manufacturers. The same is true of the VC10, the Herald, the DH121 and the Avro 748. A number of engine companies are also developing engines, and helicopters of all sorts are being partially financed by the manufacturers.
It was said in a recent Select Committee Report that the Corporations are the backbone of the production of civil types which are coming along. That is perfectly true. Let hon. Members consider what happened in the case of the VC1000, an aircraft for which the prototype was practically flying. It was thrown overboard, I imagine, by the Corporation itself. It must have made that decision in conjunction with the Government, and I think that my right hon. Friends bear a share of the responsibility.
We were told that the weight of the Vickers 1000 was increasing to such an extent that longer runways were needed, but longer runways have been needed for the Boeing and the DC8. I have yet to know of an aeroplane that has not grown in weight in the course of construction. Had we gone on with the development of the Vickers 1000 at that time we might today have had a trans-Atlantic aeroplane flying. It is a tragedy, because there is a great deal at stake.
Since the war and the nationalisation of the airlines B.O.A.C. has had 98 American-made aircraft either bought or ordered for vast sums of money. B.O.A.C. has done a magnificent job of flying in its services. We hear that the Corporation is better than the American airline companies and runs probably the best airline in the world. Nevertheless, it has ordered practically every aircraft ever thought of.

637
My criticism of B.O.A.C. is that while it has good flying, maintenance and sales services, it lacks men with sufficient brains and ingenuity to make back-room boys who can work out what the Corporation will want five or ten years hence, coupled with the consideration of what aircraft may sell to other countries. It is rumoured that B.E.A. rather regrets have ordered the Vanguard. I think that the aircraft will pay the Corporation well, but these Corporations must know what they are ordering, for all this costs vast sums of taxpayers' money. They must be certain before they enter into a contract, even if making certain means delay. The Corporations need strengthening with men who can work out what is required in the years ahead.
The mistake we have made since the war has been that we have always put Transport Command in the background. Transport Command should take a new aeroplane first, try it out and get through all the teething troubles. The Americans have been doing that for years, but B.O.A.C. took the Britannia on its routes and had endless trouble, and it is only now that the Royal Air Force is beginning to accept that aircraft. That is all the wrong way round.
The Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee, under the Minister of Supply, has not been nearly active enough. I asked a Question about it eighteen months ago. I understand that the Committee has met only once in nine months. It needs gingering up. It should be meeting practically all the time. It is quite incredible that an important Committee like this should be meeting only every few months. I am told that there has been an improvement in this respect, but the Committee still has far to go.
A Ministry of Supply witness before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries
"doubted if the American industry received as much benefit from Air Force orders as B.O.A.C. averred…
None of us should underestimate the help that the American airlines receive through military orders. I understand that about 300 Boeing tankers were built for the American Air Force before they came on to airline scheduled service. That is something which British airlines have to contend with. The Americans have large initial orders and can spread out development
638
costs not over 100, but several hundred aircraft.
In the case of the DC8, however, there are so far no Government contracts in the United States; this aircraft has been developed from scratch, and about 170 have been sold. I believe they must sell about 300 to pay for the development of the aircraft. People talk about getting back development costs on 100 aircraft, but it is possible to get them back on 50 if enough money is charged for each. On the other hand, it can be spread out over 200 aircraft. It is an arbitrary figure.
I noticed in this morning's Press that in respect of future orders for the DC8 costs have been increased by 10 per cent. We must realise that in this respect the British industry has a tremendous advantage over the Americans. The labour content of aircraft in this country is about 7s. per hour, whereas it is 20s. in America, In some respects their production methods may be better, but we have a tremendous advantage in labour costs if we go to it.
Most airlines are short of money, and they will be even shorter when they take delivery of their new aircraft in the next three or four years. Many will find it difficult to pay for them. There is already a surplus of piston-engined aircraft. The Americans are looking into the question of a supersonic civil airliner. They have an advantage in this respect, because they are already building, or have built, a supersonic bomber. I am told that only about 50 supersonic airliners would be required to serve all the world's air routes, but to build one prototype might cost £150 million.
My right hon. Friend is quite right to say that this matter needs serious consideration, but we must not say that we are too poor to look at it. We must do so. We must see whether we can go in for this project. Perhaps we can collaborate with the French, and other countries. The French aircraft industry is coming on in leaps and bounds, and we must realise that it will be a serious competitor, just as is the American industry.
The supersonic aircraft has reached the stage of development where it is necessary to define specific directions of effort. Investment in subsonic aircraft projects have been judged by prospects at home and abroad, and we have had regard to the question of getting the best market,

639
but the supersonic aircraft must be judged on economics. Nobody knows the complete story, so far.
The aircraft industry cannot do everything. In the past it has tried to do too much, under pressure from successive Governments. A clear programme should be set out, after due consideration, informing the industry what it must do and where it is going. I should like my right hon. Friend to publish a White Paper showing what aircraft are at present on order, and when they are due for delivery. We are all rather confused as to what has been ordered, and a White Paper would help some of us to make up our minds in the matter.
Last week I had the privilege of going round the Hawker Company's works, at Kingston-upon-Thames with Sir Sidney Camm, the man who designed the Hurricane, which saved this country early in the war. Speaking to him is a most encouraging experience. He has spent a lifetime in designing aircraft, and he says that there is a limitless future for highspeed manned aircraft. Other countries are continuing to develop these projects and he said that Britain cannot afford not to do so. I am sure that he is right.
It may be frightening to think of an aircraft flying at Mach II or Mach III—1,200/1,800 miles an hour—but when we have overcome the initial difficulties of friction causing metal surfaces to heat up, we are there. Britain, with her great technical achievements and the ability of her technicians and designers, cannot afford to be left out. We may not be able to go the whole way, but we must watch the situation very carefully.
I saw a project which the Hawker Company may be flying next year—a vertical take-off aircraft. This is the type of aircraft which we dreamt about as boys. It will go up vertically and then have the forward speed of an orthodox fast aircraft. This is a project which we should be backing. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has said that he will order some, but there has not yet been any order.
The Minister of Supply should be showing some initiative and drive. He should be sitting on the firm's doorstep and asking it how quickly it can do the job.
Mr. Frederick Gough: As I understand, my right hon. Friend said that he was going to give only a design study contract.
Sir A. Harvey: That is worse still. A comparatively small sum is involved—probably under £100,000. The Americans have an indirect interest in this aircraft, because it has a modified Orpheus engine, which was ordered for N.A.T.O. and mainly paid for by the United States. If we are not careful America will grab the whole thing from us. I beg my right hon. Friend to get a move on, in the national interest.
There is no doubt that the air frame industry today is too big. We cannot force rationalisation, but the process is going along very well, and shareholders will take care of that. When they see these firms starting to slip there will be criticism, and the executives will also criticise. The sooner this happens the better.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say something about the DH121 this afternoon, but I am still not clear what the real story is. I understand that the engine is now too big, but it has been suggested that somebody at B.E.A. wanted a larger aeroplane and somebody else a smaller one. It is about time B.E.A. made up its mind. It is now eighteen months or more since we debated this aircraft in the House. With the right specification it could capture large orders overseas. It is an intermediate jet, with the engines in the rear of the fuselage.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the Argosy contract. I repeat what I said last week. In January, I was told that a contract would probably be placed within three months. Six months have now gone by and the contract has not yet been placed. I understand that since that date about 188 modifications have gone through, I imagine, from the Air Force. Here is a standard freighter. Somebody at the Ministry must say, "You must stop here and build this aeroplane," otherwise it will go on being modified for the next five years. That is what has been happening since the end of the war with successive types of aircraft. I ask my right hon. Friend to "turn on the heat" and get it out.
Britain must spend a considerable amount of money on research and development. By that I do not mean in

641
design and wind-tunnel work; the money must be spent in a practical form, with aircraft flying. Nobody can see where we may be in another ten years' time, but if people know what is expected of them I am sure that we can produce an aircraft which is out of this world. It is being done within 20 miles of London.
What is being done about laminar flow, which I have been talking about for years? This involves sucking air through a porous wing or fuselage, thereby increasing the performance of the aircraft by 30 per cent. Are we going to allow the Americans to do this first, or are we going to build a prototype and see what can be done? I hope that these matters will be given full consideration. It is the same with the Saunders-Roe Hovercraft, which appears to be quite promising.
The value of the aircraft industry is such that I do not think that what the people in it hand over to other engineering industries can be ignored. The lightness of structure which comes out of its designs, the strength and high performance of new materials which have resulted from various requirements of different types, the strong light alloys and high-strength glues and metal bonding, new precise methods of calculation, measurement resulting from the low factor of safety, new methods of construction to combat fatigue, the hydraulic servo systems requiring five tolerances—there is an endless list—have been passed on to other industries. They are particularly valuable in the atomic field, which has had the advantage of this experience.
One aircraft firm recently went out and secured the contract for elements at Calder Hall and showed completely its ability to do better than the rest of the industry. The aircraft industry, because of its exacting technical requirements, must train technical staff to very high standards and many of these go to other industries. It might not be a bad thing for British engineering to receive men from the aircraft industry who can enlighten it more than other industries.
The right hon. Member for Belper referred to the exports last year of over £150 million, but he did not say that since the war the amount has been £860 million and that last year they equalled 11 per cent. of the whole total engineering exports. This is a lead we cannot
642
afford to lose, but, unless there is some very clear thinking, in three years' time it will be down to £30 million instead of £150 million. Whereas a motor car sells at a cost of about 5s. per lb. weight, an airliner sells at £15 per lb. weight. This is a staggering performance and shows how we can sell the brains of a country in a piece of engineering.
Of course, it is a big problem for everyone, but I believe that the industry—which after all, to put it crudely, has been spoon-fed for many years, for various reasons—is beginning to learn how to take care of itself; but it has to have a clearer lead from the Government. I do not believe in the Government running industries, but Governments are there to give a lead. We want from the Government closer relations with the industry on forward intentions so that it may know what Government officials are thinking about and we want a quicker decision where possible. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he has very limited powers. I agree that he has very limited powers, but his Ministry has powers of delay. That is the real danger in this Ministry.
I have made no secret of the fact for several years now that I think the Ministry of Supply has outlived its usefulness. It ought to be broken up as soon as possible. There are alternatives. It is not for me to suggest them, but I put forward two suggestions. One is that the Ministry of Defence should take over aircraft and electronics and be responsible for those two projects, while the rest of the materials required by the fighting Services should be ordered by the Departments themselves.
I think that the Army today orders shells for the other Services, or at least it used to do so. The work could be parcelled out in that way, or there could be a separate Ministry, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Belper. We cannot continue this great industry, with all it involves, under the present system. The right hon. Member said he thought that two Ministries were involved, but I make it nine, because Lord Mills presides over an important committee. It was the same in the days of the Labour Government, but there is no need to continue with that system.
We have the Victor and the Vulcan, and even the Valiant flew non-stop to

643
Capetown this week in just over 10 hours. We have better brains in the industry than have the Americans. I ask the Committee to be reasonably tolerant of the industry. We are giving the Government help and this is something we cannot work out overnight, but I believe that we can give a lead by which the British aircraft industry can hold its own with anyone in the world, to the credit of the nation.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: By no means for the first time in our debates on the aircraft industry, it is my fortune to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). I always consider it to be a good fortune to do so, because he brings to our debates on aircraft manufacturing a great deal of experience, knowledge and thought, and we always learn a great deal from him during the course of these debates.
He has, however, a habit which must be irritating to himself, when he rereads his speeches. Sometimes towards the end he contradicts something which he said earlier. He did not fail to delight us with that today. He criticised the choice of aircraft by the British Overseas Airways Corporation and, at a later stage, he said the Corporation should not carry the can "for doing pioneering, but that that ought to be done by Transport Command. He instanced the case of the Britannia. I agree that the way in which that ought to have been developed was, first, by Transport Command and then by B.O.A.C, not the other way round.
The plain fact is that with all the assistance given by the Ministry and the Service Departments, the aircraft manufacturing industry, over and above the direct subsidies which mean predominantly that the revenue of the industry comes from public moneys, receives also a number of disguised subsidies. The hon. Member, perhaps inadvertently, put his finger on one when he talked about the Airways Corporations pioneering the developing of new types, and talked in particular about the Britannia. We heard something said about the Britannia earlier. I think it is all right now, but it cost British Overseas Airways Corporation about £2 million to do the manufacturer's job of ironing out
644
the snags. B.O.A.C. is sometimes criticised for buying American aircraft. It might well reply, by instancing the Britannia, that no major aircraft bought by a major airline has ever been delivered so much behind the promised date, so much below the promised specification and with so many snags still to be ironed out by the operator.
Sir A. Harvey: I think it would be fair if the hon. Member cast his mind back to the time when we took delivery of Stratocruisers. We had only to pass London Airport to see one coming back on three engines.
Mr. Mikardo: I am not at the moment making a general comparison but a statistical one, and I ask the hon. Member to look at the figures, because he is one hon. Member who could interpret the figures. He would then find that it is true that this aircraft was later in delivery and had more snags than any other, and there was more shortfall in specification than in any other.
The Minister said, "Let us have the facts before we start drawing lessons." All I am doing is adding to the facts the plain fact that the Corporation lost a great deal of business on the Pacific and Indian Ocean littorals because of the Britannia in the early stages. I am delighted that that has now been overcome and put right, but the £2 million which it cost the Corporation is, in fact, a subsidy except in so far as it is offset by payments to take care of the money put into it.
Mr. F. V. Corfield: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the main trouble which caused the lateness of the Britannia was the fact that its engines were designed for the Brabazon which, as one of his right hon. Friends has said, contributed to the Britannia? It may have done that indirectly, but it also contributed to the fact that the Britannia was late, because those engines were designed to run in pair with the gearbox in front. It was that which caused the icing up which led to so much trouble. The trouble with the Britannia was that its faults resulted from its success.
Mr. Mikardo: It is my own fault for starting a little digression which has been carried into a much longer digression. The trouble which the hon.

645
Gentleman has mentioned was only a small part of the reason for the lateness. That was a factor which the manufacturers ought to have taken into account and which was their justification for deferring the delivery date once. However, they broke that delivery date and several others afterwards as well.
Any independent observer listening to the debate would already have come to the conclusion, although we have been debating for only two or three hours, that by and large the aircraft industry was not one of our best organised and best managed industries. If one had to cite only one piece of evidence for that, it lies in the fact that the nation has little to show for the thousands of millions of £s—not tens or hundreds, but thousands of millions of £s—of public money which have been poured into the industry since 1945, and especially since 1951.
When the industry is booming, it somehow manages to disguise its difficulties. Now that it is finding itself in a shrinking market, as the Minister said, its difficulties are becoming more obvious. So long as the wind is set fair, the manufacturers manage to get along, but now that they have run into slightly stormy weather, the whole industry is creaking at the seams and has totally failed to show any capacity to adjust itself to the different and more difficult circumstances of a shrinking market. In this situation, the Minister should have intervened strongly and used his influence to get the industry to cure at least the worst of its defects.
It is true that the industry consists almost entirely of private firms, but those firms live predominantly, as we have heard from both sides of the Committee, on public money. The Minister is the guardian of that public money, and that gives him every right to intervene in the industry. In fact, his intervention is always too little and too late. In the last couple of years, those interventions have been timid, vacillating and ineffective.
The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he is a natural backroom boy, and, I should have thought, a very good backroom boy, who has, somewhat to his surprise, found himself in the front line and has discovered rather ruefully
646
that a thesis and a slide-rule are not really implements of battle.
I was amazed by his speech today. It was a nice, pleasant, academic speech, a nice little lecture about aircraft. Had it been given one evening to the Institute of Transport or to the Air League of the British Empire, it would have been a pleasant academic lecture. It would even have been a good lecture if it had been delivered ten years ago, when the ideas it contained were fresh and not as stale as they are today.
I was astounded to hear the right hon. Gentleman tell us that it takes a long time from the inception of an aircraft until it starts to give large-scale employment. He told us that as though it were a new discovery his telling of which should have smitten us with a blinding light. I was amazed to hear him tell us that in the selection of aircraft there are two choices—either the customer makes the choice, in which case the Government do not subsidise, or, if the Government subsidise, they have some say in the choice. That was a brilliant idea when Noah stepped out of the Ark, but it has been a fundamental of the industry ever since it existed. Yet along comes the right hon. Gentleman to regale us with his academic lecture, his nice style and his beautiful diction. But he is the man who is supposed to be doing things and not merely talking about them.
First of all, he said, he would tell us the facts, and he told us many facts. He then asked what lessons ought to be drawn, and he derived some lessons. He then asked what we were to do. He said that there were three things which we had to do. At that point I thought that we were to hear a call for action, that the great man was going into battle. I thought that there would come the blare of trumpets. Instead, we had a squeak on a penny tin whistle. He said, "First, we must begin to ask ourselves whether—". That is a jolly fine call to action. He has watched the industry slide into decline for all the years he has been Minister and he should have realised that there was a critical situation—which the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield described so vividly—and that someone should get weaving about it.

647
What a man of action to have in the industry! He came with his blunt sword and with all his pathetic, timid attempts at intervention. In a vague, dreamy and blunt-edged sort of way he has been trying to organise joint working arrangements among different manufacturers, but highly individualistic men who run this highly individualistic industry have been for too tough for him. His efforts have not got very far.
About a year ago he was claiming success for having got together a consortium for the DH121. Today we have heard that that success can be considered at best only a partial success. There are delays, changes of mind and design snags of all sorts. If that is all the success that he has got to show with his intervention, it is not very much.
Without going into detail, it seems obvious that more Government intervention in some form is required to ensure that we do not continue to waste public money and that scarce resources, especially in design and development, are not dissipated as they are now being dissipated by overlapping between different firms.
It is one of the paradoxes of the present situation that, whilst the industry as a whole is shrinking, we are still short of the research and design people required in relation to what the industry now is and what it is likely to be. The recently published Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Air Registration Board for the year 1957–58, a document to which I call the attention of hon. Members, expresses concern about the extent to which we are falling behind in aeronautical research and development.
Now there is a new competitive threat to our aircraft manufacturers, one which has not yet been mentioned today and to which I want to draw attention. It comes in the shape of the Air Union which has been set up as one of the instruments of the European Common Market to integrate the activities of the five major airlines within the European Common Market—Sabena, Alitalia, Air France, Deutsche Lufthansa and K.L.M. It is in its initial stage of development, but it is making very rapid progress.
The other day, the European staff of the Financial Times described Air Union as
648
"the most spectacular and far-ranging manifestation of the Common Market on the commercial side to date."
It is significant that one of the committees set up by Air Union is an equipment committee. That suggests to me that at some stage, and perhaps at an early stage, Air Union will move towards a common organisation for aircraft maintenance. If that happens, it would be only natural that it should move towards common arrangements for aircraft design, manufacture and purchase. Indeed, if I may speculate about it, I would guess that as Deutsche Lufthansa has easily the greatest expansion rate of all five airlines, the common arrangements will operate from Western Germany.
If that sort of thing comes about, and the possibility is clearly there, it will create a serious increase in the competitive threat to the British aircraft manufacturing industry. It will mean that our individual aircraft manufacturers, who compete wastefully with each other, particularly in their competition to hold out a begging bowl to the Minister which is their most important activity, will be faced with competition not only from integrated national industries, such as the French aircraft manufacturing industry to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield paid tribute and which is publicly owned, but also with competition from an at least partially integrated supranational organisation which would be a keen competitive force because it could make use of very substantial economies of scale, spreading overheads over really sizeable quantities.
Mr. Julian Snow: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend's very informed speech, but perhaps he will recall that two years ago two hon. Members, including myself, published correspondence in The Times between ourselves and the Secretary of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors in which we put forward reasons for saying that there should be some form of amalgamation, and the Secretary rejected it as a futile idea.
Mr. Mikardo: I did not know that the idea that I was putting forward had such a respectable ancestry. I am delighted to learn it. I am not surprised to learn from my hon. Friend that the S.B.A.C. did not bite on to this one, because it is not very good at biting on to new ideas. I do not expect the

649
right hon. Gentleman to agree publicly with that, but I know what he would say if he were having a private conversation.
The more I look at our national needs in aircraft over the next few years, the more I am convinced that not one of them—and I mean not one of them—will be fully met without much more drastic Government intervention than the Minister has attempted up to now, or appears to have in mind for the future. It seems to me that these needs in the next few years are five in number. The first is that we must develop what might be called a family of civil aircraft, one generation going on to the next, and, of course, with related aero engines which are planned ahead to meet the requirements of the next fifteen or twenty years.
On this point I am not at all satisfied that the Minister is working on the right lines. He told us in a Written Answer to a Question on 13th April—and he made some remark about it today—that the Report of the Supersonic Transport Committee, which was set up in November, 1956, had recommended starting detailed design work on two first-generation supersonic aircraft, of which he gave particulars.
This recommendation, which he said in April he was studying and which it appears he is still studying, raises two very pertinent questions which were cogently put in a statement by the managing director of the Bristol Aeroplane Company, who also has the advantage, as a former chief executive of British European Airways, of a great deal of experience in airline operation.
The Committee might think for a moment about these two questions. The first is whether we ought not to consider whether Great Britain can afford this venture at all. I have been somewhat critical of the right hon. Gentleman in the last few minutes. It is with relief that I am able to praise him and say that I am very grateful that he spoke on this matter with so much reserve today, because it seems to suggest to me that he has not fallen for all the ballyhoo about supersonic flying. If we look at this project for very high speed supersonic civil aircraft, it becomes clear that it cannot be justified intrinsically and that if it can be justified at all it can
650
be justified only on prestige grounds. I would take a lot of convincing that the prestige value is enough to justify the huge expenditure which would be involved.
We have got to face the situation that the International Air Transport Authority refuses to agree on premium fares for very fast travel. That is a very important factor in the situation, and so long as that is so the only effect of our airlines going in for supersonic aircraft is that they will have spend more money to get the same revenue as they are getting at present. That is not going to make their profit and loss accounts look very healthy.
The second query which arises is whether the second of the two types envisaged by the Supersonic Transport Committee will not be much too slow for its generation by the time that it comes along. It is obvious that if the Americans choose to compete with it directly, they will have no difficulty in out-speeding it. They already have some developments for military purposes, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, which are much faster than we are projecting for our second supersonic aircraft. Some of those military developments are easily convertible to civil use.
I was delighted that the right hon. Gentleman threw a questioning glance—and I hope he will continue to throw a very questioning glance—at this development of supersonic aircraft. But that does not alter the fact that even if they are not supersonic we need a proper family of aircraft which will be economic, never mind about flashy, for as far ahead as we can see. Those hon. Members opposite who have demanded a lot of expenditure on supersonic aircraft are the first to complain when the aircraft corporations get into the red. They cannot have it both ways. It is our business to see that they get the best aircraft which are economic, and not the flashiest.
The second of our five needs over the next few years, on which the industry has fallen down, is in the development of missiles. Here I have to speak with great reserve because the subject is shrouded in an enormous, thick veil of secrecy, but, as far as I can find out, we have three different types of missiles being made by three different firms, and all are too slow to attack other missiles.

651
Therefore, they can be used only against aircraft, and they are not going to be much use for defence unless the enemy chooses to oblige us by sending his H-bombs in very slow projectiles. The same applies to rocket engines, in which each manufacturing firm is paddling its own canoe without any interchange of information on research or technique. That is extremely wasteful of very scarce resources.
Third in this list of five there is the question of any space project which we may have in mind. I understand that three firms are working on some sort of space project, independently of one another and with a good deal of waste due to overlapping of resources.
Our fourth requirement is the one to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield devoted so much attention, and that is the development of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. I was pleased to hear from the Minister today that he has at least, in his sluggard's progress, got as far as thinking about giving a contract for a design study. This is very slow indeed. What worries me is that at one time we were well ahead of the rest of the world in vertical take-off and landing aircraft, and I am not at all satisfied that we are maintaining the lead which we once had. I certainly do not think we will maintain the lead if the Minister continues to move at that snail's pace.
Fifth in this list of requirements for the next few years is helicopter development. The Minister has been waffling around with the Rotodyne since "kingdom come" almost. At least, he told us today that he is in negotiation about placing an order for them, but he gave us no forecast of when these negotiations might come to an end. They could, of course, be interrupted by the election and the Minister ceasing to have responsibility for them. I hope they will be, because otherwise I do not think they will come to an end for another couple of years. It is really time that we did something about this.
I have never made much secret of the fact that I never had great faith in the ability of the aircraft manufacturing industry as it is now organised to cope with a range of problems of this magnitude. My scepticism about its ability
652
to do that has been reinforced by some sections of the Report on the Civil Appropriation Accounts for 1957–58 which were submitted to us on 3rd March by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Some of the things which he reveals in that Report are nothing short of a national scandal. It amazes me that so little attention has been directed to them.
I will quote two examples. The first concerns the Orion turbo-prop, for which the Treasury approved a development contract in 1954 at an estimated cost of £6,500,000. Three years later, in March, 1957, it was reported that the cost of the contract would be nearly double the estimate, namely, £12,900,000. When an examination was made of why the estimate was so far out, it was found that some of the contractor's calculations in the estimate had been—this is the Comptroller's point, not mine—flagrantly incorrect. The inaccuracies included the fact—believe it or not—that the contractor had just forgotten the little item of six engines which would be required for the test programme. He thought that he would be testing some engines without having an engine to test, and he forgot to allow for that little item of six engines.
Finally, the whole job was dropped. We shall not have the project at all, but we spent nearly £5 million on it, for absolutely nothing. The Committee can well imagine what a scream would have gone up if this pathetic muck-up involving the loss of £5 million public money had been the work not of a privately-owned aircraft manufacturing company but of one of the public corporations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) spoke very rightly about this double standard of morality which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have about these matters. If public money is wasted by private enterprise, we must not criticise; it is political to criticise. On the other hand, if it is a mistake by public enterprise, then that is fair game for everyone to have a go. If this muck-up had been made by one of the public corporations we should have seen it in the newspapers for months. As it is, we have heard scarcely a word.
The second example I take from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is even worse. It concerns the RA29 engine developed by Rolls-Royce.

653
That project started its life with an estimated cost of £2,360,000. Eventually, its estimated cost rose to nearly £9 million. Once again, the Comptroller and Auditor General examined what had gone wrong. The examination revealed, first, that the contractor's estimate had included only two of the four years during which expenditure would be incurred, and, second, the absolutely amazing fact that the contractor never revealed to the Ministry that the estimate was only a partial estimate but led the Ministry to believe that it covered all the four years' expenditure, not just two. I do not like using harsh terms in this Committee, but I am bound to say that anyone reading the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on this item might well be led to the conclusion that, if the contractor's estimate in this case was not a bit of sharp practice, it came very near to it.
When this RA29 project finally got into a mess, the Ministry wanted to get out of it altogether. But the Ministry found that it could not do so, because it had just forgotten to insert a break clause in the contract. What a shocking tale of muddle and incompetence! Again, I ask the Committee, what would have happened if this had been not Rolls-Royce but the National Coal Board or British European Airways'? Every sub-editor in Fleet Street would have reached for his 72 point headline type and the blackest ink he had—if he still had any—and he would have planted this story all over his front pages, perhaps even giving it priority over the love story of the young lady who does not want to marry one of the Queen's footmen. It would have been all over the front pages for weeks.
I apologise for having kept the Committee so long. I want to make only two other points about the present run-down in the industry. The run-down is releasing some extremely valuable capacity, some of it in areas like Northern Ireland and the Isle of Wight where little or inadequate alternative employment is available. This is a problem similar to the problem of redundant capacity in Royal Ordnance Factories and Royal Dockyards. In all these spheres, it is obvious that the Government are doing little or nothing to avoid the shocking waste of first-class engineering capacity and first-class engineers in all these establishments.
654
What is happening to the men now being thrown out of work in the aircraft manufacturing industry? We were all greatly relieved to hear the right hon. Gentleman tell us that, of those who have been thrown out, up to now the great majority have managed to find other work, although I am sure that it is very often work at lower wages—
Mr. John Diamond: Much.
Mr. Mikardo:—and, all too often, work not fully using their skill. This is a great tragedy for the nation. I do not think that this process can go on indefinitely. The law of diminishing returns applies to it, and the men who are being thrown out of work now are in a much more difficult position. The right hon. Gentleman, with his customary kindness, said—I took down his words—"We must do everything possible to abate the contraction and to smoothe it". What does he mean by that, in practical terms, for the men being declared redundant? Many of them, as he knows, have the highest degree of skill, and many of them have worked in their companies for a long time.
Many men are being thrown out with just a week's notice or a week's pay in lieu of notice. Is it only the directors of the aircraft manufacturing companies who are entitled to some pay on losing office? The right hon. Gentleman knows that recently a director of one of those companies. Sir Frank Spriggs, was discovered by his colleagues to be redundant. He was persuaded by them to retire from office two or three years before he would have reached retirement age. He was persuaded to do this by being given a tax-free compensation for loss of office amounting to the small sum of £75,000. That is about double the sum that the ordinary aircraft worker earns in the whole of his working life
Mr. Diamond: Less tax, too.
Mr. Mikardo: Yes; this was free of tax. For Sir Frank Spriggs, anyhow, the Minister certainly fulfilled his promise that everything possible should be done "to abate the contraction and to smoothe it". Sir Frank was certainly abated and smoothed, was he not? The contrast between that, on the one hand, and workers being thrown out at short

655
notice without compensation, on the other hand, is, surely, too glaring to be acceptable to any Member of the Committee.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He holds the purse-strings. Because of that, he wields great power and influence in this industry. He is a kindly man. I put it to him that he ought to exercise his power and influence and show his natural kindliness in order to ensure much better treatment for redundant aircraft workers than they are being given at present.
6.48 p.m.
Sir Lionel Heald: Hon. Members may wonder why a Member for a Surrey constituency should venture to intervene in the debate. Some hon. Members may not be aware that there have been between 5,000 and 10,000 people in my constituency working either in the Vickers factories or in the branches of the engineering industry which are closely connected with them.
Although I cannot pretend to deal with technical aspects, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) have done, I have studied the matter as well as I can. Also, I have had the opportunity of having discussions with the management, including Sir George Edwards, who needs no introduction to anyone familiar with these things, and with the men employed in the industry, the shop stewards. I met some of the shop stewards and had a conversation with them before the debate began.
One of the most impressive remarks the shop stewards made to me in that conversation was that they did not want any "so-and-so" politics about this business. I cannot repeat the exact language, but that is an indication of what they said. Although, naturally, he could not resist having a bit of a go, the hon. Member for Reading, I feel, must have exercised great restraint in the very interesting remarks that he made, with some of which I found myself in a measure of agreement.
The important thing, I think, is that today those engaged in the industry do not look at the matter from a doctrinaire political point of view. It must be
656
encouraging to all of us that we have not so far heard from the other side of the Committee any suggestion that nationalisation of the industry would cure all its troubles, or anything of that sort. It has been accepted, as I think it must be accepted, that essentially in an industry of this kind we want all the flexibility and enterprise that we can obtain, particularly in relation to exports, and that it is a matter of partnership between the industry, the Government and the Corporations. If it goes out from this Committee that we have accepted that point of view, I feel that that will be of some comfort to those who are concerned about the future.
Of course, people are concerned about the future. I am particularly fortunate in having contact with Vickers, who, I suppose, everyone would agree have achieved very great success with the Viscount, in particular, apart from their development of other famous aircraft. The Viscount has been a remarkable export. I recall that I was once travelling in one of these aircraft, which was being flown by one of the United States airlines. Sitting in front of me were two Americans, who did not realise who I was and did not realise that I was listening. One said to the other, "I think that we must hand it to them. This is the finest aircraft we have ever been in". That sort of thing gives great encouragement to the people engaged in the industry. Any idea that the industry will run down and fade out is something which fills them with horror.
From a national point of view, I think that we can take it from what the Minister said today that the Government have no intention of seeing such a thing happen if they can possibly avoid it. With the need in the Commonwealth for communications because of our geographical position, and all the other reasons, it is unthinkable that that should happen to the aircraft industry. I therefore believe that we can start with the accepted proposition that we are all agreed that everything possible must be done to maintain and strengthen the industry.
I am sure that the layman has very little appreciation of the competition which we have to encounter, particularly from the United States. In view of the enormous military orders which the

657
United States Government are able to give to American manufacturers and the tremendous home market which they have, it is a tremendous task to compete with them. For instance, I think that the American Army or Navy—I imagine that it would be the Navy—has given an order to the Lockheed company for 120 of the Electra aircraft, which was developed by that company. When one compares that sort of thing with our own companies, which have to decide whether they can afford to put down many millions of pounds in the hope of obtaining orders at some time in the future, and are subject to all sorts of possibilities, one realises the tremendous difficulties.
As has been said and accepted by right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, some degree of Government assistance to an industry such as this is essential. The question is: how should that assistance be given and in what direction? If it can go out from this Committee today that we do not intend that the aircraft industry should be a plaything of politics and that the Government will ensure that it is maintained in an efficient state by means of a system such as that described as some kind of partnership, then I think that those engaged in the industry, whether management or workers, both of whom are equally essential, will feel that there is more hope for the future than some of them are inclined to think at present.
I should like my right hon. Friend to deal with one aspect which I am surprised no one has mentioned. There is such a thing as rushing in, sticking one's neck out, or whatever one likes to call it, but I am surprised that, apart from a passing reference to it in my right hon. Friend's remarks, nothing has been said about the encouragement of cheaper and more popular travel, and the steps, if any, that will be taken to further that. In the knowledge that I have been able to gather about this subject, a particularly interesting point concerns the Vanguard. The Vanguard, which may be termed the second generation of turbo-prop aircraft, has been developed on the basis of a judgment that there will be a demand for more inexpensive but very efficient passenger travel.
It may be that the Vanguard is, in some respects, ahead of its time, but I
658
believe that there is a very good and very well-informed body of opinion that considers that in a year or two's time people will be rushing round wanting to obtain this kind of aeroplane. In the industry—perhaps more among operators than in the industry—there seems to be a tendency suddenly to say, "We must get something new. Somebody has one of those. We must have one, too." Once there is the idea of cheaper travel it may well be that there will be a sudden demand. I should like to know the view of this Government on this matter.
The question of fares is a very thorny subject and it is much too complicated a matter for discussion today, but a great deal of discussion is going on about it. There is a body of opinion which considers that every possible step must be taken to try to get people to appreciate that cheaper travel will be an advantage from every point of view and that we cannot progress unless we have cheaper fares. If we want cheaper fares we must have the aircraft which have been developed for the purpose. What is being done in that direction?
The international arrangements are very difficult to work, but I think that we cannot help but be impressed when eminent and well-qualified people express their views. For example, a statement was made yesterday in which very interesting figures were given and it was said that in a few years' time it may be possible to reduce the cost of air travel to a figure which at present would seem to be quite out of the question. No doubt, when that time comes, some people probably will complain that air travel is not as comfortable as it might be, but, after all, that is something which one must accept if we can travel about 350 miles in an hour in an aircraft costing £500,000. Even if one travels at night, one has to pay for it, but the question of cheap travel is a relative matter and I believe that that is one of the aspects into which we ought to look.
I, and least of all those with whom I have discussed the matter, would not like to think that we will make no effort to take part in the higher realms of speed development and eventually of supersonic flight. However, that will not help the people who are worrying whether they will have a job in the next year or two. That is something with

659
which many people are concerned. I therefore think that our discussion today has this great advantage: we are able to say what we think in the interests of those concerned, from the point of view of the manufacturers and their employees, from the point of view of the airlines, and from the point of view of the travelling public.
Everyone is interested in this subject. It is something in which we can say to the Government that if they will take a firm line, if they will have a firm policy, work it out and tell us what it is, we shall be prepared to support it. They may be surprised to find what a volume of support they would get in all quarters, having regard to the fact that as we have seen, at least so far, today, the fundamental political differences on this subject are very small indeed.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Mulley: I was a little distressed when the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) began his speech by referring to the idea that my hon. Friends on this side were trying to make the aircraft industry a plaything of politics. I hope the right hon. and learned Member will take it from what he has heard today, and what, I hope, he will stay to listen to as the debate develops, that we are not in the least concerned to do that to win votes and that we do not imagine that we have any miraculous solution to the problems of the industry.
Nobody would be able to provide work for the aircraft industry unless a use can be found for the machines that it makes or which must be sold abroad as they cannot all be absorbed in this country. At the same time, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that one cannot divorce the future of the aircraft industry from political decisions that must be taken by the Government of the day, whatever Government it might be.
To begin with, there is the question of defence policy and the contribution that the aircraft industry is required to make in that direction. When people advocate disarmament, they do not always appreciate some of the consequences to employment that would flow from it. We cannot divorce the
660
aircraft industry or, indeed, other industries from political decisions. Our complaint on this side is that the Government do not seem to take any decision at all.
When I heard the excellent speech of the Minister of Supply this afternoon, I thought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) said in more colourful language than I can command, that he gave an admirable analysis of the problems of the industry. If the right hon. Gentleman had been engaged in writing a thesis or giving a lecture to a learned society on the problems of the aircraft industry, it would have been wholly admirable; but one never suspected that he was the person who was responsible or who ought to be responsible for taking decisions. In these days, there are probably too many Hamlets in Whitehall. Certainly, the Ministry of Supply is a place where we want a man of action and not a philosopher.
What we need, not only in the wider interests of the industry but in the interests of the workers in it, is certainty and planning for the future. That certainty and direction can come only from the Government themselves. There may well have to be redundancy, but at least it could be planned for in a way that would remove some of its worst features. We were glad to learn that so far redundancy by displacement has affected only one person in twenty. Nineteen out of twenty have found other jobs. At the same time, we must recognise that often the new jobs are not as good and do not permit people to use the skills which they have acquired. Very often, the new jobs are not even at the same place of work. They necessitate the complete upheaval of a man's family and his home.
Some aircraft workers have said to me that it was only a few years ago that they were persuaded by advertisements in the newspapers to give up their jobs and move their homes to come to work in the aircraft industry where, they were urged, they were wanted for national purposes. That provides the contrast. Many people feel particularly sore because they have given up a livelihood in other industries to come into the aircraft industry where they are liable to be dismissed at a week's notice.
As has been clearly said, in the aircraft industry one cannot distinguish the civil

661
and the military sides. The industry must be taken as a whole. The simple question is how much subsidy it needs and how it should be administered. There is a consensus of opinion on both sides of the Committee—indeed, there is overwhelming evidence from other countries besides our own—that we cannot expect the industry to be profitable without some form of Government assistance, whether by way of orders, finance for development or direct subsidy. How is that assistance to be administered? While I have no belief in public ownership for its own sake, I have a strong objection to pouring public money into an industry without there being some means of public control and accountability and, in the instances where the investment and the decisions prove to be profitable, part of the profit coming back to the taxpayer as some small return for what is laid out in the beginning.
Mr. Shepherd: Is the hon. Member aware that precisely that arrangement obtains in the case of the Viscount and that, as far as I am aware, the Government are making a nice little profit out of the Viscount—at least, I hope so?
Mr. Mulley: Had I been allowed to make my own speech, I was coming to that precise point. I am not criticising. The point to which I am directing my remarks is that the Minister of Supply, when speaking earlier this afternoon, said that he did not know which way we should resolve this problem and whether the Government should give any support at all to the industry. It is because the Minister seemed unaware about the future that I mentioned that. I do not think that the Viscount financing system is wholly satisfactory. There is a lot to be said for the French system, in which part of the industry is nationalised and part under private ownership.
In last year's debate, the Minister said that he did not believe in shot-gun weddings. In the context of men and women, that is probably true, but in the aircraft industry some of them have, perhaps, been living in sin too long and some element of persuasion may be necessary if we are to achieve the purpose we want. This industry, above any other, is one in which planning is essential.
662
I was concerned when, this afternoon, the Minister posed the problem of whether the industry should have no financial help from the Government and, therefore, the customer could choose in great detail what he wanted, or whether, on the other hand, the money should come from the Government with the Government taking a direct hand in design and in deciding upon the plan for the future. We on this side are in no doubt whatever that it is the second of the two choices posed by the Minister that the industry wants. The industry wants to know quickly what the Government are doing. The posing of problems at this stage will not do more than irritate those concerned.
Mr. Aubrey Jones: I remind the hon. Member that the airline Corporations are nationalised undertakings enjoying under statute commercial autonomy.
Mr. Mulley: That may be so. The Minister himself told us, however, that 85 per cent. of the problem was a military one, and that is a responsibility which he cannot evade.
The size of the problem is obviously enormous. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) told us that the cost of research and development for a supersonic airliner would be £150 million. I was told only last week in a European international organisation that it was likely to be £600 million. In addition, we are told that probably only fifty of these supersonic airliners would be required. As a nation, can we possibly afford this? Again, we were told by the Minister this afternoon that the breakeven point for any machine is not reached until something like 100 are produced. Clearly, the suggestion that the industry can be self-financing is wide of the mark.
The suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey that one of the possibilities is to provide cheaper air travel is worth pursuing. We know that there are many practical difficulties, one of them being the international agreement on fares, which prevents an enterprising airline from reducing its fares and prevents special facilities being provided and a premium being charged therefor.
It is quite fantastic that we should be talking about the need to increase the

663
speed of our aeroplanes at a time when the Daily Mail is spending a little money in more or less demonstrating that the important way of economising time is by good organisation on the ground, and that whatever speed one can get in the air if one cannot get good contact between the centre of travel and the aeroplane one does not really gain by the extra speed of the aircraft employed.
I should like to say a word about the military side, which the Minister says is 85 per cent. of the problem. I think that the problem of the aircraft industry stems from the unfortunate Defence White Papers of 1957–58. It is ironic to recall that in the 1956 Defence White Paper the Government made it quite clear, when talking about the "outbreak of localised conflicts on a scale short of a global war"—"outbreaks of limited war" and so on—that they were then preparing for the possibilities of limited war. This was at a time when the Western Alliance had undoubtedly supremacy in the field of nuclear deterrents. But when the Soviet Union was clearly approaching the West in nuclear parity and capability of delivering nuclear bombs, the Government switched over and became completely committed, in the notorious paragraph 12 of last year's White Paper, "to rely primarily on a vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them."
Ironically, just at the time when the approach to nuclear parity on both sides made a global nuclear war less likely, the Government not only took the surprising decision to rely primarily on nuclear deterrents, but began to switch their orders to the aircraft industry on the basis of what seemed to me to be a wrong assessment. I shall not go into great details on the strategic aspects, because, quite properly, they were the subject of the general defence debate which we had earlier in the year. But clearly this has meant a reduction in the number of fighters. I understand that the number of fighters actually in Fighter Command has been reduced by about two-thirds over the last two or three years, and I think that the position is that after the Lightning, formerly the P1, which we are told in the Defence White Paper is due to be put to the squadrons next year, there will not be any further fighter
664
planes ordered. I think that this is possibly a mistake.
Clearly, the essence of the fighter is that it must be faster than the bomber it is sent to deal with and the number of fighters required will be reduced if potential enemies do not appear to have manned bombers, because the danger to this island will be more from missiles than from manned bombers. That point has not yet been reached, and may not be reached for some years. Some fighters will still be needed for identification and rôles of that sort.
The Bloodhound missile has been a success and has been sold to Sweden. Despite the optimism of the Government on more than one occasion, however, we do not appear to have succeeded in getting the Bloodhound adopted as a surface-to-air missile for Western Europe. It seems that the American Hawk will be used instead. At the same time, it would not appear likely that the Blue Streak will be adopted by the European countries as a whole.
The Minister of Supply said in February that as the Americans would not be producing a second generation of intermediate-range ballistic missiles it was our job in Europe to do so, and he hoped that the Blue Streak would be adopted by all Continental countries. From my reading of the French papers last week and from what one can gather in France, I think this is hardly likely to be the case. The French seem to be quite determined not only to have their own nuclear bomb but also to have their own independent means of delivery. That seems to be at least ten years ahead. But a consortium of French companies, nationalised and private, has been formed and is likely soon to start work. I believe that substantial German capital has also been secured for this venture. They say quite clearly that unless they can get licences to develop an American missile they will have a French-European one, and it is quite clear from this that they are not interested in the British Blue Streak.
We have not been told about the possibilities of helicopters. I would have thought that there was a case for a substantial increase in the number of helicopters available. In all these directions—and I do not claim to have the technical knowledge at the disposal of

665
some hon. Members who have spoken in this debate—when one looks at the various possibilities for the British aircraft industry, it seems certain that it must contract and, consequently it seems to me that there is no future for the aircraft industry of any individual country taking a long view in Europe.
If we are to compete in the future with the United States, we have to do so on the basis of European co-operation. We should seek to extend this French consortium to include British companies as well and try, through Western European Union or some other means, to get some of our missiles or planes adopted as a standard for Western European countries. We cannot hope in the present context to expect the Americans to do very much for us. We know the particular problems in trading, as my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, against unscrupulous trading competition which one meets from time to time from the Americans. Therefore, it does not seem to me that we can hope to solve these problems in a purely British context.
In the 1957 White Paper, paragraph 64 states:
"The Government will explore with the French Government and other member States the possibility of greater research and development within the framework of Western European Union."
We have not yet had any concrete results from the co-operation which we hope the Government promoted. It may not be the Government's own fault. If that is the case, they should tell us why they have not succeeded in getting our products, either the Bloodhound, which, I am sure, is a first-class missile, or the Blue Streak, adopted by any of the other countries. If it is the case that the other countries do not want them, we should be told.
I myself have the feeling that we did not consult the other countries until we had already reached a fairly advanced stage and then said, "What about having these?" We surely ought in the interests of our own aircraft industry, in the interests of getting more value for money in our defence expenditure and generally in the interest of the political advantages which stem from European co-operation, to do much more in this direction.
My own feeling is that if we have not already missed the European bus, it is likely to leave very soon. I do not myself
666
see, unless in the very near future we can come to terms with the Common Market countries, that many of these matters can be solved in time. The door will be firmly closed against Britain, with the political and economic consequences that involves. Among the catalogue of Ministers who ought to be concerning themselves with these problems I would add the Foreign Secretary, because I think that the insistence of the Foreign Office on trying to keep all these international negotiations in its own hands and not allowing the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Defence to take part, is one of the aspects—one of the smaller ones, perhaps, but still one—of the problem which have landed us where we are. I hope, therefore, that we shall look at this problem not only in the British context but also in the international and especially the European context, as well.
7.21 p.m.
Mr. Stanley McMaster: There seems to be no need to stress to this Committee the importance of the British aircraft industry. Right hon. and hon. Members have already referred to the fact that the exports of aircraft engines and components earned over £154 million for this country last year and accounted for 11 per cent. of our total engineering exports.
The aircraft industry makes a very important contribution to technical progress in all parts of British engineering. Metal alloys and other materials and adhesives have been developed which are capable of withstanding great stress at high temperatures. They are of use not only in aircraft, but in such machinery as atomic reactors. New, precise methods of calculation and measurement have been developed, and also computer techniques, simulators, and vibration measurement have been perfected.
Problems connected with fatigue have been very carefully studied, and methods of ensuring that the complex electrical and mechanical and hydraulic systems are reliable in aircraft which are made to travel at high speeds and under conditions of very great physical stress and strain. Also, testing and inspection techniques have been very greatly improved by the aircraft industry, and all these developments help to improve the standards throughout the engineering industry.

667
From the point of view of my own constituency, East Belfast, Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland are at present engaged on the production of the Britannia airliner, which is an airliner in service in 10 airlines all over the world and also with the Royal Air Force Transport Command. This airline has built up a very impressive record for reliability and flexibility and, after its original teething problems, profitability. Short's also produce some special types of Canberra reconnaissance and drone aircraft which they have helped to develop. They have trained in Northern Ireland many young engineers to the high standards required by the aircraft industry.
In Northern Ireland, we have the difficult problem that if this industry, which is ideally suited to local needs, because of the high cost-to-weight ratio of its products, already referred to by hon. Members, cannot find sufficient orders to keep going, then the men employed in the industry cannot be given alternative employment in Ulster. There are over 8,000 men employed at Short and Harland's in one of the largest and best-equipped aircraft factories in Great Britain. The management of Short's is well aware of the problems facing the industry. Great emphasis is placed at all levels in that firm on reducing the cost of the aircraft produced by the factory.
Much has been said during the debate about supersonic passenger aircraft. I believe that in the carriage of freight by air we are on the verge of a major breakthrough. At present, the rate of passenger expansion in world airlines has slowed down very considerably. The report of the International Civil Aviation Organisation for 1959 has pointed out that last year the average world passenger traffic increased by only 4·3 per cent. as compared with an annual increase of over 15 per cent. in the preceding six years. A recent air freight survey in Great Britain shows that 75 per cent. of potential consignors of air freight in the United Kingdom seldom or never use this form of transport and only 7 per cent. use it regularly.
More than two-thirds of potential consignors quote cost as the prime reason for not using air freight. A writer in Tuesday's Financial Times has pointed
668
out that among the advantages of using air freight are lower packaging costs, less danger of damage by pilfering, and cheaper insurance. One manufacturer of popular cars has found it worth while to fly assembled cars, and spare parts and tools, direct to Northern Ireland rather than consign them by rail and ship from his Midlands factory.
However, it is suggested in the Financial Times that most shippers would not consider using aircraft till freight rates drop as low as sea rates. About Is. 6d. per ton mile is quoted in comparison with current air rates for the same class of cargo of about 3s. per ton mile. Short Brothers have high hopes that the Britannic freighter which they are developing will be capable of cutting current air freight rates by at least 50 per cent. It may even be possible to reduce certain classes of air freight carried in this very large and new turbo-prop plane to as little as 1s. per ton mile. This has opened up a vast new possibility of expansion in the carriage of many classes of freight by air. Its possibilities are greatly in excess of the likely expansion of passenger traffic in the foreseeable future.
We have in Belfast a company which is capable of producing large numbers of such freighter aircraft very economically. Short Brothers' factory has a floor space of about 2 million square feet. The doors of the final assembly hangar are 300 feet wide, capable of allowing two Britannias to pass out together on to the runway of the aerodrome that they are fortunate enough to have on their own doorstep. Also, at the side of Short Brothers' works is a deep-water berth where merchant ships can unload straight into the factory.
With a little foresight and assistance during the difficult development stage, this company, specialising in this class of large, economical freighter planes with a straight-through fuselage which measures 12 feet by 12 feet, and box fuselage which is 70 feet long, could soon be producing planes cheaper and more efficient than any other plane in their class which has as yet been developed.
At the same time, the advanced technical team at Short Brothers has had a notable success with the SCI, which is a vertical take-off and landing aircraft which may well become the prototype for the supersonic airlines of the future,

669
capable of using very small landing fields situated not far from the centres of large cities throughout the world.
I should like to say a few words about the reorganisation within the aircraft industry. Here the Government's function should be to encourage and not to try to force the pattern of such reorganisation as is necessary. Companies are best left to select their own partners. They will have to work smoothly and efficiently together, and forced amalgamations might well be disastrous to a key industry which faces such strong and heavily subsidised competition.
The Prime Minister has undertaken to review the functions of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, but there are strong constitutional objections to creating too many Ministers. I would subnit that what is needed is a civil air staff, charged with the responsibility of evolving requirements for civil aircraft to meet the needs of our airline Corporations while, at the same time, having regard to the export potential of the British aircraft industry.
The aircraft industry is of immense importance to the United Kingdom's engineering prestige. It is a substantial contributor to our export drive. Technical advances are used not only within the industry itself, but in the motor car industry and the development of nuclear energy plants, to mention but two examples. The industry is surely worthy of all the assistance that the Government can give, both by way of military orders so that our Army, along with most of its equipment, can become really mobile, and by direct assistance in civil research and development. Thus, we can help to ensure that we maintain our lead in engineering standards, protect our export trade and secure and improve the standard of living of our people in the difficult competitive days ahead.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. Austen Albu: The constituents of the hon. Member for Belfast. East (Mr. McMaster) will be very satisfied that they have in the House an excellent salesman for their products. I could agree with much of what the hon. Member said, but I could not quite agree with him about the reliability of Britannia aircraft. What the hon. Member said at the beginning and end of his
670
speech about the contribution which the aircraft industry has made to the advance of engineering science is of great importance. It is perfectly true and it must be weighed in the balance when we consider the industry. It is extremely difficult to measure, but it is something of the greatest importance, and if there were no aircraft industry something else would have to be invented to take its place.
I intend to speak only, and not for a long time, of the development of civil aircraft. The development and production of civil aircraft are now having to stand on their own feet. That is to say, in future they will be less and less able to depend upon the research and development of military aircraft and types for defence. There are one or two exceptions, to which the Minister of Supply drew attention, but, on the whole, civil developments in future must stand on their own feet, and by that I do not mean only that they will not be supported by Government finance, but that they will have to develop along paths separate from those of military aircraft.
When we talk about the development of the civil aircraft industry, there is a great deal of double-thinking. We are subject to a barrage of propaganda, to large half-page prestige advertisements, and to perhaps one of the strongest lobbies in the country. It is not surprising that the British people are proud of developments in the aircraft industry as of all our engineering and industrial products. There are many developments of which we can be proud, but we are too much inclined to think of the industry in terms of the prestige and glory which it brings to its engineers and manufacturers when we should be thinking about it in terms of hard cash.
Let us look at the industry not from the point of view of prestige, but entirely from the point of view of what return it brings to our economy. There has been only one successful British airliner since the war, and by "successful" I mean an airliner which operates not only from this country but in foreign markets. Only the Viscount family of British civil aircraft has in service over 100 aircraft. There are well over 300 of the Viscounts 700 and 800. Compared with this one aircraft, of which there are over 100 in service, there are in the United States 10 aircraft, of which

671
there are over 100 in service. There are very nearly 4,000 American transport aircraft in service in the world, and there are 600 on order. There are 560 British airliners in service, and 163 on order, mostly to British airlines. These figures are taken from an extremely interesting paper given by Lord Douglas of Kirtleside to the conference held by the Institution of Production Engineers, in April.
It is interesting to note that the 600 American transport aircraft still on order are of five basic types, whereas the 163 British aircraft on order are of six basic types. We begin to see from this one of the reasons why the cost of development and production of British aircraft is so much greater than that of American aircraft. We have been told that there are approximately 40 Vanguards on order at present. The Minister of Supply, in his extremely interesting and factual speech drew attention to these facts, but I do not think that we have really faced them. The American industry has the advantage not only of the orders from the American Air Force, of which we are all so well aware, but of very large orders from its own internal civil airlines.
This came out very clearly in evidence which was placed before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which examined the air Corporations. In Appendix 10 of the Committee's Report we print a memorandum from the Ministry of Supply on "Governmental Assistance to Civil Aircraft Industries", which gives astonishing figures of the numbers of aircraft ordered off the drawing board in the United States.
The memorandum states:
"Airlines are reluctant to order aircraft that have not been ordered in the countries of their origin either by domestic airlines or by the Government. In the case of all the aircraft referred to above, the initial orders came either from the Services or a domestic airline, and orders from these sources facilitated the establishment of a major foothold in world markets."
As we know, with very few exceptions, no one buys an aircraft which has not flown in its own country first. The airline orders for the Boeing 707 total to date 180.
Figures have been quoted in the debate relating to what our industry has achieved
672
since the war. The Minister of Supply said that over 80 per cent. of our exports since the war have been of military types. I have seen a slightly lower figure quoted, but at any rate it is somewhere around that mark. Therefore, in the last ten years, when our total aircraft exports have totalled £653 million, civil exports represented in that period about 5 per cent. of the industry's output. Of this, about one-half are engine exports. To this not only have the Government contributed £550 million to research and development, but a substantial additional support to the industry has come in the past from defence orders.
Much of what I have said has been said earlier in the debate in another form, and in his speech the Minister of Supply put the facts in an admirable if academic way. What is extraordinary to us on this side of the Committee is that with his knowledge, which, after all, has been in the possession of the Government presumably for many months, the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Committee, throws the facts on the Box as it were, and asks the Committee to decide his policy for him.
I can well understand that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to be able to "pass the buck" in two or three months' time to another Minister, but it is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman can come to the Committee, give a first-class and objective statement of the position and then say, "Although we know all the facts, we are incapable of making up our minds ".
The truth is that the Government have not got the political courage to grasp this nettle, for the reasons given in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East and because of the various constituency pressures put on the Government in this matter, apart altogether from the great pressure coming from the industry itself. I have no constituency interest in this matter and I am prepared to face the fact that we must make up cur minds about the industry and decide what we have to do.
It is clear that we cannot hope to compete in every part of the industry. We must carve out for ourselves, if possible, a niche in which we can become, and perhaps remain, preeminent. This is where a committee of inquiry could do useful work. That

673
niche might well be found in certain types of smaller aircraft, in medium-range aircraft and in certain types of engines. I am not in a position to say what types they might be, but I am certain that we must concentrate our research, development and manufacture on a limited number of types.
Then, as many other hon. Members have said, and as the Minister himself said, we must give up the attempt to do these things by ourselves in the more expensive sections. We must try to cooperate with other European countries. For instance, I am certain that it would be impossible for us to enter the supersonic jet aircraft race by ourselves. Figures of the cost of doing this are often thrown about and range between £100 million and £600 million. I will quote Mr. Peter Masefield, who gave £300 million as the cost of developing a supersonic jet aircraft.
The point the Committee must remember is that the orders for the aircraft, given the speed at which it will cross the Atlantic and the number of routes on which it is likely to fly, will probably be very small indeed. As we have already been told, no other country is likely to buy the aircraft until it has been flown here, so we shall have to start with 6 or 10 aircraft which will cost about £300 million, and it might then fail to sell abroad, as others have failed to sell. I am certain that it would be a waste of public money to attempt to do this by ourselves.
We must collaborate, therefore, with the continental manufacturers on this aircraft. We might then be able to produce the resources, and the orders which are equally important, to compete with the Americans, but, first, we must get agreement with the continental airlines to place orders on a sufficiently large scale to make such a project worth while, and we should have to get agreement on a division of labour: research, development and manufacture. It would be a complete waste, in view of our shortage of scientific and technical manpower, and in view of the backwardness of many of our industries, to put our resources into such a project in this country.
All this means a substantial contraction of the aircraft industry, which must be faced, and I understand that the
674
Minister is facing it. It must be done in an orderly and planned manner. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, the industry makes a great contribution to engineering research and development and particularly to the development of new materials, metals and processes and also to the development of skills, of which there are many in the industry.
Luckily, the skills of its engineers and workers can be converted to other industries requiring a fine degree of skill and professional knowledge. Many firms are already doing this, but in my opinion there are other ways in which we might use the resources at present available in the aircraft industry. What would happen in this country if, instead of spending £300 million on the supersonic jet aircraft, we divided that sum into 300 separate million pounds and devoted it to research in other industries? What would happen to the cotton textile machinery industry, now being superseded by the Swiss? What would happen to the machine tool and instrument industry? There are a number of such industries where we could usefully spread these scientific resources, and in that way we would not have all our eggs in one basket but a much broader spread of our industrial development for export.
If we continue to devote the main part of our scientific resources to one or two projects such as the supersonic jet aircraft and nuclear power stations or flying to the moon we shall end by having backward industries and nothing to sell. This problem must be faced, and I am convinced that nobody has yet had the guts, certainly not this Government, to face it. The Minister of Supply funked the issue completely when he came to the Box today, threw the facts on the table and said that the Committee should decide. I do not know what other hon. Members may think, but I have made up my mind on this mater, and I shall be interested to hear, when the Minister winds up the debate, that his right hon. Friend has now been able to make up his mind on what is his duty in this matter.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has said a great deal of sense in his speech. He has been able to speak with

675
freedom because he does not represent any aircraft interest. Although I represent a substantial interest, I hope to speak with equal freedom. I want to utter a word of protest about his rather hurried peroration, in which he said that the Swiss textile machinery manufacturers had superseded ours. That is not really true. What is true is that the Swiss have some very specialised developments, especially on control and other devices, which have certainly passed ours, but it would not be true to say that the generality of our textile machinery was hopelessly outdated.
Mr. Albu: Would it not be true to say that in textile machinery, as in machine tools, we export weight and they sell us sophistication?
Mr. Shepherd: That is not necessarily so, because we have some sophisticated machinery in the Lancashire textile industry. I would prefer to say that the Swiss, with their special experience, have gone off into perhaps the more sophisticated line of development, particularly on controls and machines of that kind. We have not seen fit to follow them, and there may be wisdom in our not doing so.
I suggest that I represent a substantial interest in my constituency since we have there the Avro factory which, as hon. Members will know, is a large one and has an honourable, and I hope I may say without any question, a not too expensive history. The aircraft which have come out of the Avro factory have done a magnificent job and have cost materially less than other aircraft coming out of other factories.
It is exceedingly difficult to make the sort of speech one wants to make about this industry. The difficulty is enhanced by some of the speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite this afternoon. I absolve the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) from that criticism, because his speech was sound in most respects and I hope that the industry will read with attention what he had to say. However, there were some hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who can hardly help sneering in every other sentence, who made very irrational and unreasonable criticisms of the industry.
676
I hope that hon. Members and the country at large will realise how tremendous are the problems facing the men who run an industry such as this. It is not really an industry at all. It is a wildly expensive form of industrial insanity. This is a condition forced upon those who engage in it. It is not a question of doing things in a rational and economic way. It is a question of having to face pressures of all kinds, national prestige and meeting the demand of the customers who also engage in a form of economic insanity and who buy aircraft more expensive than they can afford and in greater quantities than they can afford. Therefore, those of us who sometimes have to be critical of the industry should appreciate the tremendous problems which face people in it at the behest of Government decisions, international pressure, technological progress, or the extreme demand of their customers. In this country there is also the disadvantage of duality of voices which are raised when aircraft are ordered.
However difficult it may be, we should not avoid facing the facts. The facts are that the industry presents the nation with the biggest problem of any industry in the country. There has been much criticism by hon. Members opposite of the apparent inability of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to find the answers. People who believe that the answers can easily be found are those who do not understand the problems. I should not like to be pessimistic and say that this is an insoluble problem, because it is not, but I do not know a situation in British industry which is so difficult to solve as this is. Those who criticise my right hon. Friend ought to pause and think of the immense difficulties in the way of finding a solution before they indulge in this hurried and ill-considered criticism.
Industry has undergone a dramatic change. In a sense the same sort of dramatic change has taken place in the last fourteen years as that which took place in general industry in this country after First World War. After that war, America went ahead at an enormous rate because of the impetus of industrialisation during that war. It can be said that at the end of the Second World War we had the same sort of superiority over the Americans in aircraft production—certainly in quality and advanced design

677
—as we had in general industry over America in 1914.
What happened in general industry from 1914 onwards has unfortunately happened in the aircraft industry. Today there is no doubt about the predominant position of the United States, which has used its enormous resources and its immense drive to bolster up this industry to a pitch at which it is exceedingly difficult—I would not say impossible—for less favoured nations to hold a balance against them.
We now find ourselves in an extremely hazardous position, and while we are very properly saying that our exports have reached record figures, the industry is nevertheless facing a grim future. I urge the Committee not to attempt to minimise the difficulties which face the industry and which are very real. I think that it can be said without doubt that we have lost the lead which we had in 1945, with the exception that we have some advantage—although it is slight and possibly diminishing—with aircraft engines. That factor ought to be a lead to us in determining our future policy for the industry.
Many people will say that this failure, this change in the position with America now dominant, is due to the inability of private enterprise. That is often said by hon. Members opposite. I would not like to say that there has not been any failure of private enterprise. I say without hesitation that there has often been a failure to think and a failure to create and seize opportunities, but that is by no means the sole reason for the present somewhat distressing position.
There have been tremendous technical changes and some extraordinary bad luck, because the great change in defence policy was a shattering blow to an industry previously largely dependent on defence orders. It has certainly been largely due to the immense growth of the strength and volume of United States efforts.
Undoubtedly, during the Korean War in 1950 the industry was blown up to a size larger than was justified. What has to be faced, whether we like it or not, is that it has come down to a size which is certainly not larger than that which obtained at the beginning of the Korean War. Being cautious, I prefer to say that the industry will have to come down to
678
a size smaller than that which obtained in the pre-Korean era, because since that time there has been a marked decline in the use of military aircraft in warfare. I expect that there will be a much lower level of activity than there was in the pre-Korean period. It may well be that at least 50 per cent. of present floor space and at least 50 per cent. of present manpower will have to leave the industry.
Many people have said that the British industry is at a great disadvantage because of the predominance of the American industry. That is quite true. Perhaps people in this country do not realise how much the Americans are dependent on military orders, which is a tremendous disadvantage to our own constructors. In this country there is about 25 per cent. dependence on military orders and 75 per cent. dependence on civil orders. In the United States of America, despite the many transports which were detailed by the hon. Member for Edmonton, American producers depend for about 75 per cent. of their business on military orders and for 25 per cent. on civil orders. Our industry here has to face a very difficult situation.
Some hon. Members have said that the Government have not done enough to help the industry. That is a constant complaint of hon. Members opposite. As one representing a constituency concerned with aircraft manufacture, I do not share that view. Indeed, I believe that the Governments' mistake has been to assist the industry too much and too long. If the White Paper indicating the change had come in 1954 instead of 1957, the position of the industry today would have been very much more satisfactory than it is. The truth is that if there is private enterprise, it must, as far as possible, be compelled to stand on its own feet.
If private enterprise is heavily subsidised by the Government it exhibits nearly all the objectionable features of State enterprise and there is the additional disadvantage that one has less control over it. I do not, therefore, make the case against the Government that they have given this industry too little support. On the whole, they have given it too much support. They supported the industry for too long and told it to get on its feet at what was perhaps the worst possible time. If the public knew some of the amounts of money that had

679
been given to aircraft companies for abortive developments they would be horrified. I hope that we shall not hear too much from hon. Members on both sides about the inadequacy of what the Government have done.
Some hon. Members say that the Government ought to do more and one is faced with the question of the way in which they should do more. Should the Government give more money in general to the industry, or should they give more money specifically? These questions must be answered. If I were asked whether the Government should give more money generally, I would have no hesitation in answering. The industry must be reduced to approximately half its present size. Any form of general increased assistance would slow down that process. The reduction must be achieved with the greatest possible rapidity consistent with reasonable social conditions in the interests of the industry itself. Any dramatic increase in the general support available to the industry would be against its better interests.
If we consider specific increases in the industry we face a question which is not so easily answered. There may well be a case for more specialised assistance to some firms and the withdrawal of projects from others. It may well be that in this field the Government could show a little more realism and drive. Of course, it would be asking a lot of a Government a month or two before an election to make discriminating moves of this kind, but it is a field in which there might be some Government action.
Mr. Diamond: Does the hon. Gentleman mean a month, two months or three months?
Mr. Shepherd: A month, two months or three months. That will keep the hon Gentleman guessing.
When hon. Members opposite say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply ought to do more, I wonder whether they have considered how difficult his problem is. If one considers the military side, one has a reasonably straightforward situation. Our main concern must be with civil aviation because military aviation is bound to die out as
680
time passes and we hope that civil aviation will increase. It is no good hon. Gentlemen saying that the Minister ought to do this, that or the other, because in civil aviation today we face a despairing situation.
There is not one single product in progress today on the civil aviation side which has any reasonable prospect of selling abroad in sufficient quantities to get its makers out of a loss.
Lord Balniel: The DH121.
Mr. Shepherd: I hope my hon. Friend is right, but one must remember that this aircraft will not be in service until 1964 at the earliest. The Caravel is already in service and the Super-Caravel, which will be similar to the DH121, will be in service before 1964. The Convair 880 will be in service shortly, and the DC9 is likely to be in service before the DH121. I hope that De Havilland's will be able to sell the DH121 in substantial quantities overseas, but if I were taking a commercial view of this I should look round at these competitive products and say, "By jove we have got something to meet here". One can have the best aircraft, but if it comes out two years behind similar aircraft it will not be possible to sell it.
During the last few years the British aircraft industry has been guilty of producing aircraft too late. We are coming into almost every field one, two, three, four or even five years behind our competitors in America. What is worse, in some cases we are behind our competitors in Europe. The most disheartening aspect in the aircraft industry during the last two years has been the phenomenal industry, ingenuity and drive of the French industry, and the relative slipping back of the British industry.
Why is it that the French are bringing out the Caravel five years before we can bring out something similar when they are using 50 per cent. British parts?
Mr. Diamond: Is not the French industry nationalised? Might that not provide the answer?
Mr. Shepherd: I do not think it does. Part of the industry is nationalised, and part of it is not. Some nationalised parts of the industry have produced good planes, and some good planes have been produced by the non-nationalised side.

681
One therefore does not want to draw too much on the argument of nationalised versus private enterprise. It is exceedingly unfortunate that we are producing aircraft that are years behind in their arrival dates of our competitors both in the States and Europe.
As one who likes to defend the British aircraft industry, I do not know of any reason why the Caravel should be produced by the French largely with British parts five years before we could do it, or why the Fokker Friendship should have been produced years in advance of the Argosy, again with 62 per cent. of British parts. The only answer is that if one feeds people with Government money and they can have an easy time they will not be on their toes commercially seeking the opportunities to advance. I am convinced that had we put the industry on its own feet two or three years before we did we should not today see the industry so far behind many of its foreign competitors.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply faces an extremely difficult situation. It is no good pouring public money into propositions which, by all reasonable commercial calculations, will not sell overseas. The issue that the Committee has to face is not that of some dole to the industry but how we can devote our national resources to making the aircraft industry what it was sight or ten years ago, a world leader.
The first thing that has to be done is to reduce the size. A lot of aircraft manufacturers are hanging on in the hope that they are going to get more Government support which will enable them to carry on at their existing levels
Mr. Christopher Boyd: They are hoping for a Labour Government.
Mr. Shepherd: That may well be—I know that the Labour Government are champion dolers-out of public funds.
Many aircraft manufacturers are hanging on to their human and material assets. The hon. Member for Edmonton said that the aircraft industry is commanding scientific and technological resources which might well be used to advantage in other directions. I hope that the industry will try to effect the
682
quickest concentration, so that it is best fitted to meet the task before it and is not guilty of wasting any of our very scarce national resources.
Secondly, we must concentrate upon engine production. We have been almost as successful in producing engines as we have been unsuccessful in producing air frames. We still have a slight lead in engine manufacture. Some British firms have been foolish enough to produce both engines and air frames. This form of insanity should not have been allowed to go on as long as it has, because the great American industry realised many years ago that if a company wanted to be ahead it could not produce both engines and air frames. Therefore, I hope that those firms which are producing both engines and air frames will decide which to give up. They will have to do that if they want to stay in business. I should like to see a specialisation in engine manufacture, where we have an advantage.
Thirdly, we must cut down the number of projects. I understand that in the world today there are over 500 civil aircraft projects on the drawing board or in various stages of production, but it is questionable whether more than six will make a profit for their producers. Because of the excessively large number of makers, this country has a proportionately large number of types in hand. We must cut down that number. If we had cut down on the number of types years ago we should not have spread as thinly as we did our scientific and technical resources, and we should not now have been so behind on delivery dates and production.
My next positive suggestion has already been actively canvassed in this Committee. One of the saddest things today is our position in relation to that of the European aircraft industry, when one realises what we might have been able to do four or five years ago. I know that we can blame the Government for some things. There is no doubt that in the provision of supplies for N.A.T.O. we have not proceeded as actively as we should have done. We have stepped outside rather too daintily. But we cannot exclude aircraft manufacturers from criticism. Four or five years ago they took the view that they did not need any European assistance, and

683
that to link up with European manufacturers was somewhat undignified, because we were in the lead of the Europeans. Now the situation is almost reversed. It is urgently necessary for us to associate ourselves with our European friends in the industry as quickly as possible.
As the right hon. Member for Belper said, already one American engine is being produced under licence in Germany, and one can readily see a situation developing in which Germany will produce engines, under American licence, for the use of European aircraft produced by France and Holland, and in service for N.A.T.O. requirements. Urgent steps must be taken to ally ourselves as rapidly as possible with European firms in order to work progressively together. I would pay a tribute to one manufacturer who is already doing so, namely, De Havilland. This firm is developing an engine produced by the General Electric Company of America which will eventually be sold to France. We hope that De Havilland's may also produce the aircraft in this country, if it is successful. That is the pattern that we want to see, and I hope that the industry will pursue it very actively.
In addition, we must invest in the future, and it is in that connection that we have a most critical decision to take. How are the Government to spend money in order to give our industry its rightful position? The intention of the Government must be directed to the point at which they can put our industry back into the lead in six, seven, eight or nine years' time. Many ideas have been canvassed. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that we have only to say that an aircraft is a vertical take-off aircraft, and to pour a great deal of money into it, for everything to be all right, and that we should also put a lot of money into helicopters. I know of nothing which has had so much money put into it as the helicopter, but there is not yet a commercial one in existence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist these blandishments. It may be a long time before there is any substantial market for the vertical take-off aircraft, and I suspect that it will be a very long time before there is a commercial market for the helicopter.
684
We must carefully consider the question of supersonic transport. I doubt whether we can afford to spend £300 million or £400 million upon the development of a supersonic transport aircraft. I doubt whether we could do it with any degree of commercial success. The Americans have said that, given the money, they could have a supersonic aircraft flying within thirty months. That may be a slight exaggeration, but that is what they say. We have no hope of doing that, and it is no good our bringing out a supersonic transport aircraft four or five years after the Americans have successfully launched theirs on world markets. We should try to get some kind of liaison with the Americans. Perhaps we can adopt their techniques. I understand that the Americans have developed a technique, which we have not got, for brazing steel for a supersonic aircraft. We may be able to produce the aircraft, and the engines for it, under licence.
It is a great misfortune that the development of the British supersonic engine—the Gyron—has been dropped by its makers, because it is a project which would be worth our while to carry on. I hope that the Government will provide money for some kind of supersonic engine to go into an airframe which we may produce under licence from the Americans.
Next, we should alter the pattern in the industry, under which the Corporations dictate the order policy. At the moment, the requirement of any British civil manufacturer is virtually dictated by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It is not necessarily the case that aircraft which B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. desire to have will sell in the world market. If we do not sell our aircraft in the world market, we had better not produce them, because no manufacturer can produce an aircraft purely to meet the British demand without incurring an enormous loss on the project. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will bring pressure on the Corporations and alter this pattern.
The British aircraft industry should drop this nonsense about always using British components. If the people who produced the Britannia had gone to the United States or elsewhere to buy components, instead of relying on people in this country to produce them

685
especially for that job, there would not have been the trouble which there was at the beginning of the life of the Britannia. It is unreasonable to expect British manufacturers to make a few specialised components for one project when there is no future need for them. Yet the stupid nonsense continues of insisting that everything put into every aircraft shall be British. We ought to use the best components that we can obtain, irrespective of where they come from. The world desires an aircraft which is absolutely reliable, but that will not be achieved by producing an aircraft packed with new components which are virtually untried.
If we are to succeed we ought to be able to produce more economically than is the case at present. Our wages are about 7s. an hour compared with 20s. in America, and it is absurd that our costs are as much and in some cases more than in America. It is true to say that the Americans have a better system of production, but aircraft manufacture still remains a one-operation job; they cannot be mass-produced although it may be that things are fabricated more effectively in America than in this country. But there is no reason why the immense disparity in production costs should not be reflected in the cost of the product. I cannot understand why British aircraft manufacturers, with roughly the same sort of production methods and one-third of the labour costs, cannot sell their aircraft more cheaply than the American product. I think that we have a long way to go in the matter of reducing costs.
I am sorry that I have spoken so long. It is the first time that I have taken part in a debate of this kind. I hope I have not given the impression that I am too disheartened about the prospects of the British aircraft industry, but I feel it unwise to give ourselves the glory that the Daily Express sheds on the industry from time to time. According to the Daily Express, when we produced the hovercraft the problems of the industry were solved, but I do not think that there is any future for us unless we face reality. In doing so we may reflect that in this country we have people who are as good at this business as one may find anywhere in the world.
Our manufacturers, technicians and workers are as good as any in the world.
686
If we do not try to do the impossible, and if we concentrate on the things we can do, I am convinced that Britain will be making and selling the aircraft that must be flying in increasing quantities along the civil airlines of the world.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Boyd: We have listened to a fascinating speech from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), who has no need to apologise for speaking at such length. Obviously, he had prepared his speech with care to keep in line with his party shibboleth, but as he warmed to his theme his personal knowledge of the subject took possession of him and he began to flay the aircraft manufacturers—first in the interests of the Government; and later throwing caution to the winds and weighing into the Ministers as well. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee enjoyed listening to him. His strictures on the Daily Express were well deserved. I cannot comment on all the other interesting things which the hon. Gentleman said, because were I to do so my speech would be excessively long.
The hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise that this industry is faced with some peculiar difficulties of organisation. We still have too many types of aircraft. Only once since the war have we broken even on the manufacture of an aircraft. Whether it be the Government or the industry, someone should have been cutting down on the number of types. But, whatever happens about the future of the industry, the airlines of the world are bound at a particular time to go in for one type of aircraft. All the aircraft designers are scrambling to produce the design which will provide what people want. Once someone has dared to decide on the winning design for a particular generation that is likely to be followed quickly by every airline in order to avoid being left behind.
It would seem that the aircraft industry has to face a world in which at any one time very few types of aircraft, perhaps only one airliner, will be in demand in large numbers by all the airlines, which are expanding rapidly all over the world. Therefore, a great many aeroplanes of that type will be needed at one time. That problem can be solved only when we have the same aircraft

687
being produced by every manufacturer. The only way to provide some sort of continuity of employment, some sort of order in the industry, would appear to be by separating the designing from the manufacture of aircraft.
I think we require a lively spirit of emulation among rival teams of designers, although at the same time it would be desirable that the knowledge, the discoveries and the advances made by one group of designers should be available to assist others. To combine those two needs appears very difficult in a situation where we have a collection of private firms competing with each other, because necessarily they try to keep their secrets from each other. In my opinion, only the State can provide a framework in which there can exist competition between groups of designers, and facilities for making all the available knowledge known to everyone, and so assist their efforts to produce the best design. Only in that way can this country hope to make the fullest use of its resources, brains and knowledge in its efforts to get a design sufficiently in advance of that produced in America to have a chance of getting the orders from the airlines of the world.
It has been rightly emphasised that we have to be well ahead in order to get these orders. It is quite understandable, and the Minister said so himself, that Continental airlines and Defence Departments, too, tend to take the American rather than the British design, if there is not too much difference and there is not too much certainty that the British product is superior. They have American finance, and always, from the security point of view, they want to increase the American interest in the safety of their countries. We have to be as far in front as we possibly can in order to have a chance. The hon. Member for Cheadle was saying we should not be afraid to buy components from other countries and get the cheapest and quickest, and I think this is very relevant.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the difficulties which have been increased by the creation of the Common Market and the failure of Britain so far to get into any trading arrangement with the Continental countries and this is a very serious threat to the whole future of our aircraft industry.
688
I hope it is agreed, although not all of my hon. Friends seem to agree about this, that it is worth while making the effort to ensure the continuance of an aircraft industry in this country, not only from the point of view of the aircraft industry itself and those employed in it, but also from that of the benefit that accrues to many other industries from the technical advances achieved by a competitive aircraft industry and the benefit to industry in general.
The Minister says that we must get into the European market. To my mind, we shall soon come to the stage when we shall have to work out arrangements by which we can come to terms with the American market. Unless we are prepared to remove the prejudices on both sides and have this sort of interchange between Europe and America, such as providing British engines for American airframes and our buying components for our aircraft from America, it may be difficult, except on those lines, to achieve a future for a substantial aircraft industry here. I must say that the effort should be made, and that it will be worth while making a big effort, though the outcome cannot be certain in such an uncertain field.
It seems to me that a good many hon. Members have been unduly pessimistic about the rate of expansion of civil aviation. One hon. Member mentioned some statistics and drew an unnecessarily gloomy conclusion from the slowing up last year of the rate of expansion. Even so, he mentioned that there still was expansion of about 4½ per cent., I think he said, in the total amount of civil flying or freight flying last year.
Mr. McMaster: The slowing up of the rate of expansion was solely in the expansion of passenger flying. What I was trying to stress was that the expansion of freight flying had a great future and was very much higher than that in flying passengers last year.
Mr. Boyd: I am much obliged. What I was trying to suggest was that even during last year, a year of world recession, with a drop in production of about 12 per cent. in America—and conditions there dominated the rest of the world-even in that year, civil aviation continued to expand to some extent, and, in fact, in earlier years, the rate of

689
expansion was fairly considerable. The hon. Member mentioned a figure of over 15 per cent. When I was looking at the figures, it appeared that in any four-year period since the war the amount of travelling from and to this country, or the total amount of passenger travelling round the world, was about double in each of those four-year periods. I think that 15 per cent. per year works out at compound interest to about the same thing, so that our figures approximately tally.
With that great expansion, it must mean a considerable increase each year, and there was quite clear evidence, quite apart from that recession, that it had not come to an end. The figures which the hon. Member gave even for the latest year indicate a tremendous further expansion in world civil aviation, anyway. Although it is true that larger aircraft are being made, not all the designs increase in size as they proceed, and certainly there has been a reduction in the size of one type. It may be that a smaller number of aircraft of higher speed will take up a larger proportion of the available traffic. But with that enormous expansion of air traffic there must inevitably be in the course of time a continuing expansion of the aircraft industry.
The question for us is whether in ten years' time we can still get a reasonable share of world production of aircraft, or whether, in the meantime, we shall have allowed our aircraft industry to break up and disappear, so that it is no longer able to compete for the expanded traffic of ten years' time. By that time we should have reached the stage of having expanded enough to offset fully the falling away of military aircraft production—that is, more than two doublings, in that period—if anything like the previous rate of expansion is to take place.
Some hon. Members have doubted whether the expansion in the aircraft industry will continue. Let us consider that for a moment. Aviation is the most recent method of travel. Let me compare it with its predecessor, the motor car. The motor car industry is still rapidly expanding, and so is the number of motor cars on the road. Only in America is motor transport anywhere near to saturation point. Throughout the rest of the world, if the standard of living continues
690
to increase, we must expect for some considerable time an expansion of motoring and of the motor car industry, because motoring has by no means reached saturation point in the world as a whole. How much less likely then is it that the next phase of transport, aviation, is anywhere near the end of its expansion?
If it is true that it is reasonable to suppose that civil aviation has this large and dramatic expansion in front of it, what we are considering at the moment is not the permanent decline of the aircraft industry—unless we allow that this country should go out of production of aircraft in favour of countries like the United States, Germany and France—but how to get over a temporary period of decline in military aviation until civil aviation will have expanded sufficiently fully to take its place. Therefore, there is an exceptional case for asking the Government to do something artificially to accelerate the expansion of civil aviation during this period of recession to minimise the depth of the trough into which the aircraft industry has to fall, and to develop it rapidly so that it will be in a strong position in ten years' time. We may lose a lot of the most ambitious people, experts, technicians and skilled craftsmen, from the industry to other industries in this interval, and it might not be possible for them to be won back later on.
I have been in correspondence with the Government on this matter. There is a special case for trying to stimulate expansion of civil aviation. I put the matter to the Government like this: The air Corporations have their particular points of view. They do not necessarily want to order an aircraft suitable for other airlines; it is not their interest. It is much more the interest of the Government, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply. We cannot just leave it to the interplay of the manufacturers, the air Corporations and the Air Force all acting separately, and the Board of Trade also acting separately. Someone has to give a lead somewhere and try to concentrate orders on a particular aircraft which can serve a variety of needs both of this country's airlines and R.A.F. transport and also to be a strong bidder for selling abroad.
It seems that the Government have failed to do this, judging by the figures

691
which have been given. We have had four different aircraft in recent years and they have only added up to enough orders for making one worth while. Instead of a couple of dozen Britannics in Northern Ireland, if Britannias had been ordered they could have been run off much more quickly. Then we could have got an aircraft which was more up to date and helped to make one particular aircraft fully in the clear as a commercial proposition. That is an example.
It is necessary for the Government to take some initiative. It may be difficult for politicians and changes of Ministers, all subject to constituency pressures and so forth. Maybe what is needed is that the permanent civil servants at the head of the Ministry of Supply, or whatever Ministry is considered suitable, should be tough enough to keep their Ministers in order and to see that pressures which play on the Ministers are subordinated. One cannot help suspecting that little dollops are given out here and there because that is easier politically. I may be wrong, but the Committee should be on guard against that danger. We do not want democracy to be inefficient and earn discredit for itself as it has done in some other countries.
Even if all our efforts reach more success than we anticipate, I suppose we all accept that some decline in the aircraft industry in the next year or two is inevitable, but I hope the Minister will assure us that the Government are not holding back a large dollop of redundancy until after polling day. I hope they will try to ensure that it is gradual and as little as possible. At this time in any industry which is having to contract there is a specially strong case for instituting a 40-hour week so as to share the work which is available. It would be well worth instituting that in the aircraft industry at present.
That is all I have to say, and it boils down mostly to the need for more leadership from the Government. I should think we can only get maximum results out of an industry of this kind by coordination on a national scale, if not on an international scale, of a kind which can only come from public ownership.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Balniel: I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Bristol, Northwest (Mr. Boyd) who, if he does not think me presumptuous, I should say made a very sensible speech which should commend itself to the whole Committee. In particular, I should like to refer to one point he made if I have time during my speech. That is the point about concentration of orders rather than the dissipation of orders—which I think was the word used by the hon. Member—that we have seen in the past. When speaking about the concentration of orders on one instead of two or three types, the hon. Member was touching a key problem in the industry.
I shall come to that matter later, but perhaps, first, the Committee will allow me to refer to what I admit is a purely constituency point of view. My right hon. Friend is well aware of and very sympathetic with the difficulties which we are having in my constituency in maintaining employment in the de Havilland aircraft works. In normal circumstances, I should make the difficulty of maintaining employment the main part of my speech, but I cannot help feeling, after the very important speech, indeed, the crucial speech, made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, that it will probably be more in the interests of my constituents if refer to the general factors affecting the future of the aircraft industry. Before coming to those matters, however, I shall ask one or two questions about the de Havilland Aircraft Company.
My first question concerns a matter which has been raised a number of times this afternoon. Is there any possibility of the order which B.O.A.C. has placed for the Boeing 707, or some part of it, being shifted in favour of the Comet? I realise quite well that the Comet was not designed as a trans-Atlantic aircraft. I realise that, on the westward trip, the Comet has to make a stop before arriving at New York. I realise, also, that, for the trans-Atlantic trip, the Comet has had to be specially fitted with pods for holding fuel.
Nevertheless, the Comet is proving to be an extremely successful money-spinner for B.O.A.C. I think that the load factor is 92 per cent., which certainly is not

693
the load factor of the Boeing 707. Is there any possibility at all of some of the Boeing 707 order being transferred to the Comet? It is an extremely difficult question at this very late stage, but I should very much like to hear from my right hon. Friend about it.
The order for the DH121 is a very limited one. I think that it amounts to only 24 aircraft. From the company's point of view, it cannot possibly be an economic proposition. Is there, within the knowledge of my right hon. Friend, any possibility of orders coming? If there were further orders for the DH121, the employees in the company, who are, of course, extremely concerned about their future employment prospects, would be reassured.
In my view, we face a very simple question in the aircraft industry in general. Do we, as a nation, regard a strong and healthy aircraft industry as an absolutely essential part of our economic life? I was a little disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West say that some of his right hon. Friends did not regard the aircraft industry as an essential component of the economic life of the country.
Mr. Boyd: I did not mention any of ray right hon. Friends. I hope very much that my right hon. Friends have more sense than one or two of my hon. Friends whom I had in mind.
Lord Balniel: HANSARD will prove it. Perhaps I have exposed one more split between the back benches of the Opposition and the Front Bench.
Assuming that we in this Committee do regard the preservation of the aircraft industry as essential to this country, the second part of the question which we must put to ourselves is: are we satisfied with the existing structure of the industry, whereby the entire cost of all basic research is borne by the Government, if the entire finance of producing, developing and proving an aircraft is borne by private industry?
I do not wish to discuss the strategic implications of the aircraft industry except to comment on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). He cast doubt on the advisability of proceeding with designs and plans for a supersonic airliner on the ground that it was unlikely to be a commercial
694
success. This is very understandable when one bears in mind that the total cost of developing a supersonic airliner must be between £400 million and £600 million. I think that those figures are right. Therefore, of course, the possibility of supersonic airliners travelling at 2,000 miles an hour is, from a commercial point of view, extremely doubtful. I do not, however, consider that we ought to regard it from a commercial point of view alone.
In the past, we have always regarded military orders as the basis on which civil orders can be developed. Just as the Boeing 707 is a direct child of the Boeing tanker, ordered in massive quantities by the United States Air Force, the Boeing tanker itself is a direct child of the Boeing 52 bomber. Therefore, whereas, in the past, we have always regarded civil aircraft as the children of military aircraft, when we move into the field of supersonic aircraft we in this country might well regard military aircraft as the children of civil aircraft. I do not think that we should take a decision only on whether to go into the supersonic field for purely commercial reasons. We should consider the implications that it would have on the development of a supersonic bomber in this country.
The aircraft industry is, in my eyes at least, fundamentally important from the point of view that it gives a great impulse which is transmitted into almost every sphere of major engineering. The aircraft industry is a kind of pinnacle. It is a direct force for the research and development of many of the greatest industries in the country. It certainly has a direct impact on radio, metallurgy, electronic control, precision engineering, and on the production of power units. All this arises from the fact that the aircraft industry is working at the very frontiers of technology, and its impact on the technological standards in the country as a whole is a very direct and important one.
In a Committee like this, which has considerable knowledge about aircraft, it is perhaps rather trite to talk about the tremendous rate of technological advance in this industry, but if we do not take the rate of technological advance into account we will fail completely to understand one of the main

695
factors in the aircraft industry. Perhaps I might give an example. I believe that I am right in saying that the American Lockheed Company, if given the orders, is prepared to place in commercial operation by 1965—only six years hence—a supersonic airliner which will travel at 2,000 miles an hour. I should have thought that for the leadership which the aircraft industry gives in technology and its impact on industries throughout the entire industrial life of this country, it is incumbent on the Government to see that they do not falter and fail.
I suppose that many people in the country are not really concerned about and do not realise the implications and strategic importance of national prestige and the importance of maintaining this leadership in technology, but, merely from the financial point of view and because the aircraft industry brings into this country export orders worth £150 million a year, I should have thought that the Government were bound to do what they possibly could to assist it.
The prospects before the aircraft industry are not very happy at the moment. Military orders have dwindled. The whole aircraft industry has been stripped of what was almost a cocoon of military orders which supported it when hon. Members opposite were in office. My right hon. Friend said that he expects that employment in the industry will be run down from about 245,000 persons to 150,000.
The difficulties lying before the aircraft industry fall into two categories. First, there is the difficulty of financing expenditure at the pre-production stage of development of an aircraft. Secondly, there is the continuing and ever-present difficulty of a home market which is quite inadequate to support an aircraft industry of any size. I should like to comment only on the first of these two problems.
As hon. Members know, the costs of pre-production in the aircraft industry are simply immense. The pre-production cost of an aero engine in use in a modern jet airliner is in the region of £15 to £20 million. The pre-production cost of an air frame for a modern jet airliner is another £15 million. This total cost of about £30 million has to be spread over a period of five years,
696
during any moment of which a competitor might jump in with a rival aircraft and so nullify the entire expenditure and all the work which has been done.
In this country, the entire finance of the pre-production phase and the entire risk have to be borne by the private investor. In no other major aircraft-producing country is this the case. In Russia, which is rapidly becoming a serious competitor of our aircraft, the costs are borne by the State from beginning to end. In France, where the aircraft industry is largely nationalised, again the finance and the risks are borne by the taxpayer. In the United States, where there is private industry, the whole industry is cushioned from harsh economic reality by the massive military orders, massive to such an extent that 90 per cent. of the entire production of the American aircraft industry is devoted to military orders.
In face of that kind of competition, if we are to continue to see a strong, healthy and vigorous aircraft industry, the Government must be prepared to underwrite the risks which are borne by the aircraft industry. There is nothing revolutionary in this. It is the situation which existed when the military orders were forthcoming in large quantities. I do not want to specify in any detail how this underwriting should be done, but perhaps the most suitable and the easiest way, which would leave freedom and flexibility and the many advantages of private industry, at the same time supporting and butressing what all would agree to be one of our most vital industries, is to follow exactly the procedure that was followed when we tried to develop, in the first instance, the Comet, and also the Viscount, whereby the Government, placing their money on an aircraft which they considered to have a great future, and which would be an asset to the nationalised air corporations, guaranteed to buy a certain number of the aircraft if they did not sell in the overseas market, but, in the event of the aircraft selling successfully, their manufacturers guaranteeing to recoup the Government by a levy on the profits that were made by the sales of aircraft overseas.
Mr. Diamond: Does the noble Lord mean that if a loss is sustained the whole of it is borne by the Government, and that if a profit is made the loan is repaid?

697
Or does he mean that if a profit is made, a continuing payment is made, so that the State gets a share of the benefit of the profit made by the manufacturer?
Lord Balniel: The latter explanation given by the hon. Member is the one I am trying to convey. It is exactly the system which operates with the Viscount. I believe I am right in saying that the profits which have been made on the Viscount are continually being paid back to recoup the Treasury for the money which it advanced.
About a year ago, my right hon. Friend was bringing great pressure to bear upon the aircraft companies to reorganise themselves. The orders that were needed for the new aircraft for the nationalised air corporations were being withheld until the aircraft companies had agreed to reorganise themselves and create stronger units of production with stronger financial resources. Out of that have grown many important aircraft companies; for example, Airco, the combination of Fairey, Hunting and de Havilland, the combination of Vickers-Armstrong and English Electric and the combination, which was announced only yesterday, between Saunders-Roe and Westland.
If, however, my right hon. Friend brings pressure to bear on the aircraft companies to concentrate themselves into more powerful units of production with greater financial resources, then I think that it is right that a quid pro quo should be demanded from the Government. Here, I should like to take exactly the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North-West. The quid pro quo is surely to concentrate the orders of the Government. At the moment, they are being dissipated between quite a number of companies, and I would urge that instead of, say, 20 DH121S, half a dozen VC 10s, and a few Short Britannics, my right hon. Friend should try to concentrate orders to one or two companies.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Frank Beswick: We come soon to the end of another debate on aircraft production and probably the last on the subject that we shall have in this Parliament. Whatever Ministers may say as to their plans, what power they will eventually have to put their plans into operation is, of course, something
698
which the people of the country will decide. No doubt, that thought has been behind speeches from both sides of the Committee and has had a moderating influence.
There has been some controversy today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out, particularly in some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, as between the beginning and the end of their speeches. That was specially notable in the speech that we had from the Minister of Supply. There has also been some common ground. Despite all the criticism that anyone can make of this industry, there is no doubt that in this Committee and outside there is a good deal of good will and good feeling towards the industry. That applies not only to the old people, but to the young people, as well, as anyone who has children will bear out.
The reasons for this special and peculiar importance of the aircraft industry have been stated before and I have no need to go over them again although I myself place special importance, as was mentioned by the hon Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) upon the contribution which this industry can make to general engineering advance.
I am not ashamed to use the term "national prestige" in this matter. It is becoming an almost old-fashioned phrase to use. The difficulty is to decide on what we are going to base our prestige, and I have made no secret of the fact that I should like more and more to place our national prestige and economic and social influence in the world upon our technical advances, especially in the field of aviation.
There is no disagreement about our objectives. We want a firmly-based British aircraft industry, serving the British operator, selling abroad, and pushing ahead all the time with economic and technical developments, tackling rather fewer tasks maybe, but what we tackle should be accomplished superbly well. If we agree about the end, it cannot be said that we agree about the means to that end.
I join with those who recognise the pleasant character of the speech which the Minister of Supply made today. I do not think that it can be said that it was

699
possible to discern from his speech a really clear, firm and coherent policy in aviation. At the beginning of last year, when the industry ran a particularly high temperature, there were urgent appeals made to the Government to help. Ministers were beseeched, lobbying was intense, and a policy was promised. I remember that there was delay. Expectations were raised, the tension increased and eventually we had the great statement about the future of the British aircraft industry. How pathetically inadequate that statement was has been shown by events since then, by the debate today and by what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
The Minister now says that no one is happy about the industry. The Prime Minister has expressed concern. The companies' chairmen are crying for help and up and down the country men are being put off. From Hatfield, Hawarden, Hurn, Weybridge, Coventry and up to Prestwick—all over the country, we hear the same cry about skilled men losing their jobs. It is not enough to say that many of them are finding work. What we really want to know is whether the nation is enjoying still the skills which they acquired.
Moreover, what we also want to know is whether this contraction which the Minister has said he has planned is leading to the greater efficiency of the industry. So far as we can judge, that is not proving the case. The old faults of the industry are still there. We still hear, and we have heard today, of the delays in placing orders. Every time the Minister mentions a new aircraft type he has to confess—"freely," as he said on Monday—that there are delays.
It is not my purpose tonight to run down our own side. I always remember what the late Lord Wavell said, that when things are going badly for oneself one should think how equally difficult they are for the enemy. Certainly, in this business of aircraft, there are troubles for our competitors as well. An hon. Member went out of his way today to run down the Comet IV as against the Boeing 707, but the fact is that the Boeing 707 is not really an intercontinental aircraft, either. It is not a trans-Atlantic aircraft and I gather that
700
its economics are not proving very well. It lost a wheel, an engine, and then there was the undignified spectacle of its undercarriage giving way. The DC8 is not even with us. I am informed that not only its price but its fuel consumption has gone up, and if and when it does come along it is not likely to be able to cross the Atlantic. So it is not only here in this country that we have these difficulties.
The Minister's great specific for releasing the potential skill of our industry has been, apparently, rationalisation. Last year, he told us that there were 14 major airframe firms and five major aero engine firms, and he suggested that they could be cut down to four air frame firms and two engine firms. Today, he has said that he is quite satisfied with the way this process of rationalisation is proceeding.
Mr. Aubrey Jones: No.
Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman told us he was satisfied. HANSARD will show.
Mr. Aubrey Jones: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I think that what I really said—I cannot recall my exact words—was that there was progress, but that much still remained to be done.
Mr. Beswick: It is, of course, quite true that the Minister qualified nearly everything he said, but the general impression he left was that rationalisation, the specific he has for the industry, is going reasonably well. The right hon. Gentleman instanced various ways in which he thought it was working out.
However, the fact is that, despite everything he has done, there are today two more major firms in this industry than there were to begin with, setting aside the possible consequences of the merger which we read about this week between Westlands and Saunders Roe. One of the new firms is Bristol-Siddeley, under the leadership, trained in public enterprise, of Sir Arnold Hall. It has bedded down well and we are glad to see it, but it is another unit. The other newcomer, Airco, is a consortium of companies, as the noble Lord the Member for Hertford said, and that, too, is in the field. But that is not rationalisation. It is duplication.

701
I must say that whatever solution we eventually find for the DH121 problem I cannot think that it will be solved more easily because there are three more firms to take into account--apart from the engine manufacturers.
Sir A. V. Harvey Sir A. V. Harvey rose—
Mr. Keswick: I ought not to give way, because I have not much time, but the hon. Gentleman may perhaps prefer to interrupt me when I refer to him. He said that he could not understand the present position of the DH121. I can understand his difficulty, although I think I also can guess at the reason for the Minister's lack of clarity.
Let us understand what has happened, and what has been said about it. It was only on Monday this week that the Minister told us:
"I have no responsibility for the D.H. 121, which is a matter between the operator and the manufacturer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, l959; Vol. 609, c. 3.]
At the beginning of his speech today he told us how he had compelled De Havilland's to find the finance themselves for this project, and he said that from that time when it agreed to find the finance he had no standing in the matter. But what now? What are we to gather from what he said at the end of his speech? Apparently, he has some standing, or intends to have some standing. If he has to find some money for this project, clearly there should be some accountability to him as to what kind of aircraft it will be.
But it is worth considering the implications of this, quite apart from the question of finance. The success or otherwise of this machine, the short or medium-range jetliner can help to make or break the British aircraft industry. There can be a mass market for this machine, as there was for the DC3 and its true successor, the Viscount. It is clearly in the national interest that there should be some part played by the Government in this venture. Equally clearly, the Government administration and the present relationship between the industry and the Government cannot be considered satisfactory in so far as it has led to these delays. It is now over eighteen months, and there is still confusion as to what really is the position.
702
I do not want the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, when he replies to the debate, to cloud the issue on this point with stories about the way in which the RB141 engine developed in power. We are very pleased with that technical achievement, but we should like to know about public responsibility in this matter. Is there to be public money for this venture? If there is, on what basis is it to be made available? Can the right hon. Gentleman really justify an arrangement which has led to this muddle of divided responsibility? What lessons have the Government learned for the future?
So much for the DH121. I should like to say a few words about the extraordinary case of the Handley Page Herald. We have to consider this question against the background of the Minister's declared satisfaction at the way in which rationalisation is going. Here we have the Handley Page Herald and the Avro 748, which are intended for precisely the same market, and the Minister has bought three of each. Either he has some reason for believing that the Avro 748, still on the drawing board, will be superior to the Herald, in which case he should not have bought the Herald, or else, if it is not superior, he has absolutely no excuse for spending money on the Avro 748.
The right bon. Gentleman may reply that India has promised orders for 130 of the Avro 748, but if there is this big order in the pocket already why should the public advance money to this firm? If Hawker Siddeley had conserved half the money which it has distributed to shareholders, it would not have to come to the Treasury for assistance. If the Transport Commission had been treated as generously betwen 1945 and 1955 as has Hawker Siddeley, it would not be in the position which it is in today.
There has been talk for years about the part which Transport Command could play in the development of civil transport aircraft. Hon. Members opposite have always regarded Transport Command as a very convenient instrument through which public money could be injected without criticism of its being a public subsidy. On our side, we have said that if Transport Command had been allowed to transport Service men and materials it could have provided a

703
good part of that home market which we all say is necessary.
It has been interesting to hear again today from both sides of the Committee that if there were full and proper cooperation between military and civil transport requirements as envisaged by the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee, we could have developed basic designs on which we could have eventually built our aircraft for the civil markets. I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, who mentioned the classic case of the development of the Boeing tanker into what we now know as the Boeing 707. The only time we came near to exploiting the possibilities of this civil-military partnership was with the V1,000, that was cancelled, left half-finished on the stocks, because there was not a single Minister in the Government who had enough knowledge of the aviation business and enough authority to persuade the Cabinet that we should have carried that project through. There is absolutely no excuse for pointing to what Sir Miles Thomas said or did in this business.
Sir A, V. Harvey: Would the hon. Gentleman suggest, then, that the Government should over-ride the advisers of B.O.A.C?
Mr. Beswick: What I am saying is that if there is a national requirement and a Minister with enough knowledge of the needs of the industry, he should have the guts to say, "This machine will go on. It will be developed because we believe it is one for which there will eventually be a market". It would have been built for Transport Command, it was a Government responsibility, and I am sure that the development of the Service transport aircraft would have sold in the civil market as well.
What is now the position of Transport Command? Service Ministers have boasted that it is equipped with modern aircraft, namely, the Britannias and the Comets. The Britannia order for the Royal Air Force is not yet delivered and, in any case, it is an obsolescent aircraft. The Comet II was never ordered for the Royal Air Force. The R.A.F. was compelled to take these machines as part of a salvage operation to prevent the firm concerned from running into serious
704
financial difficulties. That was the reason why Transport Command had to take on the responsibility for operating the Comet II.
I must say that since it has taken on the Comet II they have done a good job of work. Transport Command has gained a lot of experience from operating jet aircraft, but it is my information that for safety reasons the operating life of the Comet II is now being shortened and that in two or three years' time there will be no large jet transport aircraft in Transport Command. In other words, Transport Command is progressing backwards. Throughout the 1960s, under present planning, it will have no big jet transport to operate. I challenge the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to tell me whether that will be the case or not.
Then we have the affair of the order for the Britannic III. We were told today that the real reasons why the machine was ordered were, first, that it had a larger fuselage and, secondly, because of a certain telegram. The Minister of Defence, however, did not seek to justify the purchase in the first place by reference to any telegram, nor indeed did he refer to the size of the fuselage. As a matter of fact, my information is that the size of the fuselage was not a critical factor in the purchase.
What the Minister of Defence told us were the reasons were that the machine was much the same as the Britannia, and, therefore, would come along more quickly: that it would be cheaper to produce, and would sell in the world's markets. Now we gather that it is practically a different aircraft. The delivery dates are slipping back. The only similarity, indeed, between the Britannic III and the Britannia will be the wing tips and the air in the tyres, as far as I can make out.
Mr. McMaster: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me why, if the shape of the fuselage is not important, it is not important that a medium-sized tank can be carried in the centre of the Britannic which could not be carried in the centre of a jet aircraft adapted for the purpose?
Mr. Beswick: I am not proposing to go into details on this matter, but the particular item of equipment which can

705
be carried in the Brittanic III could be carried in two other jet aircraft which could have been built in Britain. Moreover the item of equipment concerned was not one for which there was a very frequent requirement. In all other respects a straight jet British aircraft could have performed the task necessary.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Will the hon. Gentleman say when I said all the things that he has attributed to me, and what I said?
Mr. Beswick: What the right hon. Gentleman said—and he will see it in HANSARD—when we questioned him on the reason for this order was that delivery would be quicker and that there was an expected order in the overseas markets and that because this aircraft was based on the Britannia it would be cheaper to produce.
Mr. Sandys: Does the hon. Gentleman know when I said all that?
Mr. G. Brown: We will look it up for the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Beswick: If the research facilities of the Minister of Defence are not adequate, I can give him the reference. If I have been misleading the Committee I shall withdraw, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that what I have said is correct.
If I am not correct, I invite the right hon. Gentleman now to say with which of those matters he does not now agree. Did he not agree with the delivery? Did he not agree with the price? Did he not agree that the aircraft would sell in overseas markets? If he does not agree with those three things, and if they were not behind the decision to order, the matter becomes even more confused. I do not see why we should quarrel about this, because I understand that all the quarrelling is going on in the Cabinet.
What really came into this matter was what might be called, and what is generally called, "politics ". I am not against "politics" coming into a purchase of this kind, if, by "politics", we mean that Government purchases should serve a wider economic and social purpose. If it was a question of finding employment in Northern Ireland, then that should have stood very high in the considerations which the Government
706
took into account. I am not contesting the necessity for giving the order to Northern Ireland. What I am saying is that this specification, which has not yet been decided and for which firm orders have not been placed, was not the best way of helping Northern Ireland in the long run. That is my view and it is shared by others.
Although the Minister of Supply appeared to say this with qualifications, I say without qualification that I agree that the rock-bottom question is that of finance. Where is the money to come from? This is primarily a question for civil aircraft, but since we agree that in future the industry will depend on civil aircraft we are here talking about the future of the entire industry.
A year ago, and in part of his speech today, the Minister of Supply was saying that the industry must become self-supporting. It is true that he said that for the time being the cost of research would be undertaken by the Government, but even that, he thought, would be progressively assumed by the industry itself. We are now told that there is to be some kind of ad hoc aid. There have been little bits of aid in recent months—£750,000 to this firm and £750,000 to another. The cost of proving flights is now to be charged to Government account, apparently, and now we have the possibility, the hint, of some ad hoc aid being given for the new engine for the DH121.
Mr. Aubrey Jones: This is a most important matter. I repeat that I have given no hint at all of the possibility of Government financial aid for the new engine for the DH121.
Mr. Beswick: If there is no question of Government aid, I do not see what the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was about, because he appeared to be leading up to the fact, and on the other side of the Committee fingers were shaken wisely in recognition of this evidence that the company was to be helped. I shall be very interested to learn in what other way help will be given other than by indirect or direct financial aid.
I was going on to say that I shall continue to criticise the provision of financial aid on an ad hoc basis. What

707
we want is a clear and discernible plan upon which financial aid is granted.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, it is surprising today how few people in this industry talk in the old terms. There may still be some who shake a righteous fist at all forms of public ownership, but they are usually men who have already got their other fist in the public purse. The fact is that when we look at the question of finance I do not see how we can leave out the State, and if we are to bring in the State then very much wider questions are opened up than have been put forward by the Minister in his speech today.
I was impressed by what the chairman of Vickers Armstrong had to say earlier this year. He said that unless aid was forthcoming
"this country is more than likely, and sooner than some people might expect, to find itself without a real aircraft industry at all."
I was impressed by that remark, because I should have thought that Vickers Armstrong had made more strenuous efforts than any other company in the country to make itself self-supporting.
Why is there this financial difficulty? I do not think that we should overestimate the importance of the contraction of the military demand. Certainly, that magnifies the problem, but that is not the basic trouble. We are seeing in this country what has happened and what will happen elsewhere. The tools of production have become too expensive for competitive private enterprise to buy. The sums involved and the risks entailed are too big for private industry to carry.
It is worth while looking at the figures again. Before the war a reciprocating aero engine cost a few thousands of pounds. The cost of a gas turbine engine today is between £15 million and £20 million. It is now not a matter of waiting for five years for a return on that expenditure. It is a matter of waiting from fifteen to twenty years for a return on these large capital sums. Before a single sheet of metal was shifted in the Weybridge workshops to build the Vanguard there was an expenditure of millions of pounds on jigs and tools. Vickers need 80 aircraft to go through the production line before it stands a
708
chance of breaking even. At present moment, it has had orders for only 40.
Making a £30 million take-over bid for an established business with tangible and physical assets is very different from expending the same sum of money on one article of production which may yield no return for at least ten and probably fifteen to twenty years, and which may, for no discreditable reason, not find a market at all. Those figures are big enough, but they are completely dwarfed when we come into the supersonic age. One hundred million pounds have been mentioned for one aircraft of the supersonic type, and other estimates have been for two or three times that sum. I am told that the Committee which advised the Ministry of Supply about this matter spent £750,000 simply in working out the sums. And the machine which is recommended, as the Minister told us today, is, in any case, out of date and too modest in its scope.
A lot has been said about the American effort. I am told that the Americans are thinking about and spending money on a machine which is intended initially, to fly at 15,000 to 20,000 miles an hour at 150,000 to 200,000 feet. The United States Secretary for Air informed the Appropriation Committee of Congress the other day that the allocation for this venture had been cut by 136 million dollars. What the total cost was, I could not say.
This is the industry that we are talking about. This is the industry about which we have to decide whether we shall stay in or not. If we are going to stay in, we must change the basis upon which the industry now rests. It just is not feasible to advance financial aid in bits and pieces, and on an ad hoc basis. I have no doubt that hundreds of men will consider this debate as partly academic. Some will probably think that another little Government order will ensure the payment of next week's salaries or wages. But many of the most thoughtful of the executives are getting completely "fed up" with this hand-to-mouth existence. They want to see the industry put upon a firm basis. We cannot approach the problems of the industry in the way in which the Minister of Supply approached them today. He is approaching a twentieth or a twenty-first century industry in the old nineteenth

709
century laissez, faire way, und for that reason I shall ask the Committee to divide tonight.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): We have had a very good, fair and factual debate, and I will try to respond to the mood of the Committee by looking at a slightly different aspect of the problem, which was covered by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). My right hon. Friend gave what the Committee accepted as an accurate and penetrating analysis of the production side, and I want to look for a moment at the civil sphere, apart from the marketing of military aircraft. Nobody has challenged the fact that this is a difficult transitional period for military aircraft. On the whole, the situation has been handled very well. It is to the civil sphere and the export market that this great industry must look very largely for its future. We would all agree about that, and we probably disagree, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge has said, only as to the means of achieving this.
Let us consider what the Government are doing and propose to do, about the problem. Hon. Members opposite have been very restrained in putting forward their solutions. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge, but I could not discern what their solution was. It has been said this afternoon that there is no convenient focus within the Government for the discussion of these matters. I would point out that, to begin with, there is the Transport Aircraft Requirement Committee, on which the Corporations, the Air Ministry, my Ministry and all other aircraft interests are represented. The Committee reports to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, and he, the Secretary of State and I are in constant consultation, pooling developments arising in our different spheres of interest. I do not accept the charge that we do not have proper co-ordination. Nor do I accept the right hon. Gentleman's idea that some sort of inquiry, which would fob off any decision for months, would advance the case of the aircraft industry.
The Government are doing four things. First, they are trying to give the industry
710
the broadest possible base, and some continuity—although the industry must contract—because that is very important. I shall return to that point in a moment. Secondly, I want to announce some plans to try to stimulate world air traffic. Thirdly, I want to say what we are doing to try to get the largest share of that traffic for Britain, and, fourthly, what we are doing to encourage sales.
First, as to the problem of giving the industry a fixed base and some continuity for the future, the Corporations have now rightly committed themselves to an expenditure of no less than £220 million in aircraft either in service or on order. That is a very formidable sum, but it does not provide enough, in many cases, to give a sufficiently large order to make a particular aircraft type profitable. Nonetheless, it has an important part to play, as I shall show in a moment. Also, the Corporations have the important job of trying to expand the market by expanding themselves. I will give two examples.
I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that B.O.A.C. will renew its services to the east coast of South America on 25th January next year. They plan to operate two Comet IV frequencies a week to Rio de Janeiro, Montevideo, Buenos Aires and Santiago. I think that this news will be welcomed in South America. I hope it will sell more Comets in South America where there are distinct possibilities, and it is a good example of the kind of co-operation which exists between the Corporations and the aircraft industry.
Secondly, I should like to mention the remarkable achievement of the independent airline in pioneering the exclusive tour business. Now B.E.A. have rightly got into that business, and good luck to that Corporation. But we should not forget that it was the independent companies who pioneered this quite new type of business. Nor should we forget that the independent companies have bought modern aircraft and are part of the home market. For the aircraft industry it is Government policy that the Corporations should buy British, except when that is absolutely impossible; that they should buy as many aircraft as possible and fly them in such a way as to provide the best shop window for the industry. I consider that hon. Members opposite are

711
greatly in error in constantly denigrating the independent airlines, because they too have a part to play.
Many hon. Members have spoken today about a supersonic project. My right hon. Friend announced the design study of a supersonic aircraft. Here we have great difficulties to face. I have recently been in America talking to my opposite numbers and there is no doubt that the Americans may well produce a civil aircraft capable of Mach 3, and that is quite a formidable proposition.
Therefore, I think I should make plain that while this study is going on, while the Americans and ourselves are brooding over this very difficult next step, some of the problems should be faced. At San Diego there has been a conference of I.C.A.O., and one of my deputy secretaries fed the British delegation to that conference. The Committee would like to know that the conference came to the view that we should take this step very slowly and consider the social problems associated with supersonic transport, especially noise, and all the other difficulties which arise; because we rushed into the subsonic jet era much too quickly and without proper consideration, as those who live round London Airport know only too well.
It is Government policy to press on with this study and to seek co-operation with other countries, because I think it right to say that this is something which we cannot do alone. But none the less we must make plain that what the world wants, what airlines want, is ten years in the subsonic jet era to recoup some of the vast amounts spent on aircraft which are only just going into service. Unless we have such a period, these great new jets, both British and American, and the French Caravelle, will lose vast sums of money for the airlines which use them. If we can have a ten year period in this era the face of the industry may be changed, because for once, a model may run through its probable life.
It may be that this will not happen. That is why I think it is the duty of the Government in I.C.A.O. and elsewhere, to point out the difficulties. While we must press on with development we should try to make the next step in a fairly orderly manner. We are also examining the prospects of vertical take-off,
712
which I think has very great civilian prospects, as well as military. But on that particular front, which I would say is that we are doing all that we can to try to get a period of reasonable stability, which would be very important, for example, for the VC 10 and our big jets. In order to try to make people realise that, I should add, as an American manufacturer said recently, the accompaniment to the supersonic jet would mean a noise like distant thunder. As Minister responsible for airports, I must say that I am quite sure that people living round airports will not tolerate a constant noise of distant thunder over their houses. There are a great many problems to be faced on the subject of noise before we move into the supersonic age.
Now, we come to the next step which the Government propose, which is to try to stimulate a public upsurge in traffic. Passenger traffics are going up this year anyway, but we believe, judging by the experience in the North Atlantic and the economy fares, that the world is doing itself out of a very big rise in airline passengers by the refusal of I.A.T.A. to have a sensible method of reducing world aircraft fares. Therefore, I want to say, with the Government's full support, that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. and the independent airlines will go to the I.A.T.A. Conference in September determined to press for a reduction in fares What they want is a fare reduction on the European, African and Eastern routes, and I say with all seriousness that I hope LATA, will approve this proposal.
If it will not, we shall have to reconsider our position in I.A.T.A., and also, if it will not, we shall have to consider what we can do in our own cabotage area, where matters are still under our own control. I have had quite a number of very interesting proposals from independent airlines and from the Corporations for their cheap fares. They are not necessarily on scheduled services, but they are all very interesting propositions. I am studying them very carefully, and, because this is of vital importance, I say that if we cannot get an orderly reduction by I.A.T.A., we shall have to do the best we can with our own resources, as well as considering our position in I.A.T.A.
May I now turn to the turbo-props? In the Vanguard, we have a turbo-prop

713
which is not only better than its specification but is a very cheap aircraft to operate, and I believe that if we could get this fares reduction it might completely change the outlook for that type of aircraft. We might then have a two-tier structure of what we might call the bus passenger—low prices and high density—and those passengers who want to go higher and faster using the jets. Government policy, therefore, at the moment is to concentrate on the reduction in fares.
Mr. Boyd Mr. Boyd rose—
Mr. Watkinson: I am sorry, but I have a great deal to say.
Perhaps I could mention in passing, although it is clearly not a matter that Parliament can deal with this Session, that I do intend to press for some central licensing authority, which would license both operators and organisations. It will do both sides of the job, but it needs legislation, and proposals are now being worked out.
Now, I come to the third thing which the Government are doing, which is to try to get the largest share for our country. We should be very grateful both to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. for the very hard work they have put in quietly, and I do not intend to disclose entirely tonight their plans to expand their influence across the world. B.O.A.C. recently got a new arrangement with Australia and Qantas. Talks are now going on with India and Canada, and it is my hope that we shall get a much closer Commonwealth link up—something we have wanted very badly for a long time, and something that might be the first step to a common Commonwealth aircraft policy, as well as a common Commonwealth airline policy. That is very difficult, and it will take some time to achieve, but there would be such enormous gains, if we could secure it, to the Commonwealth as well as to ourselves, that I am hopeful that we shall make some progress.
Mr. Beswick: Everybody will be very pleased to hear that, but does the right hon. Gentleman intend to tell us that his plan to license independent operators also to go down the Commonwealth routes to Africa will expedite this policy?
Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman will get another half-day on Monday and he can have another go at it then.
As to Europe, B.E.A. does not for the moment intend to join Europe Air, as it was originally called. It is in very good relations with its competitors. For example, it has a most successful pool with Air France, and it proposes to continue it with the independent members and to press forward with new arrangements with other countries in Europe which I will not specify at the moment. It might be very interesting and might again offer the chance of selling more aircraft. The two Corporations are playing their part, and I hope that we can get the biggest possible share of the business.
I come to the fourth thing which the Government are doing which is to try directly to encourage aircraft sales. In passing, I would remind the House that in the past four years E.C.G.D. has issued guarantees on aircraft and aero-engines amounting to no less than £160 million, so there is a little Government support there. It is important now to examine the truth of what the Opposition have said, namely, that we do not have a policy.
In my view, we have the best possible policy, indeed, the only possible policy we could have in this industry. We have to try to pick winners. In the Viscount, because of the partnership between B.E.A. and Vickers which developed it, we had an aircraft which sold well and made a very large profit for the Government as well as for B.E.A. The problem that faced the partnership—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Uxbridge really means that his policy is for partnership then we do not quarrel with him. The policy is to try to pick more winners, and to try to pick certain types of aircraft which we think might be winners.
We are aiming at three particular markets. They are the Dakota replacements; the medium-range aircraft, and the long-range Atlantic market.
I am asked why we backed the Herald and the Avro 748, which I am glad to say has just secured a very satisfactory Indian order. The Herald is a very good aircraft. It is two years ahead of the 748. We thought it was quite wrong that the chance should be missed now to sell more aircraft against the Fokker

715
Friendship and other competing aircraft. Therefore, I think it right that my right hon. Friend has done a deal which will enable B.E.A. to operate three Heralds on their Scottish services, where they will be very useful. They will fly the flag, and I hope that they will have the right backing to enable us to break into this promising and profitable market. We have also promised similar support to the Avro 748.
I come to the story of the DH121 about which hon. Members have asked me. The simple story is that it was designed for B.E.A. as a medium-range aircraft. As development went on it became more and more apparent that what the B.E.A. wanted—and, indeed, the world wanted—was a jet Viscount-replacement. In the meantime, the Rolls Royce engine which was originally designed for the aircraft had developed too much thrust through the efficiency with which it had been designed. It is quite natural and wise that a certain amount of redesigning has been going on of the aircraft and of the airframe, as well as with the engine.
There is no doubt that the next biggest market for the DC3 replacement is the Viscount-replacement market. Some of it might be filled with the Vanguard if we can get the fares down. There is undoubtedly in Canada, America and all over the world a great market for a small jet replacement of the current-generation Viscount. Lord Douglas and de Havillands, or Airco, the combination, in my view are doing the right thing by the aircraft industry and the country to make quite sure that the proposition on which they are working is tailored to a world market as well as the 24 for B.E.A. They will not make a lot of money out of 24. The essential thing is to try to attract foreign business as well as to pilot the pump-priming order.
In the meantime, there is the possibility of selling more Comets. There is not, unfortunately, the possibility, so to speak, of swapping Comets for Boeings, because that is not matching like with like and the Boeing ordered by B.O.A.C. has a British Rolls-Royce Conway engine in it. I agree that the present Boeing and DC8 are not up to specification and are having the normal
716
teething troubles which one expects. I entirely dissociate myself from the very mischievous speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who spent a long time denigrating the aircraft.
Mr. Mikardo: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the facts?
Mr. Watkinson: What I do dispute is the mischievous way in which the hon. Member put them, because he intended—
Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman does not dispute them.
Mr. Watkinson:—to do the maximum damage to the aircraft industry, to my right hon. Friend and anyone else on whom he could lay his tongue.
Mr. Mikardo Mr. Mikardo rose—
Sir Thomas Moore: Order.
Mr. Mikardo: I am perfectly in order. It is not for the hon. Member to keep order in the Committee, but for the Chair. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has still not disputed any of the facts I quoted, and he cannot.
Mr. Watkinson: I am not disputing that the Britannia had its teething troubles, like any other aircraft.
Having dealt with the three main types of aircraft, I think we must also have a low-cost freighter aircraft. That is the reason for the Argosy and the Britannic, and we also have a vertical-lift aircraft. I very much hope that B.E.A., after final negotiations with my right hon. Friend, will be able to place an order for six Fairey Rotodynes in the near future. My Ministry is working on the programme for landing sites for them, and the Committee had its first meeting today. We may be wrong, it may not be a winner, but the view of B.E.A. and my view is that it is a winner and that this vertical-lift aircraft can give a city to city transit with fifty or sixty passengers and might be another Viscount in its own sphere.
There again is an example of the Government trying to pick winners and, quite properly, supporting them in one way or another. We are not doctrinaire. We do not say there should be some standard type. What is proper for one aircraft is not proper to another. Through the

717
Corporations, through direct assistance or the military requirement, we want to try to back the kind of winners I have described. It is quite a good "stable", and I think there must be some in it which will do as well as the Viscount. In the air world traffic is growing again. In the first six months of 1959, B.O.A.C.'s passenger miles were up 14 per cent. and B.E.A.'s up 20 per cent. That compares with an increase of only 6 per cent. and 3 per cent. for the corresponding period last year. I hope we are coming out of the doldrums of the stability, or recession, we had last year in air traffic. Therefore, I do not take such a gloomy view as some hon. Members who have spoken today. I think that if the aircraft industry gets the support the Government are willing to give it, it is prepared to hold on and back its faith in what is still the best passenger aircraft in the world.
As has been said, the Vanguard is ahead of specification, whereas the DC8 is far below. That is the tradition of the British aircraft industry, despite what the hon. Member for Reading says about its difficulties. In the end, it has the best aircraft in the world.
I understand that the Opposition wishes to divide. I do not know why. There is no Motion before the Committee, nor has the Opposition put forward any solution to the acknowledged difficulties
which confront this great industry. In his concluding remarks, the right hon. Member for Belper mentioned ulcers. I warn him that his party will suffer several political ulcers if it cannot be clearer about what its policy is.
The facts are as the hon. Member for Uxbridge nearly said but did not quite say: the party opposite really dares not mention its own solution because it is one that it knows would introduce a degree of State control which would be unwelcome to the industry and unworkable as a means of solving its problems. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the Motion which, I suppose, the Opposition will put forward, as making no contribution towards the solution of the difficulties of this great industry which I am confident it will overcome with the present Government's help and the courage which it has.
Mr. G. Brown: Since that long catalogue mentioning almost every plane that ever existed is no answer to the case that we have put from this side of the Committee, I beg to move, That Item Class VI, Vote 10 (Ministry of Supply), be reduced by £5. I wish that I could make the reduction much larger.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 291.

Division No. 169.]

AYES

[9.56 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Grey, C. F.

Ainsley, J. W.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Alba, A. H.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Allaun, Frank (Saltord, E.)

Cronin, J. D.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Crossman, R. H. s.

Hale, Leslie

Awbery, S. S.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Baird, J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hannan, W.

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

Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

Hastings, S,

Benson, Sir George

Deer, G.

Hayman, F. H.

Beswick, Frank

Diamond, John

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

Blackburn, F.

Dodds, N. N.

Herbison, Miss M.

Blyton, W. R.

Donnelly, D. L.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Boardman, H.

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

Hilton, A. V.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Edelman, M.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

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

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Holman, P.

Bowles, F. G.

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Holmes, Horace

Boyd, T. C.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Houghton, Douglas

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Brookway, A. F.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Fernyhough, E.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Fletcher, Eric

Hunter, A. E.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Foot, D. M.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Forman, J C.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Callaghan, L. J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Carmichael, J.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Champion, A. J.

Gibson, C. W.

Janner, B.

Chapman, W. D.

Gooch, E. G.

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

Chetwynd, G. R.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Jeger, George (Goole)

cliffe, Michael

Greenwood, Anthony

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

Coldrick, W.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

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

Oliver, G. H.

Sparks, J. A.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Oram, A. E.

Spriggs, Leslie

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Orbach, M.

Steele, T.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Oswald, T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)

Owen, W. J.

Stonehouse, John

Kenyon, C.

Padley, W. E.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

King, Dr. H. M.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

Lawson, G. M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Parker, J.

Swingler, S. T.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Parkin, B. T.

Sylvester, G. 0.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Paton, John

Symonds, J. B.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Peart, T. F.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Lewis, Arthur

Pentland, N.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Lindgren, G. S.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Popplewell, E.

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

McCann, J.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Thornton, E.

MacColl, J. E.

Probert, A. R.

Tomney, F,

MacDermot, Niall

Proctor, W. T.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Mclnnes, J.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Warbey, W. N.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Randall, H. E.

Watkins, T. E.

McLeavy, Frank

Rankin, John

Weitzman, D.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Redhead, E. C.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mahon, Simon

Reid, William

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

Reynolds, G. W.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Rhodes, H.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Mason, Roy

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wilkins, W. A.

Mayhew, C. P.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Willey, Frederick

Mendelson, J. J.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, David (Neath)

Mikardo, lan

Ross, William

Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Mitchison, G. R.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Monslow, W.

Short, E. W.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Mort, D. L.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Moyle, A.

Skeffington, A. M.

Woof, R. E.

Mulley, F. W.

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

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Zilliacus, K.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Snow, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Sorensen, R. W.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Bryan, P.

Erroll, F. J.

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

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Alport, C. J. M.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Fell, A.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

Finlay, Graeme

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Campbell, Sir David

Fisher, Nigel

Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William

Carr, Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Arbuthnot, John

Cary, Sir Robert

Foster, John

Armstrong, C. W.

Channon, H. P. G.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Chichester-Clark, R.

Freeth, Denzil

Atkins, H. E.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Gammans, Lady

Baldwin, Sir Archer

Cooke, Robert

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Balniel, Lord

Cooper, A. E.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Banks, Col. C.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Barber, Anthony

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Barlow, Sir John

Corfield, F. V.

Godber, J. B.

Barter, John

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Goodhart, Philip

Batsford, Brian

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Gough, C. F. H.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Gower, H. R.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

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

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Cunningham, Knox

Green, A.

Bidgood, J. C.

Currie, G. B. H.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Dance, J. C. G.

Grimond, J.

Bingham, R. M.

Davidson, Viscountess

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Bishop, F. P.

Deedes, W. F.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Black, Sir Cyril

de Ferranti, Basil

Gurden, Harold

Body, R. F.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Bonham Carter, Mark

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon N. W.)

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Doughty, C. J. A.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Drayson, G. B.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldton)

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

du Cann, E. D. L.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Duncan, Sir James

Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Maccesf'd)

Braine, B. R.

Duthie, Sir William

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Brewis, John

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Hay, John

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

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'oastleupon Tyne, N.)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)

Errington, Sir Eric

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

720

721

Henderson, John (Cathoart)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

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

Roper, Sir Harold

Hesketh, R. F.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

McMaster, Stanley

Russell, R. S.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Sharples, R. C.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Maddan, Martin

Shepherd, William

Holt, A. F.

Maltland, Cdr. J. F. w. (orncastle)

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

Hope, Lord John

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Hornby, R. P.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Speir, R. M.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

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

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Marshall, Douglas

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Mathew, R.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Howard, John (Test)

Mawby, R. L.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich W.)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Storey, S.

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

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

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Summers, Sir Spencer

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Neave, Alrey

Teeling, w.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Nicholls, Harmar

Temple, John M.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Noble Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Nugent, Richard

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Kaberry, D.

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Keegan, D.

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

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Kershaw, J. A.

Page, R. G.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Kimball, M.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Kirk, P. M.

Partridge, E.

Vane, W. M. F.

Lagden, G. W.

Peel, W. J.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lambton, Viscount

Peyton, J. W. W.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Leavey, J. A.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Leburn, W. G.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Wall, Patrick

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

Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Pott, H. P.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Webbe, Sir H.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Webster, David

Llewellyn, D. T.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Whitelaw, W. S. l.

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

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Longden, Gilbert

Profumo, J. D.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Loveys, Walter H.

Ramsden, J. E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Rawlinson, Peter

Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Redmayne, M.

Wood, Hon. R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Rees-Davles, w. R.

Woollam, John Victor

McAdden, S. J.

Renton, D. L. M.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Ridsdale, J. E.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Mr. Legh and Mr. Brooman-White.

Original Question again proposed.
Mr. Ray Mawby Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)rose—
It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

POLICE STATION, HORNSEY ROAD (INCIDENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I desire to raise on the Adjournment a Question which I attempted to raise one day last week, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be aware.
On Tuesday, 19th May, two of my constituents, Mr. Thomas Halloran pf 53, Isledon Road, Islington, and Mr. Patrick Joseph Cox, of 17, Travers Road, Islington, called to see me to tell me that on the previous Sunday evening, Whitsunday, 17th May, they had been brutally assaulted, beaten, disfigured and kicked by a police sergeant and three or four police constables at the Hornsey Road police station, with the result that on their release from the police station a few hours afterwards, their wounds and injuries had to be treated and dressed at the Royal Northern Hospital.
They had been taken to Hornsey Road police station, arising out of an incident at the Clarence public house, Seven Sisters Road. Mr. Halloran's condition when I saw him showed obvious signs that he had recently suffered considerable violence. His eyes were badly swollen, he had cuts on his face and forehead, and other bruises on his face. His neck showed signs of serious bruising and he complained of having been kicked in the ribs by one of the police officers at the police station.
I saw Mr. Cox separately. Although his injuries were less serious, he confirmed Mr. Halloran's statement to me that Mr. Halloran had been held by two police constables while two others proceeded to punch and batter him until he collapsed on the ground, when he was violently kicked by one of the officers. In these circumstances, I thought it my duty to make the fullest investigation that I possibly could.
I accordingly saw Dr. Raymakers, the doctor on duty at the casualty ward of the Royal Northern Hospital, who attended Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox,
724
and Sister Moore, who received them at the hospital. They confirmed the serious nature of the injuries sustained by Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox. I also saw the manager of the Clarence public house and his wife, and various other witnesses who were in the public house at the time.
It appears that as a result of a quite trivial incident, the manager of the public house had telephoned and asked the police to call. When the police called, he had pointed to Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox. The visit attracted no general attention in the public house at the time. Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox left quietly. A number of witnesses assured me that when Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox left the public house, they were unmarked in any way, and I was also told by various witnesses that they were neither drunk or disorderly.
Shortly afterwards, about 10.30, a friend of Mr. Halloran called at the police station to see whether he could bail his two friends out, but was told that this was not possible. According to both Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox, this brutal assault and beating-up administered to them in the police station was entirely unprovoked. Mr. Halloran told me that it was so severe that he was frightened for his life and one of the officers clutched him so violently by the throat that he thought he would be choked. Another officer said to him, "I will kill you, you bastard". Both these gentlemen, who, I may say, have an unblemished record, are of high repute, married men with families, living in my constituency.
They appeared the next morning in the North London police court charged with being drunk and disorderly. Wisely or unwisely, they pleaded guilty to that charge. Mr. Halloran was fined 40s., including costs, and Mr. Cox was fined 30s., including costs. I understand that the learned magistrate made some remarks about Mr. Halloran's appearance and disfigurement and was told by one of the police officers that he had been aggressive.
At the same time, I received an entirely unsolicited letter from the Diplomatic Correspondent of the Daily Express, who wrote to me as follows:
"I happened to meet Halloran in the early afternoon the following day when he was asking his way to another newspaper in Fleet

725
Street. I asked him into the Express, and he told me the story of his assault. This was evident on his face. It was heavily bruised in various places, indicating not one but a number of blows. One eye particularly was nastily swollen and discoloured; he had a plaster strip across an injured nose. I asked him to show me his own hands, and as they were entirely undamaged it was clear that he had not been assaulting anyone or fighting back."
I have here a number of photographs which were taken at the time and which are visible proof of the very considerable battery and injury that Mr. Halloran had sustained. Having satisfied myself that there was, to say the least, a very strong prima facie case requiring investigation, I communicated the facts, as I knew them, to the Home Secretary. I gave him a list of a large number of witnesses who would be able to confirm the statements they had given, and I asked for an independent and impartial investigation.
I took that course for this reason. I myself have and always have had the highest regard for the high standards which are normally observed by the Metropolitan Police. I am very conscious of the strain and provocation to which the police in certain districts of the Metropolitan area, particularly in the Holloway district, have recently been exposed. I personally am always anxious that the police should be given every possible moral and other support in the performance of their duties. But if public confidence is to be restored when an incident of this kind comes to the notice of a Member of Parliament, accompanied by so much detail and so much evidence, then it does seem to me that the public interest requires that there should be an independent inquiry.
One often hears reports of beating by police officers in police stations. I am quite prepared to believe that some of those incidents are exaggerated, but the public are alarmed about this, and the difficulty is that people who are subjected to that kind of treatment, which, I hope, does not occur very often, in police stations have no redress.
As the Economist said, putting the matter very fairly in the number for 27th June this year, under the caption: "The Police: Impartial Investigations Needed":
"Not everybody will share Mr. Butler's confidence in the present method of investigating
726
allegations into a breach of the rules of conduct by the Metropolitan police."
It then comments on what has happened in a number of cases, and it points to the very inadequate machinery of allowing Scotland Yard to make its own inquiries, and then it says this:
"Independent witnesses of the actual assault, if it did take place, do not, of course exist."
Here, however, there are independent witnesses. There are two people quite independent. There is also clear evidence that when they left the public house they were umarked. There is the evidence which their hands show that they did not take part in any fisticuffs themselves. There is the evidence of the doctor at the hospital, of the sister and others, and there are these photographs of the violence to which they were subjected at the police station.
If ever there was a case requiring the fullest investigation and an impartial investigation and disciplinary action not only in the interests of the public, but in the interests of the police themselves, I should have thought that this was the case.
The Economist writes:
"It will be said that the police are having an extremely difficult task combating thuggery"—
with which I agree—
"and that if complaints against them are made the subject of a prosecution, it will undermine public confidence. But public confidence is already shaken, and the only way to restore it is for an independent inquiry—in some form or another—into each case where there is prima facie evidence of assault. Investigations by the police into the police on behalf of the police cannot, in present circumstances, carry sufficient weight."
In view of those circumstances, I was particularly disappointed with the most unsatisfactory reply which I received from the Home Secretary. What has taken place is this. Either the Commissioner or someone deputed by the Commissioner has made some investigations, and either he has satisfied the Home Secretary or he has not, but the Home Secretary has tried, if I may say so, to avoid responsibility by saying that if anyone is assaulted by the police he has the same remedies and can take proceedings as in the case of assault by another person.
But it is not the case. Everybody knows that citizens who are unfortunate enough to find themselves beaten up in a

727
police station cannot identify their assailants; they do not know the names of the police officers; it is impossible even for them to ascertain their numbers. There is no machinery which enables citizens who are assaulted in this way to obtain any effective redress. Theoretically, there is a remedy but in practice there is none.
It seems to me, therefore, most important, in the interest of justice, in order that the public confidence may be restored, and in the interest of the high standards of the police themselves, that when incidents of this kind come to light they should not be covered up by an inquiry by the police themselves, who are, naturally, anxious to cover up any dereliction of duty on the part of their subordinates. There should be an independent inquiry by an independent, impartial person.
10.21 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has made serious complaints against officers of the Metropolitan Police. I agree with him that when allegations of this kind are made it is of the utmost importance that there should be adequate machinery for their investigation. I take this opportunity to draw attention to the machinery which is available.
There are four possibilities. The first is prosecution by the police of the officers concerned. The second is disciplinary proceedings against those officers. The third is prosecution of the officers by the injured parties. The fourth is civil proceedings by the injured parties against the police officers concerned. It is, of course, not for the House to adjudicate upon the facts, which might have to be decided at any one of these four kinds of inquiry. I wish to make some important points of principle tonight, and, therefore, I shall not spend much time on the allegations which the hon. Member for Islington, East has made. But the hon. Member has brought to the notice of the House a number of allegations of fact and I wish to tell the House that many of the facts which he has mentioned are disputed. It is only right that I should do so.
728
My information is that the licensee of the public house where Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox had been drinking sent for the police who, after hearing the landlord's complaint, ejected them. It may well be true that when first ejected they went quietly. After they were ejected, however, there was a violent altercation and struggle outside. The police arrested the men for being drunk and disorderly in the street. They were powerfully-built men and it took four policemen to get them into a van. They were taken to the police station. At the police station the two men, particularly Mr. Halloran, continued to kick out and struggle violently, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that they could be charged and put in the cells.
As it appeared that Mr. Halloran had suffered some injuries by then, the divisional police surgeon was summoned, but Mr. Halloran refused to be examined by him. Later that night both men were bailed to appear at court the next morning. When they came to court they pleaded guilty, as the hon. Member for Islington, East has said. They were by then most certainly quite sober and in a condition to decide whether or not to plead guilty, and they were sentenced, as the hon. Member has mentioned.
Between being bailed in the early hours of the morning and appearing in court the next morning they both went to the Royal Northern Hospital. Statements which have been taken from the medical staff who attended them do not support the allegation that they were really seriously hurt. The hon. Member's version which he has put before the House with considerable emphasis—and I do not complain of it, for he has his duty to perform—is of an unprovoked attack by the police on two harmless men. The facts elicited by the Commissioner of Police do not support that. They show, on the other hand, that the police were having great difficulty in restraining two violently drunken men.
I now propose to consider how the machinery for investigating allegations against the police has been used so far as the Commissioner of Police is concerned. The House will realise that with regard to the first two possibilities I mentioned it would be for the Commissioner to consider the matter in the first instance

729
in order to decide whether or not proceedings should take place. On 18th June, ray right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question that the Commissioner had investigated very fully the allegations put forward and had found no grounds for disciplinary action or for the institution of criminal proceedings, and added that he accepted the Commissioner's conclusion. In case the hon. Gentleman should think that the Commissioner's investigations in this matter were cursory or superficial, I should mention that he had statements taken from no fewer than 22 people, including Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox themselves, and others whom the hon. Gentleman thought might be able to help.
As I understand the case the hon. Gentleman has put before the House, he says it is not enough for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to say that the Commissioner of Police has investigated the matter and that my right hon. Friend accepts the conclusions. The hon. Gentleman is saying in effect that there must also be some form of special and independent inquiry. Of course, each of the four possibilities I mentioned—unless it be said that the disciplinary proceedings are not independent, in which case the other three forms of proceedings—are entirely independent inquiries by the courts of this country. I hope that on reflection, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will agree that in a case of this kind a special form of inquiry is unnecessary.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that any machinery which requires consideration of the facts and a decision upon them by the Commissioner as to the taking of proceedings is unsatisfactory because the Commissioner cannot help having some bias in the matter. The hon. Gentleman did not use the word "bias", but he most clearly suggested it. He seems to regard such bias as self-evident, but in doing so he overlooks the fact that there are occasions when the Commissioner has to institute proceedings against members of his force, and he never hesitates to do so when appropriate. The hon. Gentleman must remember that recently in London there was a case of this kind. However, it would be absurd and, I suggest, most distrustful of a man of the Commissioner's standing to suggest that when he decides that there are not good
730
grounds for prosecution his decision has been influenced by bias.
Hon. Members will understand me when I say that there is nothing unusual in complaints being made against police officers. Their duties bring them in contact with a wide variety of people who, for various reasons, are too often ready to distract attention from their own failings by making false attacks on the police. When a complaint has been made against an officer of the Metropolitan Police the Commissioner has to decide whether, if it were substantiated, it would disclose a criminal offence or an offence against police disciplinary regulations and nothing more. But in this case, as I say, after full investigation, the Commissioner found no grounds for either type of proceeding.
A police officer, like everybody else, is subject to the law of the land, and whatever decision the Commissioner may have reached on his assessment of the facts the citizen is not debarred from setting the law in motion himself. Under our law, Mr. Halloran or Mr. Cox, or both of them, could apply to a magistrate for a summons to prosecute, or they could take proceedings for damages in the High Court or county court and, if they were qualified, they could apply for legal aid.
Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address himself to the question of how these people can identify those whom they might wish to prosecute?
Mr. Ronton: I have that point very much in mind in view of what has transpired, and I am coming to it. Before dealing with it, I would add that the machinery of the law has, of course, been satisfactorily invoked by private citizens against the police on a number of occasions.
I quite agree that none of the four procedures which I have mentioned would be effective unless the police officers alleged to be responsible could be identified, because otherwise one would not know against whom to start proceedings. In this case, the hon. Member says that Mr. Halloran and Mr. Cox do not know the names or the numbers of the police. That in itself need not constitute any difficulty. It has already been pointed out to the hon.

731
Member by my right hon. Friend that the Commissioner is prepared to give the names of the officers concerned in this case and to give the complainants an opportunity to identify any officer against whom they have allegations to make, and I cannot think of anything fairer than that. Unfortunately, neither Mr. Halloran nor Mr. Cox has so far been prepared to take advantage of that offer, but I really do not think that it can be said that the machinery which is available is inadequate because of any difficulty of identification.
It is surely contrary to the spirit of our laws, when legal remedies already exist, to suggest that some special machinery should be invoked. I am not saying that there are never cases in which some form of special tribunal might not be appropriate and necessary. There may be complaints not amounting to complaints that a crime or civil injury has been done, but which are complaints that some practice contrary to the public interest is being followed, whether in accordance with superior instructions or otherwise. In cases such as those, special inquiries have been held in the past and may well be the only way the matter can properly be investigated. But the case brought forward this evening, which is fairly simple and of a familiar character, is not of that kind.
My right hon. Friend and I and, if I may say so, the House of Commons as such, have an obligation to the police as well as to the public. It is, of course, right and in the interests of the Force that there should be machinery by which complaints against policemen can be pursued and that that machinery should be adequate and used effectively. As I have pointed out, such machinery does exist and is fully available to the complainants in this case. That being so, we should not, I suggest, encourage proposals to subject police officers to trouble
732
and distraction which would certainly be involved in a special form of inquiry. The police have their rights like any other citizen and they have also their duty to do, and we should see to it that they are not diverted from doing that duty.
For those reasons, I am not in agreement with the hon. Gentleman in his suggestion that there should be some form of special inquiry. Independent inquiry there may be, but let it be independent inquiry in accordance with well established and much trusted forms of law.
Mr. Fletcher Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to the Minister for the very full way—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to make another speech on this matter. He may ask a question, but no more.
Mr. Fletcher: May I ask the Minister whether he takes the view—as I hope he does—that although he does not agree with me on the facts of this case, he would hope that the remarks he has made will do something to remove any feeling that the police would take the law into their own hands? Will he express the hope that the more widely what he has said is known the more it will remove any possible feeling that people are without remedy if this kind of thing should happen in police stations?
Mr. Renton: In this case, and so far as I know in any other case, there is no question of the police taking the law into their own hands. If there should be such an occasion, the citizen has his remedies. Not only that, but the policeman concerned would be offending against his own disciplinary regulations and the Commissioner of Police would not hesitate to take proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Rents, Wages, Dividends and Profits
  Rents, Wages, Dividends and Profits
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Railway Staff Pensions (Letter)
  Railway Staff Pensions (Letter)
  European Free Trade
  European Free Trade
  Overseas Trade Corporations (Shipping)
  Overseas Trade Corporations (Shipping)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Consumer Protection (Committee)
  Consumer Protection (Committee)
  Finance Companies
  Finance Companies
  Hides
  Hides
  Republic of Ireland (Discussions)
  Republic of Ireland (Discussions)
  Council of Industrial Design (Receipts)
  Council of Industrial Design (Receipts)
  Yugoslavia
  Yugoslavia
WEST INDIES
  Citrus Industry
  Citrus Industry
NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Territorial Labour Officer, Johannesburg
  Territorial Labour Officer, Johannesburg
BRITISH SOMALILAND
  Liaison Officers, Hand Area
  Liaison Officers, Hand Area
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Restricted Persons
  Restricted Persons
KENYA
  Hola Camp
  Hola Camp
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  White Highlands
  White Highlands
  African Land Tenure (Report)
  African Land Tenure (Report)
CYPRUS
  Contract Officers (Compensation)
  Contract Officers (Compensation)
NYASALAND
  Commission of Inquiry
  Commission of Inquiry
CYPRUS AND MALTA
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
TANGANYIKA
  Local Authority Elections
  Local Authority Elections
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Musicians (Visas)
  Musicians (Visas)
  Chief Constable of Nottingham (Suspension)
  Chief Constable of Nottingham (Suspension)
  Chinese Refugees
  Chinese Refugees
  Police (Standing Joint Committees)
  Police (Standing Joint Committees)
  Arthur James Cox
  Arthur James Cox
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Commonwealth Education Conference
  Commonwealth Education Conference
SWAZILAND
  Education
  Education
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  African Affairs Board
  African Affairs Board
  Youth Services (Report)
  Youth Services (Report)
EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Royal Show (Agricultural Machines)
  Royal Show (Agricultural Machines)
  Butter
  Butter
  Irish Pig Industry
  Irish Pig Industry
  Beef Supplies, Tees-side
  Beef Supplies, Tees-side
BRITISH ARMY
  Member's Letter
  Member's Letter
  Voluntary Organisations (Grant)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grant)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Arabian Peninsula (Operations)
  Arabian Peninsula (Operations)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Oil Drilling Operations, Oman
  Oil Drilling Operations, Oman
  Nationalisation (Compensation Payments)
  Nationalisation (Compensation Payments)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Medical Staff, Khormaksar
  Medical Staff, Khormaksar
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Insurance Act, 1959 (Section 6)
  National Insurance Act, 1959 (Section 6)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosk, Carluke
  Kiosk, Carluke
  ANGLO-DANISH AGREEMENT
  ANGLO-DANISH AGREEMENT
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Ancient Monuments Board
  Ancient Monuments Board
SCOTLAND
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury

LORD CRATHORNE
The Right Honourable Sir Thomas Lionel Dugdale, Baronet, having been created Baron Crathorne, of Crathorne in the North Riding of the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Sandford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TAX RELIEF ON LIBEL DAMAGES
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the case of damages and/or costs awarded against a newspaper the sum paid is reckoned to be a business expense for the purpose of taxation; and whether an annual insurance premium against damages for libel is a business expense.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I am advised that, in general, damages for libel and costs awarded against a concern carrying on the business of publishing a newspaper would be deductible in computing the business profits for tax purposes. An annual insurance premium would likewise be deductible.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Do Her Majesty's Government not think it is rather an unsatisfactory position that an erring newspaper can in this way pass off on to the general taxpayer more than one half of the penalties awarded against it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord may perhaps be interested
74
to know that in the case of Fairrie v. Hall in 1947 the Court refused to allow damages and costs to be deductible for income tax purposes. This arose from a case in which a sugar broker had published malicious and defamatory statements about another sugar broker who was his business competitor. The Court held that the damages and costs were not a legitimate business expense. I understand it is very doubtful whether this ruling could be applied to any libellous statement published by a newspaper.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his supplementary information. Would Her Majesty's Government consider taking some action, either administratively or legislatively in the next Finance Act, to remedy what appears to the ordinary citizen a very curious position?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think it would perhaps be a little dangerous to alter the law in order to deal with particular cases of that kind.

LABOUR CONDITIONS IN HONG KONG
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 what effect the regulations made under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance which came into force on January 1, 1959, in the Colony of Hong Kong are having upon the pay and conditions of labour of men, women and children employed in the Colony.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the introduction of the regulations, which, as the noble Lord will know, apply to women and young persons, coincided with an expansion of trade and a rise in industrial employment. Hence it is impossible to estimate the effects of the regulations alone. Wage rates have tended to rise sufficiently to offset the effect of the shorter hours imposed by the regulations. Some part of the rise in the numbers in employment may also be due to the reduction

75
in the hours of work of women and young persons over 16. Noble Lords may like to know that the owners of six cotton spinning mills employing 4,500 people have announced their intention of operating eight-hour shifts in place of twelve-hour shifts; and that in some cases men's hours of work have been reduced in line with the reduction of hours of work of women.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that statement. Is it a fact that as a result of the regulations a large number of women have lost their employment and been rendered destitute? And would the noble Earl look at the question of applying these regulations to the men, because, as he said, there are no regulations as to hours of work, payment or anything else applying to men in the Colony?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am not aware that in the case of women a large number have lost their employment. My information is that employment has, on the whole, risen. In relation to men, certainly the Hong Kong Government have said that they look upon this as a first step in implementing the Government's policy of raising minimum standards of employment and so forth.

REPORTING OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES' PROCEEDINGS
3.1 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what rights the public, the newspapers and broadcasting organisations have to attend and report upon the proceedings of local authorities; and whether those rights are adequate and are observed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, there are certain statutory provisions which bear upon this point. The chief of these are contained in the Local
76
Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908, which gives representatives of the Press the right to attend the meetings of local authorities and also the meetings of education committees which act with delegated powers. The Press may be temporarily excluded from these meetings by specific resolution, however, if in the opinion of a majority of the members present at the meeting the special nature of the business makes it advisable in the public interest to do so.
Over and above the statutory obligations it is clearly in the public interest that all local authorities should keep their electors informed about the actions taken in their name and the reasons for those actions, and there is no doubt that the great majority of local authorities have a proper sense of responsibility in this matter. However, as a result of representations made to him, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has in recent months been discussing the matter generally with the associations which represent local authorities in England and Wales. His intention is to secure that all local authorities give proper facilities to the Press and the public, and he has stated to Parliament that the Government would not hesitate to advise an amendment of the law, if it proves to be necessary.
My right honourable friend feels sure that the statutory rights of the Press are observed by local authorities generally. Certain councils, however, have recently excluded the Press from their discussions for reasons connected with the present dispute in the printing industry. He cannot pronounce on the legality of these actions, as that is a matter for the courts. But he has indicated in another place, on the 6th of this month, that he strongly deprecates the action of any local authority which excludes the Press and the public for any reason save that the nature of the business requires it to be considered in private.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that satisfactory reaffirmation of the Government's view, may I ask whether, having regard to the possibility that any legislation may be delayed for some time. it would not be a good thing

77
if the Leaders of all Parties in this House were to make as strong a statement as the noble Earl has made?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should think it would be most advisable for everybody to agree, as I hope noble Lords do, with the statement that has been made to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, if we have an opportunity, we will make it.

NOISE OF HELICOPTERS
LORD ERASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what research is being undertaken with a view to reducing the noise of helicopters; and whether Her Majesty's Government are actively engaged in such research.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, work is being done by Government research establishments, universities and industry to determine the causes of noise in aircraft and their engines and to develop means of suppression, for example, by the development of silencers and the design of engines with lower ratio of noise to power. Much of this research applies to helicopters as well as fixed wing aircraft. Silencers have been developed to reduce the noise of the tip-jet units used in certain helicopters, and development is continuing to increase their efficiency.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, in this small island is it not most desirable to have effective and acceptable helicopters to provide transport from the centre of one town to another? And could there not be built upon a large use of these vehicles in Britain a substantial export trade? If that is so, and as the aeroplane-making industry is needing work, would the Government give every possible encouragement to this special field in which we have already shown ourselves leaders?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are so doing.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government are considering the possibility of imposing limitations on the number of decibels which any aircraft may emit?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, not having my slide-rule with me, I regret that I cannot give the noble Lord a correct answer on that point. Perhaps he would put down a Question, or I could write to him and tell him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.5 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess for the purpose of giving Government Business (except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (no two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise not for the purpose of challenging this Motion, but to ask whether the Leader of the House is in a position to say which particular Bills he has in mind of which two stages will need to be taken on one day. Is this a purely formal Motion or has he specific measures in mind? If there are specific measures I think we ought to know of them before we approve this Motion.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before the Leader of the House replies, I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for raising this point. Some of us are worried at the possibility of the suspension of Standing Order No. 41 in regard to the Legitimacy Bill. At the present moment, Clause 1 has been deleted. If, as the result of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on that day, Clause 1 is practically reinstated, some of us would like to have time to consider our views on the matter. That would be impossible if the Third Reading were taken immediately after the Report stage.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, this is a Motion which we usually move at this time of year to allow us to put through a number of Bills which are usually uncontroversial. There is, for example, one on the Order Paper to-day, the Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill. But we had thought that the Legitimacy Bill might go through all its stages on Tuesday next, the 21st. I am in a difficulty here, which I think my noble friend Lord Jessel will recognise, in that there is only a limited time. We must not make it impossible, by any delays we have here, for the House of Commons to consider any Amendments to this Bill—that would not be fair to the promoters of the Bill. But if he will allow me, without any pledge at all, to look at this question and to consult, it is possible that we can make an adjustment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I point out that the delay between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the Report stage which now brings about the problem to which the noble Leader has referred, is due not to the opponents of any clause in the measure, but to the promoters. There was no need whatever to postpone the Report stage until so late a date. If the Bill is radically altered on Report stage, obviously the Third Reading cannot possibly be a formal matter but must be most carefully considered.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the noble Leader will stick as closely as possible to the view that he expressed on this Bill just now, because there are people on this side of the House who are also interested. There are views on both sides on this clause, not all on the one side. I think it is most important that this Bill, which has passed another place and which has had this important Amendment made here, should have a chance to be reconsidered as some of us propose to have it reconsidered, and not to have to go back to another place where it has already been passed, with such a controversial change in it from when it left there, and within such time that it might not be possible to get it through in this Session at all. I think it is most important that the Bill should become law, in whatever final form and I hope that, whatever
80
views a particular section of this House may have upon the rights or wrongs of the Amendment we made, we shall so arrange our Business that the Bill has a proper chance of being carried through.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may say this to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hills-borough. Surely it is important, from our point of view, that this Bill should be given proper consideration. It may well be that on the Report stage the Amendment which is now foreshadowed will be defeated and the Bill left in its present state, as it passed through Committee. In that case no delay will be involved. But in the event of that Amendment passing, this House would be placed in a very difficult position, because there would be no opportunity for further consideration. The Bill would have to go back to another place improperly digested by this House. It is not for us to consider what happens in the other House; our duty here is to consider what is the considered opinion of noble Lords in this House, whatever view they may take. I think it would be very unfortunate if, in order to make certain that the Bill passed in this Session, this House were denied the proper opportunity of giving full consideration to this very important matter.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Marquess has stated the difficulty very clearly and rightly from the point of view of the proper consideration of this Bill. I cannot make a promise now. I think I can see again the difficulty of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and some of his friends. I think that, as Leader of the House, the only thing I can do is try to have some consultations, and see whether we can secure the right of the House to consider such legislation properly while also keeping in mind the importance of getting this Bill back to another place in time.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether he intends to leave the Legitimacy Bill as first Order on Tuesday of next week?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we have looked at the Business. The only Business with the Legitimacy Bill is the [Finance Bill, on which I understand

81
there will not be very much discussion, and therefore the Legitimacy Bill will be taken at a reasonable hour.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when my noble friend considers the matter, would he bear in mind this technical difficulty? I think I am right that under the Rules of this House it is perfectly in order for any noble Lord to move an Amendment on Third Reading, but written notice of that Amendment must be given. How would it be possible to give notice of an Amendment which might result from what takes place on Report, an Amendment that might be desired by a noble Lord sitting in any quarter of the House, if the Third Reading were taken on the same day?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, again, that is the sort of question I shall have to look at.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will the noble Earl try to see that the wishes of the House of Commons, which have been quite clearly decided on this matter, are not defeated by juggling with procedure in this House?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount would re-word his question if he gave it a little more thought. There is no question of "juggling."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, when he reconsiders this matter, to bear in mind that there is other important Business to come before the House which some of us would like to get through, and that we should not like that other Business to be interfered with in any way or the possibility of carrying on a debate on those matters being frustrated.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that is one more of the difficulties.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like just to ask this question. Am I to gather from the course of events this Session that it is unlikely that any Business will be left over entailing an autumn Session?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, without drawing any inferences at all, may take it that that is so.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Earl leaving time for discussion on Nyasaland if the Devlin Report comes in?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like to discuss that with the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is likely that the Colonial Secretary will have the Nyasaland Report, and, if that is so, I think probably we ought to readjust our Business in order to debate the findings.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—LIBRARY
The Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library with reference to the proposal that Peers should be able to borrow certain books was laid before the Committee and approved.
2.—CLERKS IN THE PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee approved an extension of service to Mr. C. F. L. St. George, C.B.E., the Clerk of the Journals, to 31st March, 1960.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. P. G. Henderson as a Senior Clerk in the Parliament Office from 1st May, 1959.
3.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY

(a) The Committee sanctioned the application of Establishments Circular No. 25/59 (Pay of the Higher Civil Service) to the Officers of the House of Lords to whom it may be applied.

(b) The Committee approved the revised scales of salary consequent upon the application to the staff of the House of Lords of Establishments Circular No. 14/59 (Pay of Clerical Officers etc.).

The Committee sanctioned consequential increases in superannuation awards in two cases.
4.—POLICE
The Committee authorised the payment for additional Police required for the opening of the Palace of Westminster to the public on Mondays in August.
5.—REPORTING STAF
The Committee reviewed the agreement with Messrs. H. Craig-Kelly Limited for the supply of typists for the reporting of debates and approved an increase in the existing rates of pay from the 1st July, 1959.
6.—RETIREMENT OF REGISTRY CLERK
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Josiah Edward Symonds, M.B.E., on his retirement on the 18th September, 1959.
The Committee instructed the Clerk of the Parliaments to convey to Mr. Symonds their warm appreciation of the manner in which he had carried out his duties.
7.—RETIREMENT OF HEAD OFFICE ASSISTANT
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. John Edward Roberts on his retirement on the 1st November, 1959.
8.—RETIREMENT OF INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIANS
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Ernest Victor Jacobs on his retirement on the 7th October, 1959.
9.—RETIREMENT OF A CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned a revised pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Stanley Frederick Hartopp who retired on the 11th April, 1959.
10.—RETIREMENT OF AN UNESTABLISHED CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a revised gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Arthur Edwin Wise who retired on the 6th April, 1959.
11.—GRATUITY TO A HOUSEMAID
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Dale on her retirement on the 15th August, 1959.
12.—VENTILATION IN THE CHAMBER
The Committee considered the method of ventilation in the Chamber. The Lord Great Chamberlain undertook to pursue the matter with the Ministry of Works and report back to the Committee at its next sitting.
13.—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FOR DINNER
The Committee considered the advisability of the House being adjourned for a period during late sittings, and agreed that adjournment was desirable during Government business but that during debates of a general nature the general rule should be not to adjourn, although each case should be judged on its merits.
The Committee authorised the Clerk of the Parliaments to examine the difficulties that arise with regard to the Reporting Staff, when the House does not adjourn for dinner during late sittings.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now agreed to I should like to say a few words on the first paragraph, which deals with the Library. The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, put to the Committee a proposal that facilities for obtaining books from an outside lending library should be provided. The Committee were not able to agree to that proposal, but they have put forward, as your Lordships will observe, a counter proposal to the effect that Members of this House should be allowed to take from the Library on loan one copy at a time of certain books, entering their names in a book which will be provided for the purpose. There will be a list of books placed inside that book for names, indicating which books should not be taken from the Library—such books as Law Reports, reference books and so forth. But if this Report is adopted it will become possible, so far as I know for the first time, for noble Lords to take out one at a time such books as biographies and other literature of that kind, though it will not be possible to take out what are termed "new books"; that is, those books which are for a temporary period placed on the shelf provided. Until those books are removed from that shelf and put in the general shelves they will not be taken out.
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will find this a convenient course and will approve of it. I do not think that there are any other matters in this Report to which I need particularly to refer, but, needless to say, if any noble Lord wishes to ask me any questions I will do my best to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL
3.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES): My Lords, this is a very short Bill and its sole purpose is to remedy what seems to be a defect in Section 7 of the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906. The Act of 1906 established the Board of Trustees—and here I quote:
"for the purpose of managing the National Galleries of Scotland and for such other purposes connected with the promotion of the fine arts in Scotland as may be prescribed".
That is to say, as may be prescribed by Order of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Further, the Act defined the National Galleries of Scotland in such a way as to cover not only the existing Galleries but any others that might be prescribed. So it gave ample power to extend the functions of the Board of Trustees.
The financial provisions of the Act were not, however, so widely drawn. Section 7 provides for paying, out of moneys voted by Parliament, the expenditure of the Board of Trustees on the management of the galleries that were brought under their control in 1906—that is to say, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery. The section
86
does not provide for meeting out of voted moneys the expenditure on any new functions which may be conferred on the Trustees or on the management of any galleries other than the two galleries that I have mentioned.
Now this was clearly not the intention of those who framed the Act of 1906. As they foresaw that the Trustees might at some future time have additional functions, surely they must have envisaged also that money would be spent on those functions, and we can only conclude that the financial provisions of Section 7 were so narrowly drawn in error. The Bill which is before your Lordships will amend the Act of 1906 so as to provide for paying, out of moneys voted by Parliament,
"the expenditure incurred by the Board in the payment of officers and otherwise in connection with the management of the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery and"—
and here, my Lords, follow the words added by the Bill—
"with the performance of such other functions as are conferred on them by or under the Act."
Although the need for this amendment of the Act of 1906 came to notice in connection with the proposal to establish a temporary Gallery of Modern Art in Inverleith House in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, I should like to assure your Lordships that the Bill itself is in purely general terms, and will cover expenditure on any further development of the National Galleries. The second point I should like to make is that the Bill does not confer any new powers either on the Board of Trustees or on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. All the powers that are required are there already in the Act of 1906; it is simply the expenditure on new functions of the Trustees that is not provided for, and that is the defect which this Bill seeks to remedy. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Forbes.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I have listened with some care to the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, of the purposes of this Bill, and I am reminded of the attitude adopted by the Under-Secretary of State in another place in dealing with this

87
matter. Both the noble Lord and the Under-Secretary of State appear anxious to describe this measure as being a small, trivial thing, of financial interest only, and as arising out of an error made a half century ago when the Act of 1906 was passed. Indeed, if I may repeat some of the expressions used about this Bill, they reinforce what I have just said about this attempt to minimise the importance of this measure. The Under-Secretary of State, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, described it as
"A short and simple Bill."
He said:
"Its object is to remedy what appears to be a defect in Section 7…",
as the noble Lord has just said. He also said that it is
"simply a financial machinery Bill."
He further said:
"It arises because of the chance oversight of Parliament fifty years ago."
On the Third Reading of this measure, the Under-Secretary of State said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 608 (No. 137), col. 395]:
"The genesis of the Bill was that the Secretary of State proposed to add to the functions of the trustees the management of a gallery of modern art at Inverleith House."
I do not wish to emphasise what other reports say about Inverleith House, although I could quote from the report of the Arts Council. On page 75 it says:
"…it is clear that the building is far too small to provide, even on a token scale, all the services for which the new Gallery should be responsible".
But I do ask what functions are to be added which the Trustees do not now already possess. In any case, is a new Act such as we are dealing with to-day necessary? Could not the Secretary of State prescribe by order, under Section 2 of the 1906 Act, that Inverleith House should be added to the three included under the title of "The National Galleries of Scotland"? As the noble Lord will be aware, the three are mentioned in detail in Section 2 of the 1906 Act, which reads as follows:
"'The National Galleries of Scotland' shall, until otherwise prescribed, mean the several buildings situated in Edinburgh and known as the Royal Institution, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and shall include any other buildings which may be prescribed."
88
What reason is there, I ask, why the Secretary of State cannot, by order or otherwise, prescribe that Inverleith House should be added to these other three, and so include the whole under the general title of "The National Galleries of Scotland"? If he cannot do so, I should be much obliged if the noble Lord would tell me why not.
The new power conferred, we are told, is of a general character, and is not limited to any particular project. If it is of a general character, how does the general character differ from the powers already possessed by the Trustees; and what is the nature of the general character that is envisaged in any project at all? Now, my Lords, it may appear that what we are dealing with is, in a sense, a rather trivial matter. It emerged in the course of a discussion in another place that the amount of money involved in this measure is some £7,500. Presumably, that £7,500 is intended to include not merely the purchase of new works of art but also to cover the cost of running the place and paying for its general upkeep. If that be true, then it would seem that £7,500 is a very small sum indeed about which a measure of this kind should be raised at all.
But I think there is another aspect to all this. Let us bear in mind that what we are trying to remedy, presumably, is a measure fifty-odd years old already. Are we to ignore the fact that in this last half century or so there have been changes of such a magnitude as to warrant a reconsideration of the whole of our attitude towards National Galleries? The noble Lord will be well aware that very recently there have been two reports dealing with the general question of providing for the art needs of the people—one by the Arts Council and the other by the Gulbenkian Foundation; and he will know as well as I do some of the questions raised in these two reports. For example, we know that the changes in the financial position of individuals within the last fifty years have been such that there are comparatively few people now left in a position to purchase for their private possession some of the valuable works of art that occasionally come up for sale. He will know that there has been a tendency in recent years for purchases of this kind to be made either by national bodies by public bodies, such as local authorities, or by private trusts or the like; and that very

89
large sums of money are necessary and are not available except through agencies of that kind.
He will also be aware that nowadays we have departed from an era in which there was, if one might say so, a cultural elite who appreciated the value of art generally, and that the appreciation of art has now spread very widely throughout the community. To-day an increasing amount of interest is taken by people in local government and in the community generally to see that the people as a whole should now come to appreciate the value of these works of art for their own enjoyment and for their own edification. It is no) my intention to emphasise the difference in cultural standards, as was done in another place, I gather, between the people of Glasgow and the people of Edinburgh. Whatever may be said about Edinburgh, at least I can say this about Glasgow: that we in Glasgow have at some cost to the ratepayer, tried to further understanding and appreciation and love of art by encouraging schoolchildren to come to our art gallery. I think that we have probably one of the most representative collections of any art gallery in the world. A collection of worldwide interest was given to us by the magnanimity of the late Sir William Burrell, a collection which, I think, must arouse the admiration of all lovers of art—though it may be said that we have not yet decided where to house the whole of this collection.
In the Local Government Act, 1948, power was given to local authorities to levy a rate up to 6d. in the pound in England and up to a fraction over 5d. in the pound in Scotland for the purpose of encouraging the arts, and I would emphasise this provision, which has been touched upon by both the reports to which I have referred. It is remarkable to think that, according to the Gulbenkian report, only about one-twentieth of this 6d. rate is being devoted to the purpose for which local authorities have the right to rate. I wonder whether I dare suggest a means whereby the understanding and love of the arts may be considerably increased. For instance, in Glasgow, where a penny rate brings in some £60,000 a year, a 5d. rate would make £300,000 a year available for the purpose of encouraging the arts—ballet and music, drama and art. I wonder whether it would not be possible to set up local
90
bodies, to consist not only of elected representatives but also of men eminent in the various arts, to form a kind of trust that would administer the large sums raised by the local rates in the interests of the arts generally. This would not only place the encouragement of the arts under the guidance of a body set up for that purpose only, but also prevent the conflicts which usually take place in local government bodies when they come to discuss matters of this kind. In this way we might be able to derive an increased interest in art, which I think we should all agree is very necessary these days. It is rather humiliating to learn from these objectively written reports that the artistic tradition in this country compares unfavourably with that in other countries, such as France, Germany and Italy. Surely, in spite of the difficult times which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us are always with us, it would be possible to devote some of this money to the encouragement of art.
I am aware that some of what I have said may not be particularly relevant to the Bill with which we are dealing, but I am trying to point out to your Lordships that this amending legislation, brought forward after half a century, provides an opportunity whereby the Government can thoroughly reconsider the position. Perhaps at some early date they may be able to bring forward some further proposals which will really do something to raise the standard of art in this country.
3.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this Bill, which has been expounded with great clarity by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the Minister of State. I hope that it will find support from all quarters of your Lordships' House. It was in 1929 that the Royal Commission first recommended, in its Report, that there should be established a gallery of modern art in the capital of Scotland. From that Royal Commission sprang the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, which in its numerous reports has never ceased to advocate the same thing. So, after thirty years, we seem to be getting somewhere in this matter, although it is going to be only a temporary home for modern art in Scotland.
This Bill, as my noble friend has pointed out, makes provision for the

91
setting up of a gallery of modern art in Edinburgh. That is done by order under the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906, and all the present Bill does is to provide the means whereby Parliament can vote the money necessary for its operation, and maintenance. Here comes a sore point, which was strongly expressed during the debate on this Bill in another place. A gallery of modern art is not much use unless there are objects of modern art—painting and sculpture—to put in it. There is no collection of modern art in Edinburgh at present—nothing to speak of at all. It will all have to be built up from scratch. And if this collection is going to be worthy of the capital of a great country and is going to be representative of modern British and foreign art, the purchase grant of £7,500 is quite inadequate. For example, a Braque was sold recently for some £36,000, and a Matisse, which I am told was entirely suitable for acquisition by this new gallery, was available at £20,500.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, if I may say so, is under a misapprehension as regards this £7,500. I am informed that it is purely a purchase grant for the acquisition of paintings, sculpture and the like, with which to stock the gallery. I do not think it has anything to do with the sum required for the maintenance, alteration, or reconstruction of this building.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I hope that I have not given the wrong impression. I tried to convey that I regard this £7,500 as covering salaries, wages and general cleaning and upkeep, not for the improvement or alteration of buildings. But suppose I am wrong and the whole of the £7,500 were available for the purchase of new works, no one would pretend that it is by any means a big sum nowadays.
LORD FORBES: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage to say that the £7,500 is purely for the purchase of pictures and sculpture.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: That is what I understood; but I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for the reasons which I have just explained, that it is a wholly inadequate sum. However, this is no occasion to bring up the vexed Question of State assistance
92
to the arts, which has been so fully debated in your Lordships' House and so often stressed in the reports of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. I am going to say only this: let us be thankful for small mercies. We have got something, at any rate, and let us be thankful for what we have got. The Trustees believe that something useful can be made out of Inverleith House, at any rate as a temporary expedient. I hope that this Bill will obtain a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I would merely say from these Benches that I heartily support this Bill and also what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. I look upon this as a great step forward after fifty-three years, but I hope that it is only a stepping-stone to a greater future. I give this Bill my support from that angle.
3.41 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, for expressing his views. As we all know, the noble Earl is a great authority not only on antiquities but also on art in general. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for so ably putting forward his views on art—if I may say so, art all over the world—which are most useful in this respect. Certain noble Lords have expressed some misgivings about this Bill, but in general it has been welcomed. I think I can safely give your Lordships an assurance that this scheme—what I might call the Inverleith House scheme—like modern art itself is not as bad possibly as it is painted to be. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked me whether the Secretary of State could prescribe for the new gallery under the existing Act. The answer to that is that, although the Secretary of State can prescribe the management, be cannot provide any finance under the existing Act. We are trying to remedy that position by this new Bill.
There is the question of the £7,500, which is a Supplementary Estimate which now lies before Parliament. That is purely for the purchase of new paintings and sculpture. I understand that the new purchases will be purely purchases

93
of paintings done during this century. They need not necessarily be by Scottish painters but can be by other painters. There has been some criticism that £7,500 is not very much, but I would point out that it is possible to get a Supplementary Estimate for any particularly valuable picture that is required; for instance, only a short time ago a Supplementary Estimate of no less than £30,000 was approved for this very purpose.
Perhaps I should say a word or two about Inverleith House, which I have seen and which I am quite satisfied has great possibilities as somewhere to house a modern art gallery in Scotland. It is a house which is in the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. It is quite easy to get there: you take a bus to the Botanic Gardens and you then have an extremely pleasant walk through the gardens to the house. It has an ideal lawn round the house, so that it will be quite possible to exhibit modern sculpture there. Another great asset about Inverleith House is that it is already owned by the Ministry of Works and it is not a question of buying another house. We have the complete approval of the Trustees of the National Gallery for this project. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, quoted from the Arts Council Report, where it said:
"…it is clear that the building is far too small to provide, even on a token scale, all the services for which the new Gallery should be responsible."
But the noble Lord did not go on to quote what it said lower down on the same page, and perhaps I may be allowed to do so. The Council then say:
"Nevertheless, we welcome the opportunity it would provide for an embryo Gallery in which useful work could be done on a miniature scale and the nucleus of a collection for a larger Gallery be made."
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt for one moment. I think the noble Lord mentioned the sum of £30,000 as a Supplementary Estimate. Are we to understand that that is a sum voted in addition to the £7,500 for Inverleith House?
LORD FORBES: No. I am sorry if I misled your Lordships, but that £30,000 was purely to buy a picture which now hangs in the National Gallery.
LORD GREENHILL: It was the Netherlandic triptych.
LORD FORBES: I hope your Lordships will give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

RIGHTS OF LIGHT BILL [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (81) as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Leave out Clause 4.
Clause 6, page 6, line 20, leave out from ("Tribunal") to end of line 21.
Clause 8, page 7, leave out lines 13 to 16.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these three Amendments from another place deal with the point which was in the minds of your Lordships when the Bill was in Committee here and, if my memory is right, especially in the minds of Lord Silkin, Lord Granville-West and Lord Milner of Leeds. Clause 4, which the Amendments delete, was intended to prevent the system of registration and notices under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill from being by-passed. As all your Lordships are aware, under Section 3 of the Prescription Act, 1832, right of light is acquired after twenty years enjoyment unless it was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly made or given for that purpose by deed or writing. Therefore one of three methods which will exist of preventing the acquisition of a right of light is an agreement in writing which, but for Clause 4, would not require registration and since it need not appear in the title deeds might escape the notice of a purchaser.
We tried to deal with that point and we thought it would have been met by the registration of agreements. We realised that we could not deal with existing agreements, because that would have meant an immense amount of labour and

95
trouble. We thought that we could deal with future agreements, but three objections have been raised which seem to us to have weight. They really are practical objections. The first is that quite a number of agreements are more commonly found now in conveyances and leases than in separate documents. It would obviously be inconvenient to register the whole conveyance or lease and very difficult to extract the power. Secondly, it has become almost common form to include such consents on the sale or lease of a plot of building land, and that would have meant that the number of registrations might swamp the procedure. Thirdly, it would not be possible by registration to give the agreement exactly the same effect of the rights of a purchaser of the dominant land as an agreement has at present because of the difficulty that it might be necessary to bring the contents of the agreement, and not the mere fact of the existence of the agreement, to the minds of the relevant persons.
For these reasons (which I think were those which worried noble Lords who took an interest) the Law Society have asked us not to keep the need for registration under Clause 4. We felt that in a matter like this we ought to pay attention to the practical advice of those who have to deal with the problem. Therefore, I should recommend your Lordships to agree with the Amendments which have been made in another place. As they are all on the same point, your Lordships might allow me to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in these three Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has explained to us very clearly the reason for these Amendments and, speaking for myself, I feel that I have to acquiesce in that reasoning. It is a great pity, because I think registration would have been of great advantage, especially at a time when there is so much development taking place. I know from practical experience the difficulties that arise from the fact that restrictive covenants which have never been anticipated arise at the very last moment. People suddenly turn up with
96
the benefit of covenants, and they have got to be disposed of. Had it been possible to have notice of this by registration, it would have been a great advantage. I do not propose to detain the House by arguing the matter any further. I think the reasoning of the noble and learned Viscount is very strong, and we must accept it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW TOWNS BILL
3.53 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.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Preliminary
1. As respects England and Wales, the provision made by section fifteen of the New Towns Act, 1946, for the dissolution of development corporations and the disposal of their undertakings shall not have effect, and instead their assets and liabilities shall be disposed of, and the corporations shall be dissolved, in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that this section shall not have effect until the Minister by order after consultation with the council of the county and of any county district in which any new town is situated is satisfied that the purposes for which all the new towns in existence on the passing of the Act have been substantially achieved and until such order is made all Development Corporations shall continue to act as heretofore."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin. The purpose of the Amendment is to defer the handing over of these new towns to the intended Commission until all of them have reached the stage of having substantially achieved the purposes outlined in the Act of 1946. The Amendment, however, does adopt the proposal which is otherwise provided in Clause 6 (1) of the Bill, that there should be consultation with county councils and county district councils.
It may be convenient in this connection to ask the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill whether he can give any indication to your Lordships as to what will be the matters upon which consultation is intended with the council of the county or of any county district; what particular aspects of the activities of the new towns will be embraced in that consultation, whether the views of the county council or of the county district councils will be really taken into account, or whether it will just be a kind of notional and formal consultation. After all, the county council's activities, liabilities and responsibilities will be affected by the existence of the new town, and the county district in which the new town is located will be more keenly and more comprehensibly affected by the existence of the new town.
As I have said, the purpose of the Amendment is to defer handing over these new towns until they are all ready to be handed over. The procedure is that they shall be handed over one by one, piecemeal—a kind of shiftless procedure—under which one new town may be transferred to the Commission earlier than another. Moreover, in the course of the progress of time the purposes of the New Towns Act, 1946, as envisaged when the Act was passed will become much more enlarged, and we all hope that they will provide for wider amenities. It is suggested that it would be unfair upon those new towns which, because of their energy and because of circumstances associated with them, have achieved the purposes of the 1946 Act earlier than other new towns, that they should be transferred in advance. In our view, the structure and personnel of the Commission, the constitution of the Commission, might initially be quite appropriate, quite effective, quite suitable, for taking over say, one or two new towns, but not for taking over eight or nine or, indeed, the twelve which ultimately under this Bill will be taken over. Our view, therefore, is that if the Commission is to take over these new towns it should not be done piecemeal, one by one, as it were, but should wait until all the new towns have discharged the requirements which were set out in the Act of 1946. It is for that purpose that this Amendment has been put down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD SILKIN: I have put my name down to this Amendment and also to the next Amendment which proposes to omit Clause 1 altogether. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss both Amendments together, because the view I take of it is that Clause 1 is wholly unnecessary. Indeed, I go further, and suggest that the whole Bill is unnecessary. I want to argue the latter point quite seriously. The Bill is intended to come into operation when the first of the new towns is substantially completed. That will be in possibly three years time—I think that in the course of the discussions in another place it was suggested that the first of the new towns might be substantially completed in three years time. In those circumstances, is it really necessary for a dying Parliament to put forward a controversial measure of this kind, which cannot possibly come into operation or be effective for three years? Would it not have been wiser and fairer if the whole thing could have been deferred until after the General Election, or until we had more nearly approached the time when the towns were being completed?
We are assuming for the purpose of this discussion—and the Minister in another place assumed—that it would be about three years. But I say that a town is not substantially completed, and the purpose for which it was built has not been substantially achieved, until it is really a living community, until all the services and the amenities that are essential in a town of the size of, say, Crawley or Harlow, with a population of 60,000 to 80,000, have been provided—in fact until it is an organism comparable with the older organisms, the older towns of the country. A town that I often compare these new towns with is Worcester. I would say that until these new towns have become really living communities, like a town of the character of Worcester, or Guildford, or a similar town, it cannot be said that the purpose of the Act has been substantially achieved. If I had had any responsibility in the matter, I doubt whether I should have come to the decision that even in three years' time, with the amenities

99
of these new towns in their present condition, the purposes would have been substantially achieved.
At the present time, recognising that a good deal has been done and is being done by these communities themselves and by the development corporations—though nothing like as much as should be done—I would say that these new towns are largely in the condition of enormous housing estates, not even closely knit as a town. If you go to any of those towns you will find they have neighbourhood units separated by open space and very little amenity in each unit. It is not, of course, the fault of the new towns themselves; it is something that has got to evolve and develop as time goes on. We might have made a very great mistake in providing the amenities before we were satisfied what the needs of these towns were. But the fact remains that until these amenities have been provided—adequate meeting places for the population, halls, swimming baths and so on; the usual things that are required—one cannot really say that the purposes for which the new towns were created have been substantially achieved.
I do not want to argue this matter closely, but the noble Earl will know that these were not intended to be simply housing estates; they were intended to be live living places; to be an example to the whole world of how new communities could be got together and could live in a post-war world. So my contention is that it will still be a good many years before the new towns can be said to have been substantially completed. Therefore, what is the hurry to come to a decision to-day, under conditions which are somewhat harrassing?—because we are all under pressure to get through the business as quickly as possible. What is the hurry in coming to a decision to-day on this question? I know that the noble Earl has no authority to withdraw the Bill at this moment—if he did, I imagine that he would get into serious trouble. But if the Government were wise they would say, "Having introduced this Bill, and the public realising what is in our minds, let us now leave it", and then withdraw the Bill. If circumstances should necessitate a new approach they will be able to make it. If, in due course, they want to reintroduce this measure they can do
100
so, but there is really no hurry. It would do equally well in two or three or four years' time.
Therefore, while supporting every word my noble friend Lord Latham has said in moving the first Amendment, on the assumption that the Government intend to proceed with this Bill, against my advice, I still think that the wiser course would be to delete Clause 1, which I recognise would, in effect, mean the withdrawal of the Bill entirely. At this stage, I support my noble friend, and I hope that my words will at least impress the noble Earl, if they do not impress Her Majesty's Government.
4.6 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I think I shall have to stick to the Amendment here. The noble Lord opposite has really made rather a Second Reading speech on this matter. The Amendment before us is a detailed one. Admittedly he said he wanted to range a little over the second Amendment too, which is to withdraw the whole clause; but we shall come to that in a moment. The Amendment before us here is a fairly simple one, I think, in essence, as it has been explained, although it was a little difficult to understand as one read it on the Order Paper. I was a little puzzled how the Minister is satisfied "by order," but perhaps I have got my grammar wrong, and it was slightly difficult to construct.
To come to this Amendment, the effect of it would be that all twelve of the present towns should move over at once, not one by one. I really cannot see the point of this. If you are going to say that none of these towns should be regarded as substantially completed until a large proportion of the children have grown up and married, and it has become more a town like Worcester, as the noble Lord said, and even if the Government considered it was right to shift their ground to that extent—we have said the town is substantially completed when the special powers of the corporation have substantially been achieved—I do not think we should adopt this course suggested in the proposed Amendment. For whatever view one takes of the right moment to wind up a development corporation, the fact remains that all the

101
towns will reach that point at widely different times.
We believe—I think it is generally agreed—that Crawley is likely to get to this position about 1961, Basildon perhaps about 1965. If it is right that Crawley, although ready in 1961, should wait till 1965, then Basildon should wait till 1970. I cannot see why the Opposition want the town which finishes soonest to be held up until the last in the race. If it is right to establish a Commission at all, and this Amendment (we must stick to the Amendment before the House) does not dispute this, it is surely right to hand over each town to it at the moment when it is ripe for handing over, and not wait for the last one in the race.
I must remind your Lordships of the main disadvantage in keeping the corporations in being after they have substantially achieved their function, and that is that so long as the corporations are in being all the provisions of the 1946 Act designed for stage 1 remain in force. The development corporations have these compulsory purchase powers and exemption from planning control, and so on, which we mentioned on Second Reading. We do not think it is right that the corporations should keep those powers when their work is finally done; we think those powers should go by the board when they are no longer needed. If they remained, the new towns would still remain somewhat abnormal in some respects—much more abnormal than they need be. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment, which I really do not think would improve the Bill at all.
LORD LATHAM: Are we to take it from the noble Earl's reply that the principal object of this proposal is to denude the development corporations of certain exceptional powers which they at present enjoy?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: NO. AS the noble Lord knows well, the object of this exercise is that at a certain stage, at the end of stage 1 of the development of the town, the corporation winds up; stage 2 starts, and the Commission takes over. The Commission's functions, duties and powers are laid down in this Bill and the corporation's powers then lapse.
LORD LATHAM: I want to be abundantly fair to the noble Earl. He said that one of the purposes was that the provisions of the 1946 Act, conferring certain powers upon the development corporations, ought to come to an end. Of course they will come to an end, even though the corporations remain in existence after the purposes for which those powers were given have been achieved. There will be no purpose in the corporation seeking to take advantage of the powers of acquisition of land if they do not need the land. It seems to me that that argument is a little exiguous in support of this most objectionable proposal. A further point I would make is that if the taking over of the new towns were deferred, as is suggested in the Amendment, it would at all events, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has indicated, give Parliament time to think again and maybe to go back to the original decision emphatically come to in 1946, that these new towns, if they are to be transferred, should be transferred and handed over to local authorities.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I must remind the noble Lord that there was no "if" about it in the 1946 Act. The towns were to be transferred when the development corporations' purposes were substantially achieved—they were to be transferred in a different direction. This Bill is simply bringing in a stage, and there never was any question that the development corporations should remain indefinitely.
LORD SILKIN: I did not suggest indefinitely; I suggested until the purposes had been substantially achieved. I went to some pains to describe what I meant. I did not think that they were being achieved merely by creating a series of housing estates, which is very largely what they are at the moment. I do not want to be unfair to the new towns, but they are little more than that. They are not living communities as a whole but a series of separate, neighbouring units not very closely knit together. My contention was that the towns were not substantially complete until they were completely living communities in the same way as—the noble Earl does not like Worcester; he could have Guildford or some other town. I thought that was a fair example to give.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I entirely appreciate what the noble Lord is saying, but we are not talking about the towns being substantially achieved; we are talking about the work of the development corporations being substantially achieved. When the work of the development corporation—that is to say, the laying out of the town and the building of it—is substantially achieved, then we say that we need a period of good estate management, which is to be taken up by the Commission. That is the point.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think that the noble Earl has quite appreciated the point, because even under this Bill the new Commission are going to be responsible, I hope—at least it is proposed to be so—for providing the amenities of the town. That is one of their jobs. Therefore, I think it was equally the job of the existing development corporations, and they have not achieved it yet. That is why I contend that the purposes for which the town was conceived will not have been completed or substantially achieved merely when the houses and the shops have been built; there is still a great deal to do before it becomes a real town. However, I do not want to pursue the point because I realise that the noble Earl is not in a position to accept this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to press it. On the whole, I imagine not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I have already outlined my case for leaving out Clause 1. The noble Earl rather set it aside and wanted to direct his attention only to the first Amendment, and he therefore did not really explain why it was essential that we should pass this measure here and now. Even on his own definition, the first of the new towns, Crawley, will not be substantially complete until 1961, and there is no secret about the fact that some time between now and the next few months there will be an Election. The period after the Election would have allowed ample time to enable a decision to be made as to the future of the new towns, even as to the future of Crawley. So that I cannot see why there is any urgency to pass this measure now, unless the Govern-
104
ment think that they are going to "make hay while the sun shines". I recognise that leaving out Clause 1 would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. That was my object in putting down this Amendment. I shall be glad if the noble Earl can explain what is the urgency for getting this Bill through at all this Session. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: If I may apply my thoughts to the Amendment under discussion, I may say that I was in some doubt when I saw the Amendment whether it was a legalistic one or whether it was a wrecking Amendment, The noble Lord has said that it is a wrecking Amendment. Of course, it could have been taken in a legalistic manner, because the noble Lord could have said, "This clause does not add anything to or detract from the Bill. The Bill can go on without it. It is an explanatory, expository clause, but I think it is not one which makes the Bill intelligible to the lay reader". If that had been the argument, I should not have thought it would have been worth while taking it out at this stage of the Bill. The noble Lord has said why he has put the Amendment down. He realises that I shall have to ask your Lordships to resist it as a wrecking Amendment. Very well—we must resist it.
On Second Reading and in the long discussions that have taken place in another place the arguments were deployed as to why we think that this matter must now be dealt with in the life of this Parliament. The year 1961 is not all that far ahead, and it may well be that by 1961 at least one of the new towns will have reached that stage of development which even the noble Lord may agree is a fair example of the definition of "substantially achieved" in relation to the powers of the development corporation. One must not be driven into a corner and wait until the thing is upon you before you decide what to do. What has been growing up during the years in which we have seen the new towns growing and have been watching them develop, is the doubt in our minds, as I explained on Second Reading, whether, when a town is ripe (if that is the right phrase) for the next stage, that next stage should be municipalisation.

105
And we have not made up our minds about ultimate municipalisation, as the noble Lord knows. What we have said is that we must have a middle stage, which is what this Bill is about, and that is why we could not have left the matter any longer in doubt or vague. We had to bring in this Bill to explain that a new town that would shortly be ripe under all the definitions of the 1946 Act would not be going straight to the stage envisaged in Section 15 of the 1946 Act: we wish there to be an intermediary stage. There is no more about it, and I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment which would wreck the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Establishment and functions of Commission for the New Towns
2.—(1) There shall be a body corporate by the name of the Commission for the New Towns having perpetual succession, a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain, and incorporated for the purpose of taking over, holding, managing and turning to account the property previously vested in the development corporation for a new town and transferred to the Commission by an order under this Act.
(2) It shall be the general duty of the Commission to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return obtained by them from it, but in discharging their functions in relation to any town the Commission shall have regard to the purpose for which the town was developed under the New Towns Act, 1946, and to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there.
(d) to dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit.
(7) Where it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury and with the Commission, that the Commission have a surplus whether on capital or on revenue account after making allowance by way of transfer to reserve or otherwise for their future requirements (including any contributions that may be required to be made in any of their towns under the last mentioned paragraph (b)), the Commission shall, if the Minister after such consultation as aforesaid so directs, pay to the Minister such sum not exceeding the amount of that surplus as may be specified in the direction: and any sum received by the Minister under this subsection shall be paid into the Exchequer.
4.21 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (1):
"The Minister shall when the purposes for which the new towns have been substantially achieved or seven years after the coming into operation of this Act whichever is the later direct that the Commission shall cease to act and thereupon the provisions of section fifteen of the New Towns Act, 1946, shall have effect."
The noble Lord said: "We have now agreed substantially that there is to be a Commission set up, though the details follow in later clauses. Over and over again in the course of the progress of this Bill, and as recently as two minutes ago, it has been stated that this is an intermediary stage. There are three stages in the progress of the new towns. Stage 1 will end when the Minister decides that the purposes have been substantially achieved; stage 2 is the stage laid down under this Bill, and there is to be a stage 3. That has been said over and over again. But there is not a word in this Bill about stage 3. Nobody reading this Bill would imagine that there is any further stage. It reads as if the end of the story is that all the new towns will in due course be administered by a Commission. There is nothing to indicate that at any time in the future there will be a reconsideration of the matter and a decision as to what is the best form of ultimate administration.
As I understand it, the Minister and the Government have not even ruled out the possibility that in a few years the local authorities may be the most desirable bodies to administer the new towns individually. At least, I do not take it that that has been entirely ruled out. But whether it has or not, if there is to be a third stage there ought to be some indication somewhere, in some part of the Bill, that that new stage will come about at some time in the future. The object of my Amendment is to provide that within a fixed period, seven years, after the coming into operation of this Act, or seven years after the new towns have been substantially achieved, whichever is the later—and I give the noble Earl the benefit of that: whichever is the later—at the end of that time, this fixed period of seven years, then the Commission shall cease to act and the provisions of Section 15 of the New Towns Act, 1946, shall have effect. In other words,

107
the third stage, according to my Amendment, would be that the local authorities will at the end of that period be ripe and ready to undertake the task of administering the new towns.
I hope that the noble Earl will not reject the Amendment simply on the ground that he does not want to commit himself to handing the new towns over to the local authorities. If that were his only objection, I think I should be prepared to do a deal with him and leave open the question of the ultimate destination of the new towns. What I am concerned about—and this is the main purpose of my Amendment—is to ensure that there is a time limit for this second intermediate stage, and that when that is finished then there will be a third stage, which is certainly not the case under this Bill. I have put down what I think is the right course; what Parliament decided in 1946; what all sections of Parliament decided upon; what I was urged to do by noble Lords opposite here and by honourable Members opposite in another place—to ensure that when the objects of the new towns were substantially achieved they would go to the local authorities. I have put that in my Amendment. If the Government are not sure about it or have changed their minds, or if they are prepared to accept this time limit, or some time limit, for the duration of the Commission, I shall be perfectly prepared to put down an Amendment at a later stage leaving out the ultimate destination of the new towns. I make that offer: I do not know whether the noble Earl is in a position to accept it. Subject to that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord moving this Amendment has said, and to his friendly offer that he would like to make a deal with us here. I am afraid that I must disappoint him, because I do not think I can make any such deal; and I will try to explain why. It is not perhaps for the reasons which the noble Lord may think I am going to give. These are the reasons why I believe it to be quite unrealistic to bring in what the noble Lord wants: a time
108
limit for the life of the whole Commission in this way. Quite apart from the fact (which we will leave aside because the noble Lord knows I cannot accept it) that this Amendment attempts to deal with the third stage—and the opposition has been made perfectly clear—we remain absolutely uncommitted as to what the third stage is to be when it comes.
LORD SILKIN: Or as to whether there is to be a third stage.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No. It is a new point to me, but I am sure this Bill has been discussed in the Commons and in Committee, and a great deal around the country, and on this question of three stages the suggestion is almost inconceivable. The noble Lord says there is no indication as to how this Commission is to come to an end. But if there were any intention that the Commission should be perpetual, I should have thought there would be some indication that this was the ultimate end of the new towns. What we have said, both in another place and here, is that this is not to be the end but only the intermediate stage—the process of taking over, managing, good estate management and so on. On that basis I cannot accept the Amendment because it begs that question. It says that at the end of the period of seven years some specific thing shall be done, and my right honourable friend is not committing himself as to what specific thing shall be done when the time comes.
Surely this Amendment suffers from the same weakness as the previous Amendment suffered from; that we should have to go at the pace of the slowest; that we should have to deal with all the towns at once. The Amendment says:
"…when the purposes for which the new towns have been substantially achieved…"
These new towns are very different and varied, and are in very different stages of development. If we have a town well advanced—Crawley, for instance—and other towns less far advanced, I am not at all sure that we want to wait—in fact I am pretty certain we do not want to wait: it is this point that we made before—and hold up the next stage for the advanced town until the most backward own comes along. I do think that this point should be borne in mind: that

109
some of the last towns that will come in will probably be the least able to stand on their own feet financially. No one can predict how long this period will be, but the Government are certain that the limit set by the Amendment—that is, seven years, or the substantial achievement by the slowest runner in the race—will be much too short.
LORD SILKIN: I quite understand that the noble Earl is speaking on behalf of the Government and not on his own behalf, and that he is not in a position to accept this Amendment as it stands. Is he in a position to accept the principle of the Amendment? Would he be prepared to go back to his right honourable friends and see whether they would accept the idea of some termination of this second stage? That is the real purpose of this Amendment. The noble Earl may quarrel with the drafting, of course. Our drafting is always defective; and the noble Earl's drafting will be defective when he comes to put down Amendments. None of us is expert at that, and we can always make plain the defectiveness of the wording of an Amendment. Of course my Amendment is defective; I knew it was when I put it down: but the fact remains that we both know what is intended by this Amendment.
The intention is that there should be some time indicated. If seven years is too short, make it longer. If you do not know how long it is to be, then make some provision for the Minister to declare by order that the time has now come. But do not say in the discussions in this House that this is a second stage and that there is to be a third stage, yet not put a word in the Bill to indicate that. At present it is to be inferred from reading the Bill that there is no further stage and that these new towns are being handed over irrevocably to the Commission—subject, of course, to any further legislation that may come about in the future. If the noble Earl is prepared to go and put that point to his right honourable friend, I shall be happy to withdraw this Amendment and to have another talk about it at a later stage. I should not have thought, in view of the most positive statements that have been made both here, by the noble Earl, and in another place—namely, that this is only a second stage—there should be any difficulty at all in having words incor-
110
porated in the Bill which would make that plain.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot at this stage go back to my right honourable friend and ask him to put in a definitive time limit——
LORD SILKIN: Not a definitive time limit.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Well, a time limit. I cannot accept that at this stage. I would ask the noble Lord to be fair. I had not accused him of any rough or inaccurate drafting in his Amendment. I carefully had not done so. As a matter of fact, my legal people had told me that there were defects in this particular Amendment, but I have been careful not to mention them. I suppose the noble Lord may have been so conscious of them, and was so certain I was going to mention them, that 'he defended himself for putting them in; but I did not do so.
There is one other point. The noble Lord—I know he meant it kindly, but I cannot accept it—said, "Of course, the noble Earl is speaking for the Government, and the Government cannot accept this". He rather implied that I should have liked to have this myself. That is not so. I have studied this Bill with great care, and I believe that this must be right: that we have got to have this business of the Commission in the middle, and that we are right not to say what happens at the end of the life of the Commission.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to press this point unduly, but is it not right to say something to the effect that there will be a further stage, even if you do not say that it will be in seven years time, and even if you leave the period indefinite and indeterminate? What is the good of the noble Earl saying to us, "This is only an intermediate stage," and not including a word about that in the Bill? That is the point. It may be that seven years is wrong. It may be that we ought not to commit ourselves as to what is to happen at the end of seven years. But that something should happen, and that at some time, which has been recognised, the Commission will come to an end and you will have to think again about the third stage, seems to me to follow axiomatically from what has been said by the noble Earl.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it is not actually in the Bill—I must admit that—but my right honourable friend has said it over and over again. He has even given his guess or estimate as to the possible life—"ten to twenty years" I think was the phrase used; and I used it again on Second Reading. All that, taken together, surely demonstrates beyond all shadow of doubt that there is no question of this being the final stage. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.36 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (2) "and in particular to the provision of amenities for the town." The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 4. In any case, this Amendment cannot be characterised as being a wrecking Amendment. It deals with one of the elements which is of the essence of the success of these new towns—namely, the provision of adequate amenities, both social and recreational. The Amendment proposes to add to the words in Clause 2, subsection (2), the words which appear in the Marshalled List. It will be said, no doubt, by the noble Earl that in Clause 2 there is a reference to the provision of amenities; but the Commission are to provide such amenities only with the approval of the Minister and, in addition, with the concurrence of the Treasury.
During the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government used these words—and I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, of December 1, 1958 [Vol. 596, column 851]:
"My right honourable friend and I realise that there is a feeling in some quarters that in the past the corporations have not done enough to provide those amenities, although what they have done ought not to be underestimated."
I should have thought, having regard to the experience which the new town corporations have had, that that statement was an exaggerated one. For what has been the experience of the new towns? In many cases the corporations have been led to complain in report after report to the Minister of the inability to get the concurrence of the Minister and of the Treasury to the provision of amenities,
112
and it can be said that the utility and the purpose of the new towns has been seriously impeded and impinged upon because of the inability in many cases of the new towns to obtain consent to expenditure on the provision of amenities. We have some apprehension that if the Commission is subject to the approval of the Minister in the first place, with the concurrence of the Treasury in the second, the experience of the Commission is not likely to be any more encouraging than has been the experience of the new town corporations.
In the Report on the new towns presented to the Minister for the year ended March 31, 1958, we find a catalogue of complaints about the need for the provision of more facilities for social and recreational amenities. When we read these reports, we are impressed by the fact that most of the amenities, especially the provision of community centres, playgrounds and facilities for recreational activities, have been provided by the much despised local authorities, to whom it is not thought wise to hand over these corporations.
If we turn, for instance, to page 158 of the last Report, we find this in regard to youth services in Crawley new town:
"During the year the corporation has agreed with the county council sites throughout the town for temporary and long-term development for youth service buildings and has built or leased to the council prefabricated buildings in Northquay and Langley Green for youth societies, in addition to building a centre at West Green."
It goes on to say:
"The urban district council is responsible for 200 acres of playing fields, open spaces and parks and 36 acres of allotments, which have been either leased or sold to the corporation."
Your Lordships will observe that it is the local authority which is providing the amenities which are so needed in most new towns.
If we turn to the report of the development corporation for Hemel Hempstead, we find this at page 280:
"The Government have announced that they intend to set up a central authority to take over the assets and liabilities of all development corporations when the task of building each new town is substantially completed. It would not be proper for the development corporation to express a view as to whether it considers this decision to be right or wrong, but whatever arrangements are made for the future management of the new town assets, the corporation most sincerely hopes that the

113
responsible authority will be given adequate powers and resources to complete the town, particularly by the provision of those amenities which successive Governments have not so far allowed the corporation to build."
That, it seems to me, is a pretty formidable indictment of the successive Governments referred to.
When we turn to Stevenage, one of the earliest of the new towns, we find this on page 263 of the report:
"The most serious threat to the wellbeing of the town at present lies in the comparative sparseness of its amenities. It is considered that the town centre must be made the focus of town life, and as it will be the hub of all transport routes it should equally be the centre for amusements and relaxation. Hence the corporation's desire to see an early start made on the building of the college of further education, the public library and the health centre, and its anxiety that such places of social intercourse and recreation as cinemas, dance halls, swimming pools, cafés, restaurants and public gardens should be provided."
It goes on to say:
"It is essential to satisfy these needs not only from the social point of view but to stabilise and maintain property values in the town, and the relatively small expenditure required for providing many of the necessary amenities should therefore prove to be a good investment. The corporation hopes that whether facilities are provided by itself or by other public or private bodies, your Ministry will give the fullest possible support in solving this problem."
I suppose that when the Commission takes over, it will be left to the Commission to deal with that problem as a good landlord. Well, having regard to past experience, we are not encouraged to believe that the good landlordism will embrace the provisions of these essential amenities. In my submission, these amenities are the life blood of these new towns. We cannot remedy or lessen delinquency unless we provide competitive recreational and social facilities, and in practically all the new towns there is a disturbing—a very disturbing—lack of these facilities.
The policy of the Minister and of the Treasury has been one of cheese-paring, a miserly policy which has been enforced on the corporations in the past and has left them at the mercy of the local authorities, who themselves have been restricted in their capital expenditure because of Government policy. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it obligatory that proper concern is shown for the social and recreational amenities and that this is in the mind
114
of the Commission when it takes over the new towns. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, after ("there") insert ("and in particular to the provision of amenities for the town.").—(Lord Latham.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I hope that I shall be able to make the noble Lord a little happier about this matter than he seems to be at present. I think that it is wrong to assume that the Commission is going to fail in its duties. I see no reason to suppose that. The noble Lord quoted from the report of the development corporations that it was hoped that the Commission would have adequate powers and resources to complete the amenities of a partially developed town, and he described that as "a formidable indictment". It is not a formidable indictment at all; it is a very proper hope; and I can assure the noble Lord that this Bill gives adequate power and resources to the Commission to complete amenities in the proper way. We have to remember that these amenities are largly properly supplied by the local authority. I think the noble Lord used the words "much-despised local authority". He put words into my mouth; I do not despise the local authorities at all. The development corporation puts in the sewers and builds the houses, and then the local authority comes into being. The local authority is probably the right entity to provide the amenities, such as playing fields and so on, and the Commission in this intermediate stage have the power and the financial resources to give the necessary assistance.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Earl explain why the local authorities should provide the amenities at their own expense if they are not capable of administering the new towns?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Nobody has said that they are not capable of administering the new towns; that is an absolute travesty of what I said earlier and on Second Reading. What we have said, and I will repeat it, is that the Government do not think an experiment in wholesale municipalisation at a certain stage is wanted. We have said all along that the local authorities are by their very nature service providers, and that they

115
had much better go on being service providers than property owners. That is the point I want to come to.
LORD LATHAM: It is an entirely different point of view from that taken up by the Government when in opposition in 1946.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think the noble Lord must allow me to develop this point. The primary duty of this Commission is going to be to enhance and develop this property and complete the job in this intermediate stage. Amenities, of course, are important, but the maintenance of adequate employment and prospects for the people living in the town are more important. We must not get this amenity business out of proportion. The Commission will be allowed to spend reasonable sums for this purpose—and, incidentally, this will not depend on the revenue surplus of any one town. One of the great advantages of this centralised Commission is that the Commission will treat all the towns as a whole. The needs will decide how much the Commission will assist the local authority in providing amenities (and normally that will be the way it is done).
The noble Lord said that we had been niggardly in the past and things of this kind have had to be restricted. Of course they have. They have been restricted for the older towns like Worcester and Guildford, which were mentioned in the debate, just as they have been for new towns like Crawley and Basildon. There has been a credit squeeze and financial stringency. But these things are easing up now, and there is no reason to believe that when conditions are easier for one they will not be easier for the other. The Commission will assist and have powers and resources to do so. It is wrong to regard the Commission as primarily a sort of milch cow or universal fairy godmother merely to provide amenities; they have far more to do than that. This Amendment would distort the operations of the Commission from their primary duty, which is to maintain and enhance the property. The mere fact that this welfare is mentioned is plainly adequate to direct the Commission's attentions to amenity considerations. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (4) after "(1)" to insert "and (2)". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I should have thought, is merely a correction of an omission in the Bill as printed, because as it reads at the moment it says that
"the Commission shall have power, with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)…"
I cannot see any particular purpose in subsection (1) except to take over and manage the property. I should have thought that their main purpose was that mentioned in subsection (2). Would it not be correct to say
"with a view to the better fulfilment of the purposes mentioned in subsections (1) and (2)"
rather than to define their duties merely in relation to the holding of land and turning to account the property? What they have to do, among other things, is
"to promote or assist by any means, and in particular by making advances towards the cost of purchasing land…the setting up or extension of businesses in the town",
including the adapting of buildings or works and so forth. That purpose is laid down more in subsection (2) than in subsection (1). To a large extent I think it is a drafting Amendment, but it seems to me that merely to define their functions in relation to what is mentioned in subsection (1) is narrow and restrictive and does not really achieve the purpose which it is intended to achieve in this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, after ("(1)") insert ("and (2)").—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is a technical Amendment which I find a little difficult. I fully sympathise with the intention of the Amendment, so lucidly expressed by the noble Lord who has moved it. I think the best way I can describe it is by saying this: that subsection (1) is purpose, and subsection (2) is duty, and subsection (2) is ancillary to subsection (1); the greater includes the less. I believe that this Amendment is really quite unnecessary, and also, if I may say so, slightly un-grammatical. Clause 2 (4) supplements the implied powers of the Commission with certain expressed powers and indicates that they are to be used to promote the convenience and welfare of people living and working in the new towns and

117
to further the purpose for which the Commission will be established as described in Clause 2 (1), which says: "holding, managing and turning to account…"
The Amendment seeks to add a reference to Clause 2 (2) which defines the Commission's duty. We are getting a little metaphysical here in defining differences between "purpose" and "duty", but I believe that to a large extent this Amendment is otiose. The only new consideration which it is possibly intended to add (although I am advised that it would not effect this, as drawn) is that the Commission may use their powers to further the purposes for which the new towns were originally established.
LORD SILKIN: More than that—to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business. That is staled as a purpose; and yet in the clause that purpose seems to be deliberately excluded.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am advised that it is not deliberately excluded, and that that runs the whole way through the purposes for which the new towns are created and were created. My advice is that it would be wrong to give this aspect of the Commission's functions more weight than the clause already gives it, for when the purposes for which the development corporations have been established have been substantially achieved, ex hypothesi there is little more that either the corporation or the Commission need do about it. Clause 2 (2) says only that the Commission shall "have regard" to these purpose. This was always intended to make only a marginal difference where the Commission have a choice of alternatives, shall we say, in one of the London new towns, of setting up a new business which comes from Bristol or from London. The nature and purpose of the London new town would, I think, give the marginal weight to the London business. Other things being equal, that business should be preferred, because the town was originally designed to draw industry out of London.
The Commission's powers under Clause 2 (4) are adequate to deal with this sort of situation, because they are linked to wider issues raised in Clause
118
2 (1), which itself embraces the narrower issues raised in Clause 2 (2). As the noble Lord said, this is a technical and drafting Amendment, but I must advise your Lordships that it would not improve the Bill and that it is unnecessary. I must ask your Lordships to resist it.
LORD SILKIN: It is almost a drafting, but not wholly a drafting Amendment. The inclusion of subsection (2) would widen the scope of the Bill. It was so intended, and I think it ought to be so. I suppose it is useless to ask the noble Earl to reconsider this matter. I do not propose to do so, and I must let the Amendment be negatived. But I deplore the spirit in which this has been conducted. I do not think that these Amendments are being properly considered at all. I think the noble Earl has been instructed to refuse everything, to make no concession whatever and to give no proper consideration to these Amendments. In those circumstances, it seems hardly worth while discussing them.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I really must object to that. If I have to advise your Lordships to reject an Amendment I think it is wholly unwarrantable that it should be suggested that I have not given it careful consideration, as I have carefully considered this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I am saying merely that I am perfectly convinced that in some cases we have made out a case which is worthy of further consideration. I have on at least two occasions asked the noble Earl whether he would go back to his "masters" and ask whether they would consider it. He is not even prepared to do so. I think that this is a case where one might quite properly have asked for further consideration on the point, and I should have been very happy to withdraw the Amendment on the basis that it would be considered. We think it would improve the Bill to include subsection (2) as one of the purposes. However, the noble Earl has had his instructions and I must accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), to omit paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: I suppose it is not much

119
good moving this Amendment either. The noble Earl has had instructions to reject it. But I will just state the purpose of it. I want to leave out as one of the purposes of the Commission:
"To dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit."
There is no qualification in that at all. Is it really intended that they should be able to dispose of any property in the new town just as they think fit? I am not quite sure what "property" means. Does it mean landed property or chattels, or what does it mean? On the assumption that it means every kind of property, including land, it does not strike me even as being consistent, because subsection (5) provides that
"The Commission shall not without the authority given generally or specially of the Minister—

(a) transfer the freehold in any land.…"

If they cannot do that without the consent of the Minister, then I do not see how they can
"dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit."
I propose that those words should be entirely deleted, because they are giving the Commission far too wide powers without any control whatever; and it is not even clear what is intended by it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 43 and 44.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The removal of paragraph (d) would deprive the Commission of the power to sell freeholds. The intention behind the Amendment is unacceptable, because if the Commission are to do their job properly, the job of estate management, they must have, under proper safeguards, the power to dispose of land by way of freehold sale or long lease, either to industrialists or commercial interests who wish to build shops, cinemas or a dance hall, in accordance with their professional judgment. It is not sensible to give a Commission a professional job to do and at the same time place what are really political restrictions on the methods and policies they may adopt.
There are times when the sale of property is the best course—I think of religious organisations, charitable organisations, and so on. If we remove this
120
power to dispose of any property in such manner as the Commission think fit we have removed all the powers of sale. Incidentally, of course, it would entirely preclude another Government, with other political views who came into power, from directing the Commission to sell the houses to the local authority. I am sorry to have to resist the noble Lord. He feels that I am under instructions in this, but I think this is a radical alteration, and I must resist it.
The noble Lord asked what "property" was. The assets will be transferred to the Commission from the development corporation. The Commission must have this right to dispose. I thought the noble Lord might have been going to deploy the argument that this gives power for them to be a disposal board, and to sell it all off overnight. I dealt with this point on Second Reading, and my right honourable friend in another place has said categorically—I will quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 596 (No. 25), col. 850]:
"I am advised that it would be outside the scope of the Bill for any Minister to tell the Commission to sell its estate wholesale either to local authorities or to private interests. I am advised that that would require another Bill".
I thought perhaps the noble Lord was moving the deletion of this paragraph because he feared the "disposals board" aspect, though I know he has not made that point. He has made the point, with which I cannot agree, that the Commission should not be allowed to sell anything at all. I think that in the ordinary run of good estate management they must, under proper restrictions, be allowed to sell whenever they think fit, under the direction of the Minister.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to continue the argument, except that I certainly do not want it to be on record that I said what the noble Earl says I said. I did not say that they should not be allowed to dispose of anything at all. What I object to is that they should be allowed to dispose of "any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit" without any qualification whatever. I think that is too great a power to give any body of any kind, however eminent. It is all very well for the noble Earl to say that this is not a disposals board, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent their disposing of the whole assets of a

121
new town. If I am wrong about that, I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will correct me. But that is my reading of it; that as these words stand, the Commission can dispose of anything they like. What the noble Earl says here, or what the Minister said in another place, has no validity as against the wording of the Bill itself. If the Commission can dispose of anything—and the noble Earl has argued that they ought to be allowed to do so in the interest of good management—these words certainly give them that right for any purpose that they may think fit.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is a somewhat legalistic argument. The noble Lord did say "without any provisos at all"—I think those were the words he used. But this is a subsection which begins:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act and to any direction given to them by the Minister, the Commission shall have power, with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)…"
and so on. This is not just an isolated clause, with no qualification before or after, saying that they can dispose of any property in such way as they think fit. I am advised, and my right honourable friend in another place is advised—and we must take it that he went carefully into it before he said it—that it would not be within his power to direct the Commission to act as a disposals board, and I must repeat that. That is the legal advice my right honourable friend has obtained on the construction of this clause.
LORD LATHAM: I do not wish to be in any way legalistic, but I would ask the noble Earl to explain why there is no requirement in this clause that the provision and disposal shall have the approval of the Minister and the concurrence of the Treasury, which is the case as regards amenities. I should like to draw a comparison—not a legalistic one—with the rights of local authorities. If a local authority buy land for a specific purpose, then under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act recently passed through your Lordships' House they have to get the specific consent of the Minister to dispose of that land if it is not wanted for the purpose for which it has been acquired. And yet this Commission, which is not an elected body, which is
122
not responsible to the electorate or to the citizens or to the tenants of the new towns, can apparently, without let or hindrance, without any consultation, approval or concurrence of the Minister or of the Treasury, dispose of "any property"—which I take it means all property as well—"for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit." Loud have been the complaints, unjustified in my submission, of certain people against local authorities being able to buy land and then, later on, because they have changed their decision as regards its user, selling it. Here we have the Commission taking over land which has been bought for a specific purpose, namely, as a part of the new towns, and yet it is to have power to dispose of it without let or hindrance, without the approval or concurrence of anyone.
LORD DERWENT: My noble friend has convinced me that the wording with regard to the disposal of the property for such purposes is protected under this Bill and is not so wide as the noble. Lord, Lord Silkin, thinks. But I am somewhat unhappy about the words "in such manner as they think fit". I do not think I need go further than to say at the back of some of our minds is the story of Crichel Down. Perhaps "in such manner" might require further explanation from my noble friend.
5.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very anxious that I should try to help with the matters that are troubling noble Lords opposite. I could not quite appreciate, although I listened as carefully as I could, what was troubling the noble Lord, Lord Latham. As I understood him, he seemed to fear that the power was an absolute power in the hands of the Commission. If he looks at the preceding words he will see that it is
"Subject to the provisions of this Act and to any direction given to them by the Minister…"
So there are two qualifications on the power: it is subject first to the provisions of this Act; and secondly, to any direction given by the Minister. On the first point, "Subject to the provisions of this Act", one has to look at subsection (1) of this clause and also at subsection (2), which says:
"It shall be the general duty of the Commission to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return

123
obtained by them from it, but in discharging their functions in relation to any town the Commission shall have regard to the purpose for which the town was developed under the New Towns Act, 1946, and to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there."
In a matter like this I do not think that one can limit the sanction entirely to the legal provisions. One has to take into account the political sanction on the administration of an Act; and of course an Act must be administered according to the intentions that are expressed in these clauses.
If the noble Lord would look at subsection (5) (this is the third point) he will see these words:
"The Commission shall not without the authority given generally or specially of the Minister—

(a) transfer the freehold in any land, or grant a lease of any land for a term of more than ninety-nine years, except in the case of a private dwelling and in pursuance of an agreement to make the transfer or grant to the person occupying or proposing to occupy it as his residence…"

So there is that qualification where the Minister's authority must be given. There is another point in answer to Lord Latham—and it is also relevant to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Derwent. Subsection (6) states:
"The Commission shall not have power to dispose by way of gift, mortgage or charge of any land or, except as provided by paragraph (b) of subsection (4)…of any other property; nor shall they have power to borrow money except by way of advance from the Minister under this Act."
It seems to me that when one examines that provision, and the words" subject to the provisions of this Act", there is a considerable circumscribing of the power. Then one has the second part—subject to "any direction given them by the Minister". Of course, the Minister has to have regard to the general purpose of the Act in giving directions under subsection (3).
In regard to the other aspect of the point of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I would only say that "in such a manner" means that it is intended to give every discretion as to whether in proper cases disposal shall be by sale or by lease. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree that the difficulty behind Crichel Down—which was the difficulty of land that had been compulsory acquired, or acquired by threat
124
of compulsion and then not returned to a previous owner—is unlikely to arise, so far as I can see, in any of the new towns provisions under this Act or in any amendment of them. It is not a problem which is likely to arise, and the intention is not to have any secrecy. I hope that I have been of some help. I have just been reminded that the Royal Commission is at 5.30 and we ought to make preparation for meeting it, so that the Commons will receive our Message in good time.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to say a word in reply to this, but time does not permit just as the moment. A lot of what the noble and learned Viscount has said is worthy of careful consideration. I should like to ask at this stage whether we can have a separate Report stage of the Bill, because obviously no Amendments are going to be entertained—I can see that. If we could have a Report stage, one could read what has been said. I do not want to enlarge on it; I just put the question straight away because it will have an effect on the course that we take.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Could we consider that immediately? I should like to have a word with my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn about it before we agree to that course, but I could let the noble Lord know later in the day.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Town and Country Planning,

Weeds,

Dog Licences,

Rights of Light,

Street Offences,

Bucks Water Board,

Reading and Berkshire Water &c.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

NEW TOWNS BILL
5.43 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount had finished his remarks. My difficulty about the provision that I want to delete is that I recognise that the Bill contains the two safeguards—"Subject to the provisions of this Act", and, "with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)". Nevertheless, it gives the Commission an absolute power
"to dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit";
and unless there is a direction by the Minister, they have the sole decision as to whether they shall dispose of the property or not. When we come to the next provision, it is that they shall not dispose of freeholds or leaseholds except in a manner set out in subsection (5). The provision I want to delete contains no such restriction. There is nothing in the provision which requires the Minister to be consulted. They can dispose of property if they think it is right that they should do so. They are not obliged to consult the Minister, and the Minister could act only after the event. So I think that this power needs looking at again.
In my submission, it is not really necessary at all. They can carry out their duties without having this power: but if it is thought that they should have some power to dispose of property I think it should be much more circumscribed—either that they should have to obtain permission, or that it should be more closely limited. So I would suggest that this is a matter which ought to be looked at again and that we ought not to be in such a desperate hurry to get this Bill through as to reject anything in any proposal that may be put forward.
It may be that this Bill is so perfect that it is not in need of any amendment at all, and that nothing that anybody can suggest can improve it. How different from the Bill which is coming after it, where we have had hundreds of Amendments proposed by the Government, some of which we are going to consider even on the Third Reading! And how different from a previous measure which we have had before us, the Town and Country Planning Bill, where in the
126
aggregate I think we had something like 400 Amendments. Is it not a remarkable thing that this Bill should go through without a single Amendment; that it comes to us absolutely word perfect, and that nobody can suggest any possible improvement to it? I hope, in spite of what I have said, that we shall have a Report stage and that we shall get a further statement as to whether or not it is desirable that this provision should be amended.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am very conscious of the sincerity with which the noble Lord has spoken on this matter, and I am glad to be able to say that it will be possible to have a Report stage on this Bill. I understand that that can be fitted into Monday's business. That being the case, I shall be glad to consider again what has been said to-day, and to consult my right honourable friend.
LORD SILKIN: In view of the new atmosphere, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (4):
"And in particular when the Minister is satisfied that amenities for the town are lacking and are not being provided as set out in paragraph (c) of this subsection he shall give directions to the Commission to make such contributions to the cost of providing amenities for (he town as may be contained in the directions."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment to Clause 2. As the clause stands, the Commission are under an obligation to consider the question of amenities and, within their discretion, to make contributions towards the costs of providing them for the town. It is one of the things they must have in mind, subject to any direction given by the Minister. They will have the power to do this. But what I want to secure is that where the Minister thinks that the amenities are lacking and ought to be provided he will give directions to that effect. It makes the position mandatory rather than permissive. But, of course, it is only where the Minister is satisfied that the amenities are lacking and are not being provided as set out in paragraph (c). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I believe that the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary. Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provides that the Commission must comply with any direction given by the Minister. The only fetter on the Minister's discretion in giving directions is that he must have regard to the general duty laid upon the Commission in Clause 2 (2)
"…to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return obtained by them from it, but in discharging their functions in relation to any town the Commission shall have regard to the purpose for which the town was developed…"
Therefore it is possible for the Minister, in the exercise of his power under Clause 2 (3), to give such direction as the Amendment envisages, providing he has the agreement of the Treasury. But there is the assumption in the Amendment as it is drawn that the Commission will fail in this matter. If that is so, I doubt whether the Amendment really covers the point. It would not give the Minister power to direct the Commission to provide amenities. It would give power to the Commission to contribute to the amenities that are provided. The assumption is that somebody else will provide the amenities, and normally that will be the local authorities. A direction to the Commission to give financial help to some other body may not necessarily induce that body to do the work.
In seeking to give a mandatory direction here, we must take a wider view. In a period of acute financial stringency, with which any Government might be faced, when there were necessary reasons why public expenditure had to be curtailed, a mandatory direction of this sort would single out new towns as the only bodies to which the Minister had to give directions to provide certain amenities, which may be denied to anybody else. But this is only a secondary point. The main point is that in normal circumstances I am advised that the Bill as drafted does provide what the noble Lord wants and that this Amendment is really unnecessary.
LORD SILKIN: I do not accept that it would be unnecessary, because it would place a duty on the Minister, whereas in the Bill as it stands it is optional on his
128
part to give a direction. But since there is to be a Report stage, I am very willing to consider what the noble Earl has said and not press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (7):
"and shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of what is to happen to any surpluses that may arise in connection with the finances of a new town. The Bill as it stands provides that any surplus shall be paid into the Exchequer; and if my reading of the Bill is correct, there the matter ends. There is no obligation on the part of the Exchequer to do anything with a surplus, except to use it for the purpose of general tax relief. This is a surplus after taking into account all charges—repayment of debt interest and so on; it is a true surplus which, in my submission, should go to the benefit of the new town itself.
I can certainly speak of the intention of the Government which introduced the 1946 Act. They did not regard the new towns as primarily a profit-making concern. They were not entering into the development business for the purpose of making a profit, although we always believed that eventually they would be profitable. The real question for consideration here is whether that surplus should go to the relief of the taxpayer or to the benefit of the new town. I should be perfectly prepared to have a discussion on what is the right course, but this clause seems to assume implicitly that the surplus will go to the benfit of the taxpayer, because once it is paid into the Exchequer there is no obligation on the Exchequer to account for the surplus.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the surplus
"…shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine."
It also provides that a surplus on one town is not necessarily to be devoted to

129
the benefit of that particular town. I am accepting the principle of the Bill and asking that any surplus on one town should go to the town that most needs it. So far as I see it, the Bill as it stands is silent about this point. I hope that we may have some further elucidation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, after ("Exchequer") insert ("and shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine.")—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The point of the noble Lord's Amendment was discussed on Second Reading on a slightly wider front. The slightly narrower point on which the noble Lord puts forward his Amendment is whether a surplus should be earmarked for any one town or should be used for the benefit of all twelve of the new towns. I think that the points I made in reply to the debate on Second Reading must still weigh with your Lordships. It is not right to assume that the Government should be content with getting back the money expended, as if (to borrow a phrase which was used in the Second Reading debate) they were debenture holders, and that the local people—or now, under the Amendment, the wider group of the twelve towns—should have an equity interest and get the benefit of a surplus, if any. I do not think this can be accepted.
It is the money put up by the taxpayers of the whole country, and not just by the local people, that has produced the assets of the new towns, and it is the taxpayers as a whole who are entitled to the surpluses. The convenience and welfare of the local people will be a prime consideration of the Commission, and provision for the amenities that should be provided in the new town will be taken into account before a surplus is required to be paid over. That is the point that must be remembered. Clause 2 (7) of the Bill as originally drafted was amended in another place, and the words
"(including any contributions that may be required to be made in any of their towns under the last mentioned paragraph (b))".
were put in to cover this point. It was considered that no surplus which was not a true surplus should be declared and sent off to the Treasury. That is really the case.
130
There is another point. If Clause 2 (7) has been properly complied with, after consultation between the Treasury and the Commission and so on, and it is agreed that there is a surplus within the terms as I have tried to define them, the Amendment means that the Commission can be told: "Now apply that surplus back again for the very things you say have already been completed." Ex hypothesi those reasons for spending the money are no longer there. I think the safeguard here is that the surplus will not be treated as a surplus and go to the Treasury until it is a real surplus.
LORD LATHAM: It seems to me that the noble Earl wishes to have it both ways. First of all, the Government are in the position of debenture holders, and they have a first charge for the service of the debt. Then if there is an equity, the Government claim also to have the equity. Even in these, shall I say, progressive financial days in the City that is a little unique. It seems to me that the noble Earl has not made any case whatever for the Government's insisting that the surplus, which is the equity surplus, should be paid over to the Exchequer. My own view is that he is a little optimistic if he assumes that all the reasonable and desirable objectives in connection with the town, including amenities, will have been achieved and, therefore, if there is a surplus, that there will be nothing upon which it can be properly spent. I think that is assuming that the Commission, with the consent of the Minister and the Treasury, are likely to be more generous in regard to the provision of amenities than will actually be the case.
If the new towns are not to have this surplus, ought not the local authorities to have some of it? They carry an enormous burden as the result of the establishment of these new towns, and it will take many years before the rateable return from the properties which are created pays for the cost of providing the services, especially on the very costly basis (quite properly) upon which education is being provided and will be provided in the future. It seems to me to be quite indefensible that the Government should claim first of all to be debenture holders, having a prior charge, and then, having had their interest and their principal paid, should claim to have the equity.
LORD GIFFORD: I must confess that at first sight I had some sympathy with this Amendment, but the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, having pointed out that contributions to amenities would be taken into account before any surplus was declared, I feel entirely satisfied.
LORD LATHAM: There is nothing in the Bill requiring the Minister to take into account anything before establishing a surplus.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I can add nothing further to what I have said. The principle involved here is that no Government can accept that a particular part of their revenue can for all time, and irretrievably, be earmarked for a particular purpose. That has been tried before, and it does not work, and we do not think it would be correct to do it here. As my noble friend Lord Gifford has said, the essential works will have been done. It is not right to say that there is no qualification for this. The whole of this Bill is laying down what the Commission have got to do, and it is only when there has been consultation between the Treasury and the Commission and when all the things mentioned in Clause 2 (7) have been carried out, that, as it were, a dividend is declared and the surplus is known. And I may say that there is not likely to be a general surplus for a long way ahead. A question was asked in the Second Reading debate about Harlow, which had a surplus on revenue account but which had a much bigger deficit on another account. One must take the picture as a whole. It would not be right for me to say that I will consider this point again, because it has been carefully considered already. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl is really misdirecting himself. He is assuming that this is a surplus which properly belongs to the Exchequer and that it would not be practicable or wise to earmark it for another purpose. But that is the whole difference between us. I say that it is not a surplus which properly belongs to the Exchequer. The only claim that the Exchequer has is for the return of its money and interest. The Exchequer is not a speculator; it has not embarked on this venture in order to make profits. If there is a surplus, that
132
surplus really belongs to the community who are responsible for its creation. That is the issue. For the noble Lord to say that it belongs to the Exchequer, and therefore the Government should keep it, is really begging the question. I remain quite unconvinced and I may return to the attack on another occasion.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Transfer of houses to district council
". The Minister shall when he is satisfied that the provision of new dwellings by the Commission in any town is substantially ended convey to the county district in which such new town is situated all the dwellings owned by the Commission in the new town and thereupon the Council of the county district shall be entitled to the rents and subsidies of such dwellings and shall be liable for the cost of their proper maintenance and for the outstanding debt in respect thereof to the Exchequer."
The noble Lord said: This new clause provides that when the Minister is satisfied that the provision of new dwellings in any town is substantially ended, then those new dwellings should be transferred to the administration of the local authority. One of the arguments put forward by the Government for not handing over the functions of the new town to the local authority is that many of these functions are not normally the functions of a local authority. There is a certain amount of superficial merit in that point, and it is quite an understandable one. However, the management of housing is purely a local authority function. Is there any reason why the housing part of the undertaking of the new town, once it is finished, should not be handed over to the local authority for them to manage? Are they not in a better position to manage their own housing in their own area than the Central Commission, sitting possibly hundreds of miles away? I should have thought that to transfer these houses to the local authority for their management when the housing functions have been completed was a common sense and fair thing to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is a clause which again anticipates the third stage that we have been discussing and raises the whole point of whether we should legislate for what happens at the end of the life of the Commission. I have had to say many times that the Government are not prepared to do that at this moment. The clause would compel a Minister to hand over houses to the local authority. There is really a contradiction in terms here, because in fact, in all the towns, housing accounts form by far the greater proportion of the property, both financial and physical, of the development corporation's estate. If we move on logically, we are saying that at a certain stage the development corporation hands over its property to the development Commission for certain purposes to manage, enhance and so on, as we all know. If we divest the Commission of most of its property at that point, we are really contradicting ourselves in saying that we must hand over this property for the Commission to conserve. This clause, on a slightly narrower front, raises the general question about the ultimate ownership of the development corporation's assets. I do not want to go into that detail now.
There are only two other small points I would make on this Amendment as drafted, and that is that it would hand over these dwellings at one bite. I am told that the Labour Party has in fact suggested that they ought to be transferred in stages, and I do not know, therefore, how much noble Lords opposite want to use this handing over power at once when, according to the newspapers, it is not the policy of their Party to do that. Secondly, this clause would really be unprecedented if it were incorporated, because the local authority would be bound to take over what might be a burden, with no right in the matter at all—no statutory right to have any say in the matter, particularly on financial terms. They are to take over the houses and the outstanding debt at a time chosen by the Minister. I cannot believe that any Government would propose to Parliament a clause of this kind without at least giving the local authority the right, for instance, to go to arbitration or to go to Parliament regarding the financial terms. I think the clause is defective in detail, in failing to specify how the Minister is to convey the property of the
134
Commission to the county district council. For those defects alone, I would say that it would not be proper for your Lordships to add this clause to the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: Obviously the noble Earl is not going to accept this clause, but, I submit, for entirely bad reasons. I do not want to take up a great deal of time, and I want to mention only one of the points the noble Earl made, which is that this would be done without consulting the local authorities. He will remember 1946, a long time ago, when the New Towns Bill was before this House, and the Government were then urged to transfer the assets of (he new towns to the local authorities without consultation at all—as they were in the Commons, as I well remember. This point was never taken then, and I do not think it a valid point now, because the local authorities have definitely expressed their desire to take over the assets in the new towns and, in particular, housing.
If the noble Earl is interested, I would tell him that this Amendment is inspired by the local authorities of the areas in which the new towns are situated, so he may ease his mind as to imposing this burden upon the particular local authorities. Nor did the 1946 Act give the local authorities any option as to the terms. It was all laid down to be agreed. However, I do not think the noble Earl has made a case for rejecting the clause, except on the wording of whether it should be done all at once or in stages. If that were the only difference between us, again I should be ready to "do a deal" with the noble Earl, but I imagine that that is not the real difference and is simply one stick with which to beat this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Transfer and compensation of officers
"—(1) Any order under section six of this Act may contain provisions as to the transfer to the Commission of existing officers affected by the order and shall contain provisions for the protection of the interests of any such existing officers.
(2) Every person who is or who but for any national service of his would be an existing officer and who suffers loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is

135
attributable to the provisions of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be entitled to have his case considered for the payment, of compensation by the Commission such compensation to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, and subject to the provisions of this section those regulations shall apply accordingly with any modifications which the Minister may by order consider it necessary or expedient to make for the purpose of the application of those regulations to compensation under this Act.
(3) For the purpose of this section and the the said regulations as applied hereby—
"existing officer" means an officer in the service of a development corporation on such date or dates as may be specified in an order relating to that development corporation;
"national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be specified in an order under section six of this Act; and
"officer" includes the holder of any place situation or employment.
(4) (a) If after the passing of this Act regulations relating to compensation payable to officers and servants of local authorities come into operation the Minister may by order amend the provisions of this section by substituting such regulations for the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, and by making such consequential amendments to this section as may be necessary.
(b) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. May I briefly recall the history of the new towns in so far as it has some bearing on the Amendment? In 1945, the Government appointed the Reith Committee and the terms of reference were:
"To consider the general questions of the establishment, development, organisation and administration that will arise in the promotion of new towns, in furtherance of a policy of planned decentralisation from congested areas; and in accordance therewith, to suggest guiding principles on which new towns should be developed as self-contained and balanced communities for work and living…"
Most of the Committee's recommendations were incorporated in the New Towns Act, 1946. For this we are indebted to the practical idealism of my noble friend Lord Silkin, who was then the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
It is, I believe, correct to say that initially twenty new towns were planned,
136
capable of providing accommodation for one million persons, and these were to be followed by other new towns. My noble friend Lord Silkin said that the new towns were to produce a new type of citizen, healthy, self-respecting, dignified, with a sense of duty, culture and civic pride. Thirteen years ago, when the new towns were launched, the development corporations had to recruit the administrators, architects, engineers, surveyors, town planners, housing managers and other officers. The important point is that most of these officers were recruited from the local government service. Many of these officers were aware of the conditions prevailing in some of our industrial towns—the slums, the contrast between rich and poor, the lack of any communal life and the absence of any sense of neighbourliness. Therefore, with energy, skill and imagination they tackled their new and exciting tasks, and to-day as some of the new towns are reaching completion they are a joy to see. To those who work and live in them they are a source of pride and pleasure. But apparently no more new towns are to be built.
Writing to The Times a few weeks ago on another matter, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said:
"Actions by Governments are unpredictable and can be devastating in their effect".
That comment is certainly true so far as the decision of the Government to build no more new towns is concerned. At the last conference of the National and Local Government Officers' Association, a trade union with over 250,000 members, the President, dealing with the question of the position of the staff now employed in the new towns said:
"It may be true, as the responsible Minister has said, that these men and women were given no guarantee either of permanent employment or of compensation, and that they have, therefore, no legal claim. But it is equally true that there was expectancy that if the first new towns were a success others would undoubtedly follow and there would be a lifetime's work for them. On that basis many of our colleagues abandoned safe jobs and a promising future. They have therefore the strongest moral claim for compensation. That we have pressed, and shall continue to press, with all our force. We regard the Minister's attitude, adopted on narrow legalistic grounds, as an example of petty meanness paralleled only by the veto of the Health Service's 3 per cent. increase, and one we must resist. Further frustration faces our colleagues from the recently announced intention of the Government to form a national

137
Commission for new towns. In this connection, there is no clear or concise indication of the Government's intention with regard to staff for the commission or local agencies."
In this restrained language the President expressed the discontent of conference, a discontent sharpened by a sense of injustice.
The Amendment standing in my name follows very closely the provision made for compensation, for example by Water Bills. The Minister of Housing and Local Government in another place said in April last year:
"In every local Act passed since 1950 which authorised extensions of local government areas, the provision as to compensation for existing officers made by the Act, where such provision was required, took the form of applying the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, subject to specified modifications. Where local legislation dealing with the reorganisation of water services involves provision being made for the payment of compensation for loss of office, the appropriate precedent is Section 153 of the Kent Water Act, 1955."
Frankly, it is difficult to understand why the staff of the new towns are refused the protection which is normally afforded where functions are transferred from one public authority to another public authority.
In another place the Minister argued that the staff of the new towns were losing their jobs because the work for which they were engaged will end, and therefore it was wrong in principle to provide compensation for anyone taken on for a limited period. That is a clear and precise statement. I submit that we are entitled to expect some consistency in this matter of compensation for loss of office. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill daring the Second Reading debate said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 217 (No. 96), col. 765]:
"The Commission fills the gap in an intermediate stage and the decision on the ultimate policy for final ownership is deferred."
Clearly, therefore, at some stage or other it is contemplated that the work of the Commission will end, and therefore the work of the Commission is on a temporary basis. And yet, after all the declarations in another place in regard to temporary employment not ranking for compensation, subparagraph (8) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to this very Bill provides that the Minister will be enabled in respect of the members of the Commission engaged on a temporary
138
basis to pay out of monies provided by Parliament such pensions, allowances or gratuities in respect of retirement or death as may be determined. I ask the Minister, why this discrimination? For the architects, planners and others who by their creative genius have built up these new towns there is no protection provided in the Bill and its provision is resisted at every stage. For those who will take over the properties on a temporary basis, simply as administrators, provision is inserted in the Bill, protection is inserted in the Bill, for compensation, gratuities and things of that kind.
Of course, I do not imply that they should not have that protection, I am suggesting only that what is good enough for fifteen members of the Commission is equally good enough for those men who have created the new towns. The trade union of the officers still considers that a compensation clause should be inserted in the Bill. It is not agreed that there will be a mere, small hard core of difficult cases. More than once during the passage of the Bill through another place reference was made by the Government spokesmen to the fact that little difficulty is envisaged in the case of rent and rate collectors, and so on. But the Association are particularly concerned with the technical staff, architects, surveyors, engineers, town planners and so on. I cannot see how all those people from the new towns can be assimilated into the work of the new Commission.
I welcome the observation of the Minister in another place on the Second Reading when he said that the new Commission, when recruiting its own staff, would not simply consider the first development corporation which may pass out of existence but would in effect afford equal opportunities to staffs of all the development corporations. Further, I hope that when the hard cases come to be considered a realistic view will be taken of the amount of compensation to be paid to the officers concerned. So far, nothing has been said about the amount or type of compensation which the Government might have in mind, but we hope that payments will be related in some way to the existing compensation code and will not take the form of terminable gratuities. The Minister's undertaking to refer particulars of the

139
hard cases to the Whitley Council as soon as the managers of the new towns have made their report is also welcome. May I add that it is also hoped that in due course the Commission themselves will be represented on the Whitley Council, and—this is most important—that the Minister will use his good offices as a referee should the necessity arise.
Finally, I should be most grateful if the Minister would confirm that any arrangement for the payment of compensation, or whatever form the payment may take, entered into by a development corporation will be taken over by the Commission—in other words, not only will they take over the assets but that they will take over the liabilities. It is appreciated that when referring to this matter in Committee the Minister gave an undertaking that from the new towns, whether from the development corporation or from the Commission, help would be given if it were needed. It may well be that a particular development corporation, familiar with the skill and merits of a particular officer, would be inclined to be more generous in the matter of compensation than would the Commission. Thus I hope that the Commission will take over without any cavil, without any attempt to whittle down anything which the development corporations may have awarded. I am sorry at this late hour to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but this is regarded by the officers and by the trade union as a matter of vital importance to the staff concerned. Therefore, I hope that we shall receive some satisfactory assurances this afternoon from the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Burden.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I know how deeply and sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Burden, feels for the members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association, for whom, as he has told us, he has largely spoken today. I am glad to say that I hope to be able to reassure him on the two main points he made. The first point was that in paragraph (8) of the first Schedule there was provision, as he said, for compensation for the bosses but not, he felt.
140
for the men. There is no discrimination here. There is no provision for compensation for either.
LORD BURDEN: If the noble Earl will excuse me, it is true that the word "compensation" is not used, but the word "allowances" and other terms are used. In view of the way in which the 1946 Act was construed, that the Minister could grant gratuities and so on—or that the development corporations of the new towns could do so—it is really of no value to say that that clause could not be construed to include compensation. I did not use the word "bosses"; I used the phrase "fifteen members of the committee."
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Pensions are protected for members of the Commission, and they are protected for the staff; there is no discrimination there.
LORD BURDEN: I am sorry, but the noble Earl has not yet got my point. Members of a new body are getting protection—I will put it that way, using a non-committal word. The men who have built up the new towns have nothing at all.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord must put it that way. I am afraid he must use the words in the Bill, and what we are suggesting is contained in | paragraph 1 (8) of the First Schedule, which deals with pensions, allowances or gratuities. That is the provision dealing with the pensions of members of the Commission. I am advised and assured that the pensions and similar rights of the members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association who will be working for the corporations are similarly protected.
LORD BURDEN: I know that.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The other point made by the noble Lord was this: supposing the corporation do something, do the Commission take over the liability? The answer is that they do. Section 2 (2) of the 1946 Act says that every
"corporation shall have power…generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidentally thereto."
I am entitled to say that this matter was discussed on the Recommittal stage in

141
another place, and that is the statutory authority for hardship payments to their members by the development corporation. The Department advise that one of the things that will be construed as necessary and expedient is to treat the staff in a fair and proper manner; and therefore these obligations will be taken over by the Commission.
May I now turn to the Amendment? It is open to the fundamental objection expressed when this clause or similar clauses were tabled in another place: that it is inappropriate to forget that these corporations were, by their own definition, short-lived corporations. Noble Lords have been generous enough to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend in another place has said that he will deal with the hard cases, if any, that arise. I am sure that the members of N.A.L.G.O. know well enough that promises given in terms as categorical as those which the Minister used in another place are promises that neither he nor any successor of his could possibly avoid honouring without great trouble.
But there is a real difference here about which the noble Lord must forgive me for reminding him—I am sure he has been reminded of it before—between the cessation of a development corporation and, for instance, the compulsory amalgamation of two local authorities. As to the compulsory amalgamation of such local authorities, no employee could have foreseen this statutory action, unexpected, of which the staff received no notice. But the people went into these development corporations with their eyes open. In this world one has to take risks. One becomes, perhaps, a Member of Parliament, or accepts a position in the Government. One does not know whether the electorate or one's noble leader requires one's services any further, or whether one will get back one's job. One has to take these risks.
May I put this further point: that this Amendment as drawn would not meet the point we are trying to get at, because it will be as the corporation begins to fulfil its tasks that the people will have to begin to look for other jobs. The Amendment is drawn only to include statutory compensation for these people
142
at the moment the Commission take over. As for trying to provide (which I am sure would be wrong) for statutory compensation for all these people in these temporary corporations, if the Government were to give way on that they would have to do something very different from this Amendment to bring in the people who begin to go when they see the work coming to an end. I hope that the assurances which my right honourable friend the Minister has given (the words were quoted, and I will not quote them again); the fact that the pensions for both classes of people are covered, and also the fact that if the corporations incur an obligation it will be taken over by the Commission, will allay, at least in some measure, the anxieties of the noble Lord. I hope that he will not feel he must press this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: Whilst not undervaluing but fully appreciating the value of the assurance given, quite frankly, and with the greatest respect, may I say that I do not consider that what has been said is an adequate reply to the case I have submitted. As I said, we value and welcome the assurance given in another place. But, really, one does not know the state of mind of people thirteen years ago. There was an impression—I have talked with these people—that this was a continuing process, and that—I will not say we should come to England's green and pleasant land again, but that some of our slums and terrible industrial cities would, in the days to come, disappear.
Be that as it may, I am sure the noble Earl will not think me discourteous when I tell him that this is a matter of principle so far as the men are concerned; and whilst I hope that I shall always be reasonable and accommodating in matters where vital principle is not involved, this is a matter which I could not withdraw without giving up what I regard and what is regarded as a vital principle. The Amendment must obviously be negatived, and then the responsibility is something which will have to be taken.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
6.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I do not think I need take very long in explaining to your Lordships the purpose of this Bill, which is simply to raise the maximum liabilities permitted to the Export Credits Guarantee Department under the Act of 1949 as amended in 1952 and 1957. Before 1949 the only business of the Department consisted in insuring British exporters against the risk of not being paid, on ordinary commercial principles, and that is still the larger part of the Department's business.
In the 1949 Act the limit which the Department was allowed to guarantee on this commercial insurance business (that is, business under Section 1) was fixed at £500 million, and in 1952 it was raised to £750 million, which is still the limit. But if we take the Department's actual and contingent liabilities together at the present moment we see that they are coming very near indeed to that limit. On June 30 of this year, which is the latest date for which there are figures, their actual liabilities were £553 million and their contingent liabilities over £189 million, making a total of over £742 million. This is within £7½ million of the permitted limit, so that it will obviously have to be raised if the business of the Department continues to expand. We have taken the figure of £1,000 million as a convenient round number, which will give a margin of £250 million over the existing liabilities.
The reasons for the increase in these liabilities are probably fairly numerous. One, I think, is the change from a sellers' market to a buyers' market, which means that a great many commercial contracts now have to be arranged on the buyers' terms, which often means a much longer period of repayment, and naturally the exporter is therefore more anxious to protect himself against future risks of default. But another reason is that the Department itself is spending £20,000 a year on advertisement; it does everything it can to advertise itself and to bring its business to the notice of British exporters because we believe that that is very much to the advantage of British trade.
144
All this Section 1 business (that is, the commercial business) is done on the advice of the Export Credits Advisory Council. That is a body of about sixteen persons: Sir Geoffery Gibbs is the Chairman and the members are all people of standing and ability in business or commerce. The Department submits all proposals for insurance to their judgment and acts on their advice. They do not receive any remuneration and the Government are grateful to them for this public-spirited service.
Section 2 of the 1949 Act sets the upper limit for "national interest" business at £100 million. That was raised to £150 million in 1952 and to £250 million in 1957, £250 million being the present limit. The business done by the Department under Section 2 of the Act is of two kinds. One is insurance involving "special guarantees" for insurance business in cases which are not considered to be commercially justifiable because the risk of non-payment is too great. Therefore, they cannot be recommended by the Advisory Council, and they cannot be dealt with under Section 1; but they can be dealt with under Section 2 if the Department and the Government consider that, in spite of the risk, it is nevertheless in the national interest that the transaction should be covered. For instance, it might be thought that, in spite of the risk of non-payment, if you take a long view of the future of British export trade it would be a very good thing that the particular contract in question should be accepted and given to a British firm; and on that ground it might be covered under Section 2 of the Act. The amount of outstanding liabilities in respect of these special guarantees is a little over £48 million at the present moment.
The other kind of liability under Section 2 of the Act is that incurred by the issue of export credit loans to foreign Governments who wish to help their own nationals who want to buy British exports for which they cannot immediately pay. These loans are issued in the form of sterling credits in Great Britain; the British exporter is paid in sterling in this country out of those credits; the borrowing Government—that is, the Government of the importing country—at the same time undertakes to repay to the Export Credits Guarantee Department the amount of the loan, with interest, in sterling, at whatever date may be agreed;

145
and the borrowing Government makes its own financial arrangements with its own nationals who are purchasing the British exports. The amount of liabilities under that heading at the present moment is about £46½ million.
Now, my Lords, the present ceiling is £250 million, and the present liabilities do not come nearly so close to it as they do in the case of commercial business. The actual liabilities, which are about half in the shape of loans and half in the shape of special guarantees, are about £95½ million; and the contingent liabilities—that is, liabilities which are now being contemplated and are likely to be entered into—are another £71 million. That gives only £167 million-odd altogether, leaving a margin of £82½ million before you get to the limit of £250 million. And yet we are proposing in the Bill to raise the limit from £250 million to £400 million. The reason is that there is ground for expecting that this Section 2 business will increase much more rapidly than Section 1 business. In fact, it has been increasing much more rapidly since the Montreal Conference last September. It was agreed at the Montreal Conference that Commonwealth assistance loans should be given, and this Export Credits Guarantee Department machinery is one way in which that can be done. At the same time, of course, similar loans can be given to countries which are outside the Commonwealth.
In the last six or seven months, since September, the loans which have already been published are a general loan of £28½ million to India; another of £10 million to Pakistan; another of £5 million to the Sudan; and another of £3 million to Yugoslavia. There is also a special loan to India, which your Lordships may have seen announced lately, of £23 million by the Burma Oil Company and the Export Credits Guarantee Department together, to enable the new pipeline to be installed from Assam. The Burma Oil Company put up some £20 million, and the Export Credits Guarantee Department the balance of £3 million. There are many other loans in contemplation; and I am sure your Lordships will agree that since, when a Colony attains full sovereignty within the Commonwealth, it ceases to be eligible for a loan from the Colonial Development Fund, it is therefore particularly desirable that facilities for loans from other sources should be made avail-
146
able. I think, my Lords, you will all hope that if our own foreign exchange position continues to get better we may be able to do more than we have been doing up till now for economically backward countries who cannot be expected to pay immediately for the capital goods which they so urgently need for their development but who are anxious to buy British goods while we are equally anxious to help them both to raise their standard of living and to progress along the road to political stability and freedom.
It may well be that this limit of £400 million which we are proposing may, before long, prove to be too low; but we do not want to ask Parliament to authorise a maximum which might appear to be excessively greater than the actual liabilities at the present moment. And, of course, it is always open to Parliament at any time to raise the limit as the business of the Export Credits Guarantee Department expands. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to ask a question? Is there any intention to subdivide this £400 million in any way between the two forms of loan under Section 2—that is, the first form of loans with an extra risk, and the second form of loans to Governments?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, they are not two different kinds of loan. One is an ordinary insurance transaction which is called a special guarantee because it is not regarded as a good commercial risk: but it is, nevertheless, covered because we decide that coverage is in the national interest. This is insurance. The loans are quite a different kind of business from that.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
6.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation of the situation, although as some of us knew perhaps a little about the previous Acts we followed it with ease. We welcome very much the idea of the Government to expand the limits to which this business can be carried by the means of granting the extra backing of the Government for the credits. That it

147
is still needed is shown by the latest survey issued by the Federation of British Industries at the end of May, which shows that there is a considerable volume of industrial capacity still unused; and the idea of expanding our exports with a view to assisting those particular industrial undertakings to come back into full production is always a very good one, and all parties have always been agreeable to this form of export guarantee.
There is, however, something that I should have liked to know. The noble Earl very kindly gave us a list of the new arrangements which have been made in the last year or two with the countries within the Commonwealth after the Montreal Conference; and tacked on at the end is Yugoslavia. Perhaps it just happened to follow after the Montreal Conference. But we have had many cases—such as that pressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank—of countries with which we seem to have only limited trading arrangements. How far will these credits be available for the increase of British export trade to countries behind the Iron Curtain? We do not include Yugoslavia now in that class. Wherever the opportunity is afforded for export business, then I think that it would be a good thing in helping to improve relations.
I dare say that when the Prime Minister was in Russia things were said and done which have influenced an increase of trade during recent months. I may say, from my own experience with the Co-operative Wholesale Society and their arrangements with the Soviet between 1921 and 1935, on a system of revolving credits, that never a penny piece was lost, and great good will was established. I think that that is something to go upon. Therefore, I hope that when the noble Earl comes to reply he will say a word or two on how far this part of the Government's policy dealing with export credits may be applied on a wider basis, as opportunity arises, in such countries as Russia and the Chinese People's Republic and other countries in a similar position.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, in connection with these guarantees, perhaps I may raise a matter of procedure. If the matter needs further in-
148
vestigation, I shall be happy if the Minister replies to it after this debate. An exporter makes an application to the Department, and if he is given the guarantee for which he applies, he goes, as is the practice of many exporters, to the bankers to finance the transaction. It seems desirable that the banks should be able to register their interest with the Department in the same way as the interest of a mortgagee is noted on an insurance policy. I understand that the Department is not willing to do this; and so far as it is not done the bankers have no protection against a creditor borrowing beyond the guarantee which has been given; nor is there any way of establishing priority of claim against the guarantee. I think that it would be helpful if normal insurance procedure could be followed by the Department in this matter.
7.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am glad that your Lordships are so ready to give a Second Reading to this Bill without a prolonged discussion. The only question which the noble Viscount asked, I think, was about the Iron Curtain countries, with particular reference to Russia and China. Of course, there is nothing to prevent export trade loans from being given to countries behind the Iron Curtain, if they ask for them and if it is thought a good thing by both Governments. It has been announced already that there is no question of giving these loans to Russia, because Russia is a lending country; and as she is lending a great deal of money to other countries, obviously she is under no need to borrow money for the purpose of paying for imports from this country. But Clause 1 of the Bill, under which individual exporters can insure themselves against loss in any country, will apply to trade with Russia as much as to that with any other country. So far, I think that the only loans which have been published are those which I have mentioned to your Lordships and I think that probably it will be found that priority in this matter is likely to be given to the undeveloped countries in the British Commonwealth.
I will look into the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I cannot honestly say that I can see what his difficulty is, because I do not see how

149
a mortgage holder could be prejudiced either by an export credit loan or by an exporter insuring himself against the risk of not being paid. I do not know whether the noble Lord was suggesting that if an exporter insures himself under Section 1 and pays a premium to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the payment of this premium might have an adverse affect on his other creditors.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: NO, my Lords, that is not the point. The benefit of the guarantee should be assigned to the people who finance the export.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the point seems to be that if an exporter has other creditors and if he should become bankrupt, the benefit of the guarantee should be assigned to them. I will certainly look into that. I do not know whether they would have any legal claim upon it or not. I imagine that if he went into bankruptcy, his insurance payments, from all sources would be included as part of his assets.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, if done by an insurance company, the benefit of that guarantee would be assigned. I only want to see that this would happen where these guarantees are financed by someone other than the exporter.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that it possibly does, but I will let the noble Lord know. I think that those were the only two questions to which noble Lords wished me to reply, and I hope that we shall now have the Bill read a second time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my noble Leader asked me to apologise because he had to leave before the noble Earl replied to the question which he had addressed to him, but Business has run later than expected and he had to get away to an appointment. We are glad to know that there are no restrictions on the use of any of this money for trade with Russian and China. I gather that it was the idea to give sufficiently long credit to facilitate that business. On this side we are very glad to know that the bulk of the loans will be going to undeveloped countries.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that I did say that it had been
150
announced that loans would not be necessary for Russia.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.9 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, as far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MENTAL HEALTH BILL
7.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I move the Third Reading of this Bill I would suggest that we take the Third Reading formally. I will then move the Amendments, and we can then have any discussion on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will see that there are a number of Amendments. I have gone through them carefully and I have a full note, which I have mastered, on each one. They are all drafting and clarifying Amendments. If your Lordships are prepared to accept that from me, I will move that all the Amendments on the Marshalled List be agreed to. If there are any points noble Lords may wish to raise I shall be glad to deal with them. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 80, page 60, line 44, at end insert ("or, where he is treated as if he had been so admitted by virtue of a direction under subsection (1) of section sixty-six of this Act, such form of mental disorder as may be specified in the direction under that subsection.")
Clause 87, page 68, line 6, leave out ("Part IV of")
Clause 87, page 68, line 8, after ("treatment") insert ("under Part IV of this Act")
Clause 87, page 68, line 11, leave out ("the said Part IV") and insert ("this Act")
Clause 87, page 68, line 13, at end insert ("under the said Part IV")
Clause 87, page 68, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
Clause 94, page 71, line 31, at end insert ("or under subsection (2) of section sixty-four of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949")
Clause 96, page 71, line 48, at end insert—
("(3) A patient removed to England and Wales under this part of this Act or under subsection (2) of section sixty-four of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. 1949, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as suffering from such form of mental disorder as may be recorded in his case in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of section ninety-four of this Act, and references in this Act to the form or forms of mental disorder specified in the relevant application, order or direction shall be construed as including references to the form or forms of mental disorder so recorded.")
Sixth Schedule, page 122, line 36, at end insert (",and references in this Act to the form or forms of mental disorder specified in the relevant application, order or direction shall be construed as including references to the form or forms of mental disorder so recorded.")
Seventh Schedule, page 140, line 24, column 2, leave out from ("hospital") to ("under") in line 27, and insert ("mental nursing home or place of safety")
Seventh Schedule, page 146, line 33, column 2, leave out from ("1959") to ("or") in line 35
Eighth Schedule, page 149, line 38, column 3, at end insert ("In the Eighth Schedule, the amendment of section two of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913")
Eighth Schedule, page 150, line 19, column 3, at end insert ("In the First Schedule, in Part I, the amendment of subsection (6) of section fifty-seven of the Education Act, 1944, and, in the amendments of section one hundred and sixteen of that Act, the paragraph beginning with ' For the words'; and in Part II, the amendments of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913")
Eighth Schedule, page 151, column 3, leave out lines 28 to 30.—(The Lord Chancellor)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the House will be delighted to accept the assurance of the noble and learned
152
Viscount the Lord Chancellor. If any further assurance is necessary, I can say that I have been through the Amendments and that I am perfectly satisfied.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My
Lords, perhaps I may follow the procedure that I followed two days ago. I should like to move formally that this Bill do now pass and then have the opportunity later on to deal with any points that your Lordships may care to raise. I hope your Lordships will not take that amiss. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.13 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to pass from a measure which aroused a certain amount of Party political controversy to one which has been discussed throughout all its stages, both in another place and here, on a non-Party basis. It would be wrong to suggest that there have been no differences of opinion, but such differences as have arisen have certainly not been on any ideological or Party basis and have arisen through deep-felt feelings on the part of individual noble Lords or Members of another place; and they have been resolved, I think, in a reasonable and generally satisfactory manner. So far as I personally am concerned, I still feel that the Bill is defective, mainly in one sense—namely, as to the qualifications for detention. I still feel that Parliament is making a mistake in not retaining the safeguard of some kind of lay control. However, we have had our discussions on that and as a good democrat I accept the fact that that is probably not the view of the majority of people and it is not the view of the Royal Commission.
On the other hand, I can say with a good deal of satisfaction that the Bill is a much better Bill to-day than it was when it first came to this House. A number of noble Lords have given a great deal of time and attention to it, and as a result we have considerable improvements. For instance, we have an improvement in the definition of a psychopath. That is a difficult question and one which gave rise to a good deal of discussion. Whilst I am not sure

153
that even now it is completely satisfactory, it is certainly a better definition than it was before. There has been some relaxation on the question of censorship of letters, a matter on which some of my noble friends and I felt fairly strongly. Then there have been other Amendments made to the Bill in the course of its progress through this House as the result of representations made from various parts of the House. I can hardly remember a Bill which has been discussed in such an objective and friendly manner, and with such generally satisfactory results, as this Bill has. Whilst it is, of course, a Bill that is far-reaching from the point of view of machinery, and provides the framework for carrying out vast improvements in our treatment of the mentally sick, on the other hand, it can remain a framework and nothing else. I hope and very much believe that it is the intention of all parties and everybody concerned to make a reality of this Bill and to take a big step forward in the consideration and treatment of the mentally sick.
I have referred to the improvements made to the Bill and to the discussions we have had on it, which I believe have been a model of what Parliamentary discussion on a Bill of this kind should be. No particular Party can claim credit for these improvements; they have been the result of discussions and representations from all sides of the House. I hope that the House (or so much of it as is now left) will forgive me if I refer to one or two individuals, and that for a particular reason. As your Lordships know, this House, and particularly my side of it, has needed strengthening for a long time past, and one of the methods of strengthening it has been the creation of a number of Life Peerages. I personally welcomed that step, but I wondered to what extent it was going to facilitate our work. It has been a great joy to me to find that the new Life Peers, certainly on this side of the House (I do not pretend to speak for the other side, or wish to do so) have enormously strengthened our opportunity of putting forward our views and in no case has that been so manifested as in the discussions on this Mental Health Bill.
If I may be invidious and mention names—and I will mention them in
154
alphabetical order—my noble friends Lord Stonham, Lord Taylor and Lady Wootton of Abinger have all played a great part in modelling and shaping this Bill. They have come here with great experience, knowledge and wisdom, and, above all, with the ability to express themselves, which is of vital importance; and they have made (I hope they will not mind my saying this, and will not think I am being fulsome) a deep impression on the House. I should like to say, quite frankly, that I am satisfied that what we regarded as a dual experiment, that of creating a number of Life Peers and of introducing women Peeresses into the House, has proved a success on both grounds. I am sure the House is extremely grateful to them for the great work that they have done. From my own personal point of view, as one who takes some active part in the discussions in this House, it has been a joy to find that we can get a team together to work, to discuss and to bring before the House proposals that have been found worthy of consideration.
I should also like to say to the House, however—and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not think that I am being fulsome—that we greatly appreciate the way in which he has dealt with this Bill. I am sure he would not pretend to be an expert on mental health, any more than I should, but he has been prepared to listen and to give consideration to every proposal that has been put forward in the Bill. He has given a large number of promises of consideration and he has kept every one of them, and kept them in a most friendly and courteous manner. Whether, at the end of the day, the proposals which have been put forward have been accepted or not, I should like him to know that we are entirely satisfied that he has carried out his assurances and given the consideration to the proposals as he promised. Naturally, in this life one cannot expect to get 100 per cent. of what one asks for: if one gets 25 per cent. one is very fortunate; and I think that probably that is about the measure of the success that has been achieved on this Bill. But I am perfectly satisfied, as I am sure are my noble friends who have taken such an active part.
I felt it right to say that because this is, I suppose, the first occasion on which

155
my noble friends the new Life Peers have come into action as a team, and I hope that there will be many more such occasions. I have complained of the large number of Amendments that have been introduced into this Bill in the course of its progress. Perhaps I should not complain, because to a large extent it has been due to the willingness of the Government to think again and to go on improving the Bill. In the case of the previous measure which we discussed a short time ago, I was complaining of the very opposite—of the refusal of the Government to consider any Amendments at all; and I suppose I cannot have it both ways. I would rather have a Government who are prepared to look at the Bill, and look at it again and again, and make quite sure that it is satisfactory in all respects, than a Government who dig their toes in and refuse to consider any improvements, however good they may be or however reasonable. So we pass this measure. We hope that another place will accept the improvements we have made. We wish this Bill every success, and hope that it will have the effect we wish it to have in dealing with the mentally sick people who are covered by it.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships for more than one moment. I know that if my noble friend Lord Feversham had been here he would have said a few words at this time. I have been able to deal only with the children's side of this Bill, and I, for my part, am perfectly satisfied that we have put before my noble and learned friend and the right honourable gentleman the Minister the urgency of training and planning in the centres, and also the great urgency of research. That is as far as I go. I believe that with goodwill on all sides these things may be carried out. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in paying a tribute to those on the other side of the House, and especially those who have shortly come into the House, and to say that the great work that they have put into this Bill has been an inspiration to us, and we are most grateful. To the noble and learned Viscount I would say, as I said on Second Reading, that he has been a real inspiration to us all.
7.25 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will understand that it is extremely difficult for me to speak at this moment, after listening to the warm, kindly and thoughtful words of my noble friend, Lord Silkin, supported as they were by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I am sorry that my noble friends Lady Wootton of Abinger and Lord Taylor are not here—they had other engagements—but I am sure they would have felt, as I do, that we had not deserved such comments, and certainly felt also that we have been very glad indeed to do such work as we have been able to do on this Bill. I am certain that it would have been quite impossible but for the courtesy and kindness which your Lordships have shown, which, of course, is constant and universal, and which we experienced from the very first day we came here.
My noble friend said that we were a team. Of course, it is quite a usual thing for Members of this House or, indeed, of another place, who are of like mind and have a common interest in a particular measure, to get together and discuss particular points and, whether by accident or design, they do appear to form a team. But the remarkable thing to me about this Bill is that we have had a team of the whole House, and the skipper has been the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. It is a remarkable thing that I have never previously experienced at Westminster, and I am bound to say that, in my humble opinion, it is an arrangement that could not possibly be improved upon, certainly on a measure of this kind.
I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will understand me when I say that I do not feel, so far as he is concerned, that I can add anything to what I said on another evening of this week, except this. I always think that when we speak "off the cuff" it comes straight from the heart and expresses our meaning best. Since then I have read what I said, and I would not wish to alter a word of it. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, in that I felt that one of the major defects of the Bill when it came to us was in the provisions with regard to the mentally handicapped. I am bound to say that I raised quite a

157
number of points, and on every single one of them I have been met either by an Amendment—certainly in one case a far better Amendment than my own—which the Lord Chancellor moved to meet my point, and on other points, where I have not succeeded in securing his agreement (and this particularly applies to the last two, where I did not think this was possible) I have received explanations which were completely satisfactory and which convinced me that the position was quite sound.
I should have wished, of course, that a great many of the clauses which we have passed, or will pass shortly, could have been mandatory and not permissive. But I feel that the spirit which has animated our discussion will continue, and if some parts of the Bill are not strong enough—if the authority to be given to the local authorities has not been imposed with sufficient force—nevertheless, if the drive that I expect to be given to this measure is given, then minor defects will fall into place and we shall get the position, before very long, when we can see all the mistakes we have made and when we can take steps to remedy them with the same good will with which we have discussed our differences on this particular Bill.
I feel that the great thing about this Bill is that we have turned our backs on the existing system of mental hospitals, which was a system based on segregation, segregation which arose through ignorance of the nature of mental illness, segregation which came from the fear that all the people had because of their ignorance of the nature of mental illness. The last ten years have seen such a revolution in public opinion on this subject that this Bill was not merely possible but imperative. We therefore, from to-day, shall be turning our backs on segregation and our faces towards the prospect of bringing mentally afflicted people to live in the community.
I have said before that the initiative will and must come from the mental hospitals, because only there at present resides the knowledge, the skill and the enthusiasm of dedicated people. It is not the fault of the local authorities, but it must come from the mental hospitals. What we have to see is that the enthusiasm that they have, the leaven which is already beginning to work, is
158
not frustrated in little things. I believe that the doctors and nurses who are working in our mental hospitals are at last beginning to believe that mental health is no longer the Cinderella of medicine. There are many things we can do. I hope the members of the Council of the Royal College of Nursing will perhaps read our debates and at long last do full justice to mental nurses and make them full members of the Royal College of Nursing. I hope that in the junior appointments in mental hospitals we shall end this injustice of having junior hospital medical officers and have registrar appointments in the same way as in other hospitals. It is in those ways that we can assure the personnel of our mental hospitals, the front line troops in this Bill as they will, at the beginning, be, that we mean what we say.
My noble friend mentioned—and of course it is absolutely true—that everything will depend on the drive with which this Bill is implemented. I hope that the Minister will say to local authorities, "I want your schemes back and approved within twelve months, and within the second year we must make a start on implementing them." If that programme is carried out, this Bill will be a fact. If it is not, then I think it will be just words, and they will be tragic words for we shall have raised hopes only to dash them again. I do not think we shall do that. I think we shall go forward, that the Minister will be prepared as the scheme builds up to provide the necessary money, that he and his staff will tackle this job with such drive and enthusiasm that they will infect the local authorities with the same enthusiasm, and that they, with the hospitals, will work together in providing a service by which the mental hospitals will show that they not only can, but will, live in the community.
As my noble friend said, this was a good Bill when the Minister introduced it. I hope and believe it is a better Bill now. In a few moments we shall have done our job and it will be up to the doctors, the nurses, the local authorities, the whole community, and, above all, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Health and his stall, to do theirs. I think they will do it, and I believe that in a few years' time, perhaps even less, mental health will

159
have taken its place with the rest of our Health Service and be, as that is, the finest in the world.
7.35 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to strike a jarring note, but I present myself at this late stage, in a few words, as one who can be described as only a qualified admirer of the Bill. I am, however, at one with other speakers in being an absolutely unqualified admirer of the way in which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has handled the Bill. It has been a most edifying performance, and, if I may say so, if it were possible to admire any quality more than his industry and dexterity it would be the gentleness and kindness with which he has dealt with us.
I feel myself, as I felt when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, that running through all our thoughts and discussions, and through the thoughts and discussions outside this House, there are two questions: first, the question of how we can provide adequate services, adequate in quantity and quality, which may mean devoting very large resources for the benefit of mental sufferers in order to prevent mental suffering in the future; secondly, according to what principles and procedure are we going to detain people against their wish in hospitals? There is the practical question and there is, if you like, the philosophical question, though it has a very practical edge; and those two questions are inseparable.
I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would agree—he has never made any pretence otherwise—that this Bill is not concerned directly with expanding the mental health service of this country. The Bill itself contains no pledge of expanded service. I feel that that is a grave omission. It is open to the Government to say that they had their hands full with this Bill, and the other steps could be taken alongside and taken later. But I am bound to put on record my disappointment that that side of things has been neglected in this Bill. I agree very much with what was said by my colleagues, that of course it is still open to the Government to remedy that defect at a later time, and I know various steps have been taken in connection with the Bill which all point in
160
the right direction. But it would be humbug, and indeed rather cowardly in this atmosphere of generous and sincere words, to conceal my opinion that a great opportunity of committing the Government to a great expansion of mental health services has been missed.
On the other hand, all those who have suffered most and laboured most in this field and with whom I have had any contact are agreed that one overwhelming task which is tackled directly by the Bill is the removal of the stigma which has separated those suffering from mental ill health from those suffering from physical ill health. Undoubtedly this idea of eliminating the stigma has been the driving force, as it seems to me, behind the philosophy of the Bill, and I entirely share the views of those who have applauded the Bill on that ground.
But, of course, even there very nagging questions have presented themselves. I think it might be said that they have been presented in the most difficult form by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, not only here but in her recent book. It is certainly very difficult, as the noble and learned Viscount would agree (he is himself interested in metaphysics), to know how far you can press this analogy between mental and physical illness. You certainly find points of obvious difference. In the case of mental ill health we have at a certain point in the case of certain people to say to them, "We are sorry; you are not fit to make up your own mind. We are going to detain you against your will"; and that produces philosophical and moral questions of extreme complexity.
In the case of psychopaths we come to a point where misconduct and illness criss-cross and are very difficult to extricate from one another. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said in her book, and as has been said elsewhere, the line between medical and moral becomes dangerously difficult to draw. These are problems whose difficulty the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has never sought to conceal, and he would be the last to say that we are very far advanced as a nation or that the modern world has gone very far in sorting out these issues. But some real progress has been made during these discussions, in particular in connection with the improvement of the definition of the psychopath.

161
Nevertheless, my last words should not be of that character; because, when all is said, whatever the precise sums spent in the next year or in the year after that, or the year after that, this Bill should prove of the greatest benefit to many thousands of sufferers from mental trouble and also those who suffer with them as their dear friends or relatives. It will be, too, a vast encouragement to all those who have dedicated their lives to serve these people. I have in mind those like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and other noble Lords in this House, such as Lord Stonham, the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, my noble friend Lord Taylor. I say that if only because it seems to me that the philosophy of this Bill is fundamentally right. It is based on the idea, which we can call Christian—I should like to call it Christian, but Heaven knows! there are many who are not Christians who share it—that we are all frail human beings, drawn together by our common human nature and, above all, by our common infirmities.
Because I applaud so sincerely, and indeed passionately, the philosophy behind this Bill I do welcome it, in spite of the political and, as I say, administrative reservations that I mentioned earlier. I join with all those who congratulate noble Lords (and here may I mention the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has boon our Leader), both here and on the other side, and, above all, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who has set an example which he himself and others will find it very hard to follow in future years.
7.42 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I apologise for not having given notice of wishing to say a few words on this Bill, but as one who took part in the Second Reading debate, and as one who has had a most wonderfully explicit letter from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in answer to some extremely difficult questions, I should like to associate myself with noble Lords who have paid a tribute to the noble and learned Viscount. So often these days we have the excuse made by people in all walks of life that one is too busy to be bothered to reply to a letter. I can only say—and I know that I speak on behalf of many noble Lords who have received letters which have been concise and explicit—
162
that we have received them promptly and courteously. Particularly in view of the great volume of other Business in your Lordships' House with which the Lord Chancellor has had to deal, I feel that no tribute could be too high to the work which he has put into this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned the model of democracy which has characterised the discussion on this Bill. In deference, I can only agree with him and say that those who criticise Parliament for apathy and for sluggishness, or for other reasons, would do well to read this Bill, which will prove to them that Parliament can, and does, discuss vital matters of this kind intelligently and assiduously. I think that is an important point. In conclusion, I should like to say that, with the high speed at which we live nowadays, the numbers of those who suffer mentally will not decrease, but, through scientific progress and through the exertions which both Houses of Parliament and all Parties have put into this Bill, those who are mentally handicapped will have a far better chance of recovering. I would say that this Bill will do more to show the world how we handle our health and social problems than perhaps any other measure.
7.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to thank every speaker for the kind words that he has said about me, I want to place only one memory before your Lordships. Your Lordships may remember that when I introduced this Bill on Second Reading I said that it was the first major measure and comprehensive revision of the law dealing with mental health since the great Bills of 1845. How different has been my experience from that of Lord Ashley, later the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, who introduced those Bills and recorded in his diary of July 22, 1845,
"have toiled through obstruction, insolence, delay, desertion to the Third Reading."
I have been spared his anxieties which led him again—I give the words which he recorded:
"To dream every night and pass in my visions through every clause and confuse the whole in one great mass."
I, on the contrary, have had the pleasure of informed and constructive debate from all parts of the House, and I should like to add my tribute to that already paid

163
from both sides of the House to Lord Stonham, Lord Taylor and Baroness Wootton of Abinger.
I want to say only one word on each of two points. The first is that which was raised by Lord Pakenham. I should like to put into his mind that perhaps the most important difference between this measure and any other and earlier mental health legislation is that it is set against the background of the National Health Service, and that, so far as the provision of hospital and local government services to which he referred is concerned, the function of the Bill is really to adjust and strengthen the existing legislation. It clarifies the powers, but they are existing powers of a dynamic organism.
Much of the discussion in the Committee and on the Report stages was centred on matters of that kind—the expansion of local health authority services, the supply and training of staff, co-operation between the hospitals and local authorities and mental health research. I am glad that it was. But I do want at this last stage to reassure noble Lords who spoke on these subjects that, while they cannot, because of the structure of the Health Service, and that being the background, be included in this Bill, the Government, and especially my right honourable friend the Minister, recognise their fundamental importance and will strive with all the energy they have for improvement and advance in the existing machinery. I am most grateful for the help we have had in improving the Bill. I think that, as Lord Silkin said, the new definition, the correspondence, the Mental Health Tribunals and the guidance that has been given to me in making the rules, are very important points where we have together definitely made concrete improvements of which we know. I am not going to say any more on that aspect, but the fact that I do not say any more does not mean that I do not appreciate the help.
One other point which deserves just a word of mention is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his great restraint, about the non-acceptance of the lay figure in the question of admissions. I think that there we have a genuine and unresolved difference of opinion which has certainly been thoroughly discussed, and we are satisfied that our system of check and cross-check provided in the
164
Bill will provide safeguards which are both effective and appropriate to the present circumstances; and we believe that the doctors and laymen taking part in the procedure will justify the confidence which the Bill places in them. But, again, I want to say that we do not leave the matter with the idea that we have found a solution for all time. If we find in practice that improvements are possible, of course we shall be prepared to have a look at them.
Now we go on to put the Bill into operation. We have to prepare the regulations; to set up the Tribunals—and there I hope, indeed I am sure, that I shall have great help from the Council of Tribunals, under my noble friend Lord Reading; to ensure that the principles are understood, and then press on with vigour for their implementation. It is a great task which still awaits us; we understand that. But I want to say once again that I believe that this legislation was well worthy of our attention and that it has called forth the highest qualities which your Lordships' House can show; and that, in turn, has earned gratitude on my part which I shall not soon forget. I thank you again.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before we adjourn, I would draw your Lordships' attention to two slight errors which were made earlier to-day. My noble friend the Leader of the House, in referring to the Business before the Legitimacy Bill on Tuesday, said that the Finance Bill would be taken, whereas of course he meant the Education Bill. He also referred to the Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill, saying that that would pass through all its stages to-day, whereas it was, in fact, the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Bill which passed through all its stages.
MID-WESSEX WATER BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.