Sitting of 23 June 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    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 the Inch-green Development Company Limited, for financial assistance in the construction of the proposed graving dock at Greenock.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I am afraid that I cannot yet add anything to my previous replies.
    Dr. Mabon: Is the Chancellor aware that in the 15 months since he made his announcement, unemployment in Greenock has remained consistently at about 3,000? In view of the high hopes that were entertained about this project, can he give an undertaking that there will be a favourable announcement before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Amory: My difficulty, as I explained to the hon. Member before, is that I can act only on a recommendation made to me by the Advisory Committee. I understand that the problem, as I mentioned before, is due to the nature of the proposal and the general question of finance.

    Purchase Tax
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is the practice in the pottery trade for the supplier to charge Purchase Tax on the cost of packing and postage in addition to the cost of the goods supplied; and on what administrative principle such a method of
    998
    charging Purchase Tax on the postage and packing of such goods is based.
    Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir. This practice is in accordance with the law.
    Dr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend not agree, however, that this tax is irritating to those who have to pay it out of all proportion to its value? Would he not also agree that it is morally opprobrious to exact a tax on Government revenue and thus impose a double impost?
    Mr. Amory: We have to have some common basis for all classes of goods. This principle was settled by Parliament in 1940 and has been followed ever since. If the basis were different and all packing were excluded, the rates might have to be correspondingly higher.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, whereas carpets attract 12½ per cent. Purchase Tax, electrical heating appliances 25 per cent., and transformers no Purchase Tax, Customs and Excise have ruled that an electrically-heated carpet, a new invention, shall pay 25 per cent. Purchase Tax as an electrical appliance, or twice as much as an un-heated carpet; and, as an electric carpet is fundamentally a floor covering, with the electric elements as ancillaries only, whether he will classify an electric carpet as a carpet carrying Purchase Tax at 12½ per cent. only.
    Mr. Amory: Purchase Tax is charged at the standard rate of 25 per cent, on all domestic electric heating appliances, and I see no reason to differentiate here.
    Mr. Nabarro: A carpet is not a heating appliance. Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the same problem arises with electric carpets, electric blankets and electric chairs? Why should the mere fact of electrically heating an article cause Purchase Tax on the article to be doubled in the case of a carpet and a blanket and multiplied by five times in the case of an electric chair, from 5 per cent, to 25 per cent.? Can we not be a little more realistic in these matters?
    Mr. Amory: We are being realistic. An electric carpet is a floor covering and is a heating apparatus. Under the present

    999
    law, where an article falls into two categories the higher rate of duty has to apply, and in this case it is 25 per cent. I will take another case in which my hon. Friend may be interested, that of electric moustache curlers, which are domestic heating appliances and, as such, attract duty of 25 per cent.
    Mr. Nabarro: The Chancellor's reply presupposes that I am wearing a false moustache. My moustache is not subject to Purchase Tax and, therefore, it is not in any way analogous to floor covering.
    Mr. Amory: It is not a floor covering. I was referring to it as an article of covering. The point is not the moustache itself but the mechanisms that are required to maintain it in a decent condition.

    Free Gifts and Coupon Schemes
    Mrs. Mannasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent free gifts and coupon schemes operating over a wide range of food and household commodities are regarded by the Inland Revenue Department as business expenses and subject to Income Tax rebate; and what is the total of allowances made for such schemes and coupon reductions for 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958.
    Mr. Amory: I am advised that money spent in this way is admissible as a deduction in computing trading profits for Income Tax purposes if, not being of a capital nature, it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the trade. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Chancellor aware that this must be a very big item indeed? Surely, it is worth while looking into how much we are paying for something to which most of the population is opposed? Will the Chancellor do something about it? If he cannot as Chancellor, will he, when out with his shopping basket, tell the traders that all of us are opposed to it, including himself, as I am sure he is?
    Mr. Amory: My difficulty is that the test that has to be applied is not a test as to the wisdom of the particular expenditure, but whether it is expenditure which has been incurred to earn
    1000
    profits. If it is expenditure which is incurred for that reason and it fulfils the other qualifications I have mentioned, it has to be accepted as admissible. I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's suggestion when I next go out with my shopping basket.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is not all such expenditure partly of a capital nature in that it builds up good will, and so on? Is it not wrong that all of it is set against the expenses of making a profit? It is, and must be, in part a capital expenditure.
    Mr. Amory: There is a great deal of expenditure which is incurred from the viewpoint of building up good will which would not be strictly of a capital nature. If, however, it were treated as being of a capital nature and it were still regarded as an item fairly incurred in earning profits, there would have to be some system of depreciation allowances on it and, at the end of the day, the result would be much the same.

    Industrial Concerns (Loans)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a complete list of all industrial concerns, research associations, and other similar bodies in receipt of State-guaranteed loans.
    Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to pages 66–71 of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom, 1957–58, which show the position on 31st March, 1958. If he requires any more details, perhaps he will put another Question down.
    Mr. Swingler: Would not the Chancellor agree to consider collating the information, as it is important that the public should know the multifarious ways private industry is being supported by subsidies, research, and grants from public funds? Would he also consider publishing a White Paper on the extent to which private industry is getting a shot in the arm?
    Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman will find that these are relatively small figures, but if he is not happy about them and thinks they can be summarised in any better way, perhaps he will write to me or put down a further Question. I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which are made.
    Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend not observed the extent to which public corporations and nationalised industries are subsidised by taxpayers' money to offset their huge losses?
    Mr. Amory: That fact does come to my notice.

    Free Trade Area
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals have now been made, either by Commonwealth Governments or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, to associate Commonwealth countries with a European Free Trade Area.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): None, Sir.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he told the House last month that talks—"consultations" I think he called them—were going on between Commonwealth Governments and the United Kingdom Government in relation to the position of the United Kingdom Government with the Free Trade Area? Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to add to that statement?
    Mr. Maudling: We shall continue to keep Commonwealth Governments fully informed on all these matters. No proposal of the kind indicated in the Question has been made by Her Majesty's Government here, or any of the Commonwealth Governments.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the official conversations at Stockholm amongst the seven non-Common Market Governments, including the United Kingdom; and what future action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take towards a Free Trade Market amongst the seven.
    Mr. Maudling: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the full communiqué issued on 14th June, to which there is little I can usefully add at this stage. The outcome of the talks in Stockholm was encouraging and Her Majesty's Government are giving careful consideration to the report which officials prepared as the basis for decisions by Ministers at a meeting about the middle of July.
    Mr. Bellenger: Relating that Answer to the previous Question I put to the
    1002
    right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether Commonwealth Governments will be brought in in any way possible, or will be affected, by the negotiations which are now going on?
    Mr. Maudling: They have, as I say, been kept fully informed of everything that we are doing in this matter.
    Mr. Green: What is a "sensitive industry" in the Free Trade Area?
    Mr. Maudling: An industry which is sensitive to competition from other countries within the area.
    Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, so far as Britain is concerned, the object of entering into any treaty with the Seven will be to facilitate the ultimate creation of a Common Market for the whole of Europe and not to divide Europe politically and economically into opposing camps?
    Mr. Maudling: The expression "Common Market" is unfortunate, used in this connection. Certainly I give an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—this view is, I know, held by all the other Governments concerned—that one of the main objects is to create a bridge for solution of the problem on a full European basis.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Prime Minister visiting General de Gaulle to get some softening-up in France's attitude may not be a more direct method of achieving the same purpose?
    Mr. Maudling: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that suggestion.
    Following in the communiqué:
    Another meeting of officials from Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom has been held in Stockholm from 1st to 13th June, 1959.
    The officials had been charged by their Governments to discuss the problem of economic cooperation in Europe and to examine, on a non-Committal basis, methods of reopening negotiations with the European Economic Community and the other members of O.E.E.C., in order to remove trade barriers and establish a multilateral association embracing all members of O.E.E.C. In particular, they had been charged with examining the problems involved in creating intimate trading arrangements between the seven countries, what the rules and institutional arrangements of such an association should be,

    1003
    and whether it could be so devised as to promote negotiations for a wider European settlement. Accordingly, officials have elaborated for the consideration of Ministers a draft plan to create, in conformity with their international obligations, such a trading association. In respect of industrial products the plan deals with the abolition of tariffs and quantitive restrictions, rules to ensure fair competition, and rules for identifying the goods which would move freely between the members. The immediate objective would be a reduction of tariffs by 20 per cent. on 1st July, 1960. The plan provides for a special agreement on agriculture. As a first step towards the elaboration of that agreement, there will be discussions as necessary between interested countries on trade in specific agricultural products of importance to exporting countries. Fish and marine products would be treated as an independent problem separately from agriculture. Proposals for a special agreement to achieve freer and increased trade in these products were made, and these will be given careful consideration. The main scope and function of the institutional arrangements within an association have been delineated. The officials have sought to draw up the plan in such a way as to facilitate subsequent negotiations, within the O.E.E.C. with the European Economic Community and the other members of O.E.E.C, some of whom have particular problems calling for special solutions. The report of officials will be submitted to Governments, It is expected that there will be a meeting of Ministers of the seven countries in Stockholm about the middle of July to consider the report, and take decisions on it.

    National Product
    Mr. Oramasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual growth of the United Kingdom's gross national product at constant prices since 1951.
    Mr. Amory: About 2 per cent. per annum.
    Mr. Oram: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to United Nations statistics recently published, that figure compares most unfavourably with those of other Western countries, being only about one-third as good as Western Germany, for instance, and half as good as most other countries? Is that not a melancholy result of the Government's economic policy over the years?
    Mr. Amory: I cannot feel that it is. Before one accepts the relevance of this comparison one has* to compare the starting points in each case.

    Arts Council (Grants)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware
    1004
    of the grants to Sadlers Wells Opera House being given by the London County Council over an extended period; and whether he will now consider the advisability of making the Government grants to the Arts Council on a three-year basis instead of annually.
    Mr. Amory: I welcome the proposed grant to the Sadlers Wells Trust by the London County Council. As to the second part of the Question, when I increased the Arts Council grant for 1958–59 by 11½ per cent. to £1,100,000 I told them that they could count on it being maintained at this figure for the two following years.
    Mr. Jeger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that all artistic endeavours have to be planned a long time ahead and that in the Report on the Arts Council and Sadlers Wells, issued recently, attention was directed to the fact that these organisations are unable to go ahead in their future plans because of uncertainty?
    Mr. Amory: Yes. I recognise the importance of that point, and I will try to bear it in mind.

    Distribution of Industry
    Mr. Willeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what applications have been received, and what financial assistance has been made available, under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, in order to reduce unemployment in Sunderland.
    Mr. Amory: No firm and eligible application has been received for assistance in Sunderland.
    Mr. Willey: While recognising the disappointing nature of the reply, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is enough knowledge about this position among firms who might take advantage of it? Can we not follow a more vigorous policy in trying to persuade industrialists in this matter?
    Mr. Amory: That point has been discussed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has raised it before, but we have had some discussion on it recently. We have been taking further action to ensure that the existence of these grants is known. I cannot feel that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying

    1005
    that this result is disappointing, in the sense that only three preliminary inquiries have been received. One of them was withdrawn. In the other two cases further information is awaited. In so far as any applications have been made, the situation has been dealt with.
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many applications for Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee's help have been received by the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committees from firms in the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire; and how many of these would assist the depopulation problem of Douglas.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): One firm and eligible application for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, has been received from an undertaking in the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire. I have ho information as to the effect, if any, that an offer of assistance in this case might have on depopulation in another locality.
    Mr. Maitland: Can my hon. Friend say how long it takes in processing these applications? Will he do his best to hasten forward that now before the Committee?
    Mr. Erroll: It might appear to be misleading to give an average figure, but in general it takes about two to three months, depending on the nature of the application. We are taking such steps as are possible to improve the rate of progress.
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary to the Treasury to what extent the Development Areas Treasury Ad visory Committee is, in principle, willing to consider an application for financial help from any firm proposing to establish itself at Douglas, Douglas West and Douglas Water, in the county of Lanark, provided that this would create local employment capable of easing the situation within the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee area as hitherto defined, irrespective of whether its expected employees would be residents in the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee area.
    Mr. Erroll: The Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee can consider applications for assistance under
    1006
    the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, only if, among other things, the Board of Trade are satisfied that the purpose for which the assistance is required is likely to reduce the rate of unemployment in a place of high and persistent unemployment. I suggest that my hon. Friend should pursue with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether the case he has in mind is likely to meet this statutory requirement.
    Mr. Maitland: Will my hon. Friend support me in approaching the Board of Trade on a matter of this sort with a view to obtaining rapid clearance, certainly much quicker than the two or three months which my hon. Friend has mentioned? May I thank my hon. Friend for a very forthcoming reply?
    Mr. Erroll: The average of two or three months relates to the whole period. The period which the Board of Trade requires to satisfy itself on unemployment matters is much shorter. I know that the Board of Trade is as anxious as is the Treasury to do its part of the work quickly. If my hon. Friend wishes to approach the Board of Trade again, I think he will be able to do so without my assistance.

    Société d'Investissements Mobiliers
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Treasury accepted the bid of the Locana Corporation for the British Government's holding of shares in S.I.M.; and why these shares were not, in accordance with the Government's declared policy, made available to the public by the normal system of a public share issue.
    Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given on 16th June by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens).
    Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have seen that Answer, but it does not meet any of the points in my Question. Can the Chancellor explain why it was done, in view of the fact that the Tory Party, the Government and the big vested interests—as witness the fact that the Institute of Directors is supporting the Government—have been clamouring and running a ballyhoo campaign for months to the effect that the ordinary public should

    1007
    be allowed to take part in investing money in these companies? Why does not the Chancellor give the public a chance to get in on some of these profitable enterprises? Why does he give it all to a private concern which is, in fact, controlled by his own political friends?
    Mr. Amory: I have given the shares to no one. My main duty has been to see that the best price has been obtained in the interests of the taxpayers. In deciding the best and most appropriate field I have to use my judgment, but in this matter I had no other obligation than that of ensuring fairness to those who had specifically expressed an interest in the purchase of these shares.
    Mr. Jay: What were the Government's reasons for selling the shares at all?
    Mr. Amory: We saw no advantage in the Government retaining them.

    Rubens' Altarpiece
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what offers have been made to the Treasury by the executors of the Duke of Westminster's estate in respect of acceptance of the Rubens' altarpiece, The Adoration of the Magi, in lieu of death duties under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1956.
    Mr. Amory: None, Sir. But the trustees of the Duke of Westminster's Estate have from the outset been aware of the Government's willingness to consider accepting this painting as a preeminent work of art under Section 34 (1) of the 1956 Finance Act.
    Mr. Robinson: Whilst regretting that the executors have not thought fit to make a direct approach to the Treasury, may I ask if the Chancellor will give an undertaking that should this picture be sold tomorrow to a foreign buyer he will do his part within all reasonable limits to secure this outstanding masterpiece for the nation? Is he aware that this is probably the last opportunity the National Gallery will have of acquiring any Rubens altarpiece?
    Mr. Amory: If this picture were sold at an auction and bought by a foreign buyer it would be for the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art to consider the matter and, if it thought proper, to make a recommenda-
    1008
    tion to me. If it did so, as always, I should consider it very carefully.
    Mr. Jeger: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that we are being rather greedy about this picture? Have we not hundreds of valuable and beautiful pictures in the National Gallery already stored away out of sight? Would it not be for the benefit of artistically underdeveloped countries such as America to have a few beautiful works of art?
    Mr. Amory: That is a broad question which perhaps we might develop on some other occasion.

    Post-war Credits
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when paying postwar credits to next of kin, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes will provide fuller explanations why arrears of Income Tax are being deducted.
    Mr. Amory: Inspectors of Taxes are being instructed to give the fullest possible explanation in all cases where post-war credits are repaid with a deduction for arrears of Income Tax. If the hon. Member will write to me about any particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Chancellor aware that widows and other next of kin are very shocked when they suddenly get a remittance slip without any explanation except that arrears of tax dating back to 1942, or some other long period like that, are being deducted? What is he doing to relieve the doubts and anxieties of those who have already had such a slip without any explanation whatever?
    Mr. Amory: I am doing everything I can to ensure that a full explanation is given of the deduction, but if the hon. Member will give me any information showing that that has not been done in any case I shall be glad to look into it. As to what I am trying to do, I am trying to minimise the inevitable shock which I am afraid some holders of postwar credits will have when they find that there are some debits to be set against the credits.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a progress report on the payment

    1009
    of post-war credits under his recent regulation; and whether he will state the number of payments made.
    Mr. Amory: Repayment of post-war credits is going well. Between 1st June and 12th June, the latest date for which figures are available, approximately 570,000 payments were made.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the great disappointment of many people who apply for post-war credits, particularly the long-term sick, and find they are not included in the scheme? As it is going so well and the number of widows, I understand, is less than was expected, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in urgent regulations to extend payments to these long-term sick?
    Mr. Amory: I am fully aware of the point made by the hon. Member. In order to avoid as far as possible applications which could not be met under the present restrictions, I was at as much pain as I could be to make clear from the start what the three limited categories were. I think it too soon yet to consider an extension of them, but I will bear in mind the points the hon. Member and others have made about other deserving cases.
    Mr. Owenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for the repayment of post-war credits have been received from people in the Ashington-Morpeth area of Northumberland; how many were seeking repayment on grounds of permanent incapacity or ill health; and how many have been granted and how many refused repayment to the nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Amory: I regret that separate statistics are not available of applications for and repayments of post-war credits on hardship grounds.
    Mr. Owen: Is the Chancellor not aware that within the mining industry there is a special plea for some consideration for those who are permanently incapacitated? Will he not give consideration to that plea and, if possible, give a little more power to his local administrative officers?
    Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I have no discretion under the law as it stands to meet such applications as the hon.
    1010
    Member has mentioned, but I have indicated that when the time comes and we can consider an extension to the present limited three hardship categories, I shall give very careful consideration to the kind of case which he has in mind. That is as far as I can go at present.

    Budget Expenditure
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what percentage of the total Budget is to be spent on defence, education, health, and old-age pensions, respectively, during this financial year.
    Mr. Amory: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the Answer:
    Ordinary expenditure for the current year was estimated in the Budget at £5,223 million. Of this, £1,521 million, or 29 per cent., was for defence preparations (including Civil Defence). Expenditure on the National Health Services, including welfare foods, was estimated at £560 million, or about 11 per cent. The Government contribution to the cost of the local authority health and education services is included in (and comprises most of) the General Grant which was estimated at £393 million or about 7 per cent. Government expenditure on education (including the universities), outside the General Grant, amounts to £180 million, or about 3½ per cent. Expenditure on non-contributory pensions was estimated at £12 million, or about 0·2 per cent.
    These figures take no account of retirement pensions, which are paid from the National Insurance Fund and are not a part of ordinary Budget expenditure. They are expected to cost about £650 million in the current year. The Exchequer contribution to this Fund, which relates to retirement pensions and all other National Insurance benefits, was estimated at £170 million, or 3¾ per cent. of ordinary Budget expenditure.

    Iraqi Oil (Earnings)
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the effect of the action of the Iraq Government in leaving the sterling area on the capacity of this country to earn sterling currency for oil coming from Iraq.
    Mr. Amory: There is no reason why this country's earnings from sales of Iraqi oil, or those of Iraq, should be affected.
    Mr. Philips Price: Can the Chancellor say whether we shall have to pay the oil royalties to Iraq for the oil we get from there in any currency other than sterling?
    Mr. Amory: I do not know, but it is not really of any great significance because, if we continued paying in sterling, that stering, representing current earnings, would be immediately convertible into any other currency at the request of the holders.

    Shipbuilding (Credit Facilities)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the provision of credit facilities for the building of new ships in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Amory: I have no evidence that United Kingdom shipbuilding is being hampered by lack of credit facilities.
    Mr. Willey: Has the Chancellor seen the developments taking place recently in Western Germany? In view of this, so that our shipyards are not unduly prejudiced by accentuated competition, we must keep an eye on the question of credit facilities.
    Mr. Amory: Certainly I shall be glad to consider any evidence of our shipbuilding industry—just as much as I would of any other of our important industries—showing that it is handicapped by lack of credit facilities. Any evidence the hon. Member has I should be glad to see.
    Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend the same approach to dry dock owners, as the Amendment we moved to the Finance Bill was rejected and this does indicate a change of heart on his part which would be very welcome?
    Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend will discover that her question is not really related to the Question we are now considering.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that shipowners are not being handicapped through lack of credit facilities but because of the rate of interest on the loans they seek to obtain? Is he aware that Japanese shipbuilders are now making demands on their Government for a reduction in the interest on loans and, if
    1012
    that should occur, it will react unfavourably on British shipbuilding?
    Mr. Amory: It would, but perhaps the Japanese Government, like the United Kingdom Government, do not agree to every suggestion and recommendation made to them.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what administrative arrangements officers of the Inland Revenue obtain information regarding tax matters from proceedings, findings, judgments and documents arising from proceedings heard in chambers, as in certain divorce proceedings when evidence is given, or allegations made, as to tax defalcations and evasion; if he is satisfied that such arrangements are adequate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amory: I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose arrangements for obtaining information in cases of suspected tax evasion.
    Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how a Member of the House of Commons may obtain corroboratory evidence in regard to allegations of fraudulent behaviour in tax matters by company directors or others, as, for example, the scandalous story told by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) last Thursday week in the Finance Bill debates? How can we obtain corroboratory evidence as to the truth or otherwise of such a story and, in the public interest, what action is being taken by the Chancellor to apprehend persons if they are guilty in that sense?
    Mr. Amory: As to the first part of the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend, far be it from me to make any recommendations to him about anyone else and about what initiative he should take in any matter. As regards the second part of the question, the Inland Revenue takes all reasonable steps to see that taxpayers in fact pay the tax due from them.
    Mr. Pager: With regard to Question No. 25, will the Chancellor bear in mind that a great deal of blackmail has been levied by the devices there referred to

    1013
    and is something about which one wants to be very careful?
    Mr. Amory: I shall take note of what the hon. and learned Member says.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that his refusal to answer tax questions in cases where individual groups, persons or companies are involved is frustrating the work of Parliament; and if he will waive his present practice in order to satisfy the House that appropriate action has been taken in the case of the Midlands' company with a single director who is alleged to have defrauded the revenue, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
    Mr. Amory: I think that the importance of the tax affairs of individual tax payers being kept confidential is generally recognised, and the House would not expect me to make any exception in this instance.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not an act of gross impropriety for private and confidential judicial proceedings heard in chambers to which a barrister who happens also to be an hon. Member of this House has access, to be related by that barrister in this House? Should not the chairman of the Bar Council be asked to consider disgraceful behaviour of that kind?
    Mr. Amory: I should not dare comment on my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) appears to be trying to make a personal attack on me, may I ask the Chancellor if he is aware that the cases to which I referred in the debate were not cases in which I was engaged personally but the details of which were supplied to me by a member of the Bar knowing that I intended raising them in the House, with the intention that I should raise them, and that he gave the information in writing?
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the following point? It arises from the first three lines of Question No. 26. On 21st April, the Chancellor refused to answer a Question not about individual tax payments but on a
    1014
    general principle whether expenditure by companies on political campaigns was allowable for Income Tax purposes. Subsequently, the Table has refused to accept Questions on this matter. Is it not frustrating the will of the House if we cannot be told whether such expenditure is chargeable against Income Tax? What course is open to an hon. Member to pursue the matter?
    Mr. Speaker: It is a rule of the House that if a Question has been fully answered it cannot be asked again in the same Session. That is no doubt the rule which applies to the hon. Member's Question, although I have no personal knowledge of the Question.
    Mr. Allaun: I appreciate that, but surely this is Parliament and this is a general principle of taxation law. We must know what the position is. What can we do about it?
    Mr. Speaker: The first answer probably stated the position, did it not?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made a charge against my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) saying that he had disclosed facts in a case in which he had himself been involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It was a case at which he had himself been present. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said is within the recollection of the House. This was flatly denied by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North. Should not the charge, or any implication that such a charge had been made, be withdrawn by the hon. Member for Kidderminster?
    Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. When the words are seen in print tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, it will clearly be seen that I did not make any imputation at all that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) was himself involved in this case. In fact, the hon. Member for Lewisham, North has divulged to me that the information which formed the subject of this Question was given to him by another barrister, who was involved in the case. In due course I shall ask the chairman of the Bar Council whether that is not highly unprofessional conduct.
    Mr. Speaker: All this happened in Committee on the Finance Bill. I do not know what it is all about.
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many more people pay Income Tax now than in 1951; and how much more is paid now in direct taxation than in 1951.
    Mr. Amory: It is estimated that about 2¾ million more people will pay Income Tax in 1959–60 than in 1951–52 and that the yield of Inland Revenue duties will be £494 million greater in 1959–60 than it was in 1951–52.
    Mr. Cronin: Do not these astonishing figures indicate clearly that the Income Tax concessions given by the right hon. Gentleman in this Budget and by some of his predecessors are illusory and that more and more tax is being paid under Conservative Governments?
    Mr. Amory: On the contrary, they show, first of all, how greatly the standard of living of people in this country has risen in the past six years. If these taxpayers had to pay at the same rates of Income Tax this year as they had to pay in 1951–52, they would be paying an extra £1,160 million. Individuals alone would be paying £1,010 million extra. Furthermore, 2 million more people would be paying Income Tax today.
    Mr. Jay: Does the Chancellor realise that if they had to pay the rates of tax which they were paying at the end of 1945, they would now be paying over £2,000 million a year more?

    Foreign Travel Allowance
    Mr. Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider altering the allowance for foreign travel before the summer holiday season commences.
    Mr. Amory: I have no change to propose at present.
    Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, with the position of sterling improving so much, and with its improvement known all over the world, this is a small request to make? Is it not wrong that we should be left in the position that people cannot spend more money than this, if they wish to do so, when they are abroad? Will he bear in mind that people have to plan quite a long way ahead, certainly beyond
    1016
    December? Can he give any indication whether a change will be made in December?
    Mr. Amory: I will continue to bear in mind the points which my hon. Friend has in mind, but I have to consider quite a number of factors in this matter. I will not keep the present restrictions any longer than I find absolutely necessary.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the Chancellor disclose to us the miracle by which certain people manage to do all the things which they do in the Mediterranean on the £100 allowance?
    Mr. Amory: No, I am afraid that I cannot, but if the right hon. Gentleman can I should be very glad to know.

    Manufacturing Industry (Fixed Capital Expenditure)
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he will take to increase fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing industry, in view of the sharp decline in the first quarter of the year shown by the provisional figures recently published by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Amory: The Budget, by restoring the investment allowances and increasing the flow of purchasing power, was designed to create conditions favourable to an increase in fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing industry. The figures recently published by the Board of Trade are consistent with the expectations I had previously formed, and I do not see any present need to introduce further measures of encouragement to capital expenditure.
    Mr. Cronin: Do not the Board of Trade figures at least show that the Chancellor's expansionist policy has come rather too late? Would he not have done better to have accepted the advice given from this side of the House last year?
    Mr. Amory: I think that the general indications are that the encouragement of expansion has come at exactly the right moment.

    Resident Sterling (Convertibility)
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his recent discussions with the West German

    1017
    Finance Minister, if he will make a statement on the present policy of Her Majesty's Government on convertibility on current account for resident sterling.
    Mr. Amory: The Government's policy remains as stated, to continue the removal of restrictions on trade and payments as and when we are able to do so, thus giving the greatest freedom of choice to our own people and contribute to the expansion of world trade.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the Chancellor reassure the House that he will not let the siren voices of the Bundesbank cause him to put us in a vulnerable position leading to a large flight of capital?
    Mr. Amory: I have always indicated that we shall continue to take these steps as and when the moment arrives at which we can do so safely and with advantage to our own economy and benefit to world trade.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Public House, Slough
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what grounds he granted permission for Messrs. Courage and Barclay Limited to erect a public house at the corner of Stoke Poges Lane and Granville Avenue, Slough, contrary to the decision of the local planning authority.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Govern-men (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend decided to give planning permission because, after considering the report of his inspector who conducted a public local inquiry, he could find no reason for thinking that a public house on this site would do any harm. I have sent to the hon. Member a copy of the letter issued to the parties which gives the reasons for this decision in greater detail.
    Mr. Brockway: Whilst appreciating that it is the normal practice for the decision of the Minister after a public inquiry to be final, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this case there are very exceptional circumstances, that the Slough Council had allocated this
    1018
    land for housing, that the construction of houses had actually begun and that a majority of the residents in the area has petitioned against the decision?
    Mr. Bevins: This is a relatively small site on which not more than five houses could have been constructed. The inspector's conclusion was that a public house was acceptable in this predominantly residential area. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that seemingly a majority of the local residents was hostile to this proposal. That was taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend, but it is not a decisive consideration.

    Flats, Bristol
    Mr. Coldrickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he returned a tender for the building of a block of flats in Bristol to the city council after the council had accepted it; and what was the result.
    Mr. Bevins: The tender in question was negotiated with the contractor, based upon an earlier tender submitted in October, 1957. Since the negotiated price appeared to be high, the Council was advised to see whether a better price could be obtained by re-advertising. My right hon. Friend has not yet received a fresh tender for approval.
    Mr. Coldrick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of referring the tender back it has cost the Bristol City Council at least £622 more than it otherwise would if the Minister had not interfered? Does he not think that it is a gross waste on the part of his Department to duplicate the work of responsible local officials in drafting these plans and entering into the tender?
    Mr. Bevins: The Department insists on re-advertisement only where the negotiated price appears to it to be excessive. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the lowest tender is several hundred £s above the negotiated price, but I ask him to bear in mind that this is an exceptional case. In nine cases out of ten the prices tendered to local authorities following re-advertisement are lower than negotiated prices.

    Theatres (Grants)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the grants being given to Sadlers Wells Opera House by the London County Council; and whether he will bring this action to the attention of all local authorities, reminding them of their powers under Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, and urging them to give similar encouragment and support to the theatres in their areas.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is aware of the London County Council's decision. It is for each local authority to decide for itself whether and how it will use its powers to contribute to the provision of entertainment, and my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be appropriate for him to offer advice.
    Mr. Jeger: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this fine and generous gesture by the London County Council should be brought to the attention of other local authorities, particularly in those areas where the local theatres are in risk of closing and where the local authorities might subsequently take steps to reopen the theatres at great expense, whereas by the application of Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, they might save their local theatres at very little expense?
    Mr. Bevins: Local authorities in general are perfectly well aware of what their powers are. The Report which has just been made to the Gulbenkian Foundation by a group including Lord Bridges will emphasise to local authorities what their powers are, but that Report indicated very clearly that it would be wrong for Whitehall and Westminster to give direction to local authorities on matters of this kind.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great tendency for all moneys to be spent on the arts to be concentrated in London and one or two larger cities? Many valuable little local repertory theatres and other dramatic and cultural undertakings seem to be left in the cold and are in danger of dwindling away. Will he use what authority and influence his Department has to see whether, be it local authorities or the Arts Council, these small undertakings are not overlooked?
    Mr. Bevins: If any local authority, large or small, wants to undertake assistance of this sort, my right hon. Friend is perfectly prepared to look at loan applications with very great sympathy.

    Coastal Waters (Pollution)
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress is being made to rid United Kingdom coastal waters of sewage pollution.
    Mr. Bevins: Many schemes have been carried out by coastal authorities since 1945 for the construction of new or extended sewage outfalls or for the provision of treatment works. Other schemes are in preparation and each year brings new ones forward.
    Mr. Oliver: How many schemes are in progress? Can the hon. Gentleman also say whether more coastal towns are finding it unnecessary now to discharge sewage into the sea?
    Mr. Bevins: The House had an Adjournment debate on this subject last night. I then said that over 100 coastal authorities have carried out or are proposing to carry out about 160 outfall or sewage treatment schemes. This will cost altogether about £20 million. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are making very real progress.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman giving further consideration to the special problems of the Tyne and the coastal areas there after the Adjournment debate last night?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes. The problems of the Tyne are always in the mind of my right hon. Friend. We shall not forget it.

    Peterlee Corporation (Appointments)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received from the Easington Rural District Council about the proposed new appointments to the Peterlee Corporation.
    Mr. Bevins: The Council has asked my right hon. Friend to consider affording it direct representation on the Development Corporation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that, when the Minister consulted the Easing-ton Council and it suggested that someone resident in the locality might be appointed to the Peterlee Corporation, he decided to go outside the area and he has actually appointed two persons from outside the area? What is the point of consultation if the right hon. Gentleman rejects the advice?
    Mr. Bevins: All that has happened so far is that my right hon. Friend has indicated to the Easington Rural District Council that he has it in mind to appoint two individuals. The Easington Rural District Council has made representations in the sense indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. Those representations will be considered. Having said that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the considerations which normally influence Ministers in this matter.
    Mr. Shinwell: How is it possible for the Minister to obtain the co-operation of the Council, which is essential in the area, unless he takes notice of its representations? Will the Parliamentary Secretary suggest to his right hon. Friend that he might consider that there are people in the area whose intelligence is at least as high as the intelligence of those outside?
    Mr. Bevins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not doubt the intelligence of members of a particular rural district council. My right hon. Friend's desire in the case of the new town development corporations is to have the right people as members, whether they be members of local authorities, industrialists or whatever they might be.

    Wednesfield, Staffordshire
    Miss Leeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he will be able to confirm the Compulsory Purchase Order. 1958, for the High Street Development, No. 1, Wednesfield, Staffordshire.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend expects to give his decision on this Order very soon.
    Miss Lee: I am very grateful for the reply that it will be "very soon," but I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty there is in these
    1022
    towns with very large overspill populations. Will he please consider it very soon?
    Mr. Bevins: We certainly hope to get the decision out within the next month.
    Miss Leeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the population of Wednesfield, Stafford shire, at the present time and two years ago; whether he is satisfied that the development of schools, shops, and other essential amenities has kept pace with the growth of population.
    Mr. Bevins: According to the Registrar-General's mid-year estimates, the population of Wednesfield was 28,280 in 1958 and 23,700 in 1956. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the urban district council and the county council are taking steps to ensure that the provision of schools, shops and other amenities keeps pace with the growth in population.
    Miss Lee: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that compliment to the local authorities, although that was not the point I was raising. Will he make quite sure that the efforts of the local authorities are supplemented by those of the Whitehall men and let us not have the delays that we have so far had?
    Mr. Bevins: We shall certainly bear that in mind.

    Beaches, Rivers and Canals (Life-saving Facilities)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the large number of people who have been drowned at an early stage of the present holiday season; and if he will consider the introduction of arrangements which will necessitate local authorities providing more efficient life-saving facilities on all beaches, rivers, and canals coming within their areas or under their jurisdiction.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has seen with great regret reports in the Press of a number of fatal accidents by drowning, but he does not think that there is a case for amending the existing powers of local authorities to provide life-saving

    1023
    appliances. He is sure that they are well aware of their responsibilities in this matter.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is not my hon. Friend aware that all too often the facilities seem to consist of little more than a lifebelt on the promenade and a man in a rowing-boat? Could we not save a great many lives if we had a more positive policy, taking an example, perhaps, from the magnificent arrangements there are on the Australian beaches?
    Mr. Bevins: This is a matter for the local authorities. Under the Public Health Acts, they may provide life-saving appliances wherever they think fit in bathing areas, but if my hon. Friend has any instances where he thinks that those powers are not being adequately used, my right hon. Friend will gladly take up the matter.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: In view of the accidents that occur, would not the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend call the attention of the authorities to the need for life-saving arrangements at this sort of place?
    Mr. Bevins: I am perfectly willing to consider that.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Cornwall there are a number of life-saving associations operating in exactly the same way as in Australia?

  HOUSING

    Peterlee
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received from residents in Haswell, South Hetton, Thornley and Wheatley Hill on the subject of housing needs and their objection to the proposal that they should find accommodation in Peterlee.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has received representations from residents in Haswell and South Hetton that more slum replacement houses should be built in these villages, rather than in Peterlee. In reply they have been informed that a town map for the rural district is being prepared, that members of the public
    1024
    will have an opportunity to make representations about the proposals therein; and that therefore my right hon. Friend cannot prejudge the matter by expressing views until that has been done.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this problem is largely attributable to the fact that the Minister has refused to provide a sufficiently large allocation of housing so as to enable the Easington Council to proceed with house building? Is that not really the trouble?
    Mr. Bevins: No. The trouble is that Easington, as a local authority, has asked for a larger allocation of slum clearance replacement houses. On the other hand, Peterlee has objected on the ground that, if that larger allocation is granted, it will place the future of Peterlee in jeopardy. That is the view of Peterlee. My right hon. Friend has asked the rural district to reconsider its attitude. The whole question will come forward when the town map is submitted to my right hon. Friend.

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS
    Mr. Haleasked the Prime Minister to what extent the provisions that nuclear weapons shall not be used in case of war without the authority of the Prime Minister, apply to tactical or kilo-ton anti-tank weapons and to nuclear anti-aircraft defensive weapons by land and sea.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The arrangements for the control of the use of nuclear weapons apply to all types of such weapons.
    Mr. Hale: I am very grateful for that Answer, but would the Prime Minister be good enough to go just one stage further and say that that decision will not be altered without informing the House?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister mean by that reply that the Governments concerned, as well as the generals, must give their authority before these nuclear weapons can be used on the Continent of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: The question was whether there is any distinction between different types of nuclear weapons and my Answer was that the same arrangements would apply; that is, a positive decision by Her Majesty's Government would be required in relation to all kinds of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is obvious that the anti-tank weapons referred to in my hon. Friend's Question are more likely to be used on the Continent of Europe. That being so, would not the Prime Minister make it plain what the arrangements are in relation to those weapons?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to nuclear weapons of any kind—whether operating under independent British command or under Allied command—a positive decision by Her Majesty's Government would be required?

    RADIOACTIVITY
    Mr. Haleasked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a permanent research committee into the genetic hazards involved in the use of nuclear force and thermo-nuclear explosions.
    The Prime Minister: The genetic and, for that matter, the somatic hazards of all forms of ionizing radiation are already kept under constant review by the Medical Research Council.
    Mr. Hale: But is it not a fact that the Medical Research Council has no power to initiate inquiries on its own but power merely to receive reports? In view of the extreme importance of the matter, would it not be as well to have it under constant review by a qualified body which is able to demand, and compel, the supply of essential information?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps, a little under-estimated the amount of work which the Council does. It is supporting much research on the genetic effects of ionizing radiation in a number of its own research units as well as in other centres throughout the country.
    Mr. Bevanasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disquiet resulting from the effects of man-made radioactivity, he will now request the
    1026
    Medical Research Council to undertake a thorough investigation into the incidence of bone cancer and blood leukaemia in people living at different altitudes, and make the report available to Parliament.
    The Prime Minister: In principle, such an investigation as the right hon. Gentleman suggests would be a useful contribution towards establishing the relationship, if any, between the variations in radiation from the natural environment and the incidence of bone cancer and leukaemia; and experts are carrying on this type of study in other parts of the world. However, I am advised that bone cancer and leukaemia are so rare, and the range of different altitudes at which people live in the United Kingdom is so small, that it could not be effectively carried out in this country.
    Mr. Bevan: Now that we have the assurance that the idea of the threshold has no scientific validity, would it not be useful if we obtained information about the extent to which altitude affects bone cancer and leukaemia? If the Prime Minister thinks that altitude varies so little in Great Britain as to be not really important, will he furnish the House with the results of investigations elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: I was merely pointing out that, if one wants to make a scientific investigation of the varying effects of living at different heights, this country, which is, on the whole, a flat country, without great differences in the heights at which people live, will not provide the best places for this kind of research. Obviously, in places like Denver, where people live at a great altitude—the whole city is—a much more useful contribution can be made. I will certainly consider whether we can make available the results of these studies of altitude which have been made in places where the research is more easily conducted.

    SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT AND GUIDED MISSILES
    Mr. Beswickasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the proposals and actual commitments involving the use of highly-skilled manpower and other national resources in the development and manufacture of a supersonic bomber,

    1027
    supersonic transport aircraft, atomic-powered aircraft, atomic-powered submarines, guided weapons, ballistic missiles, nuclear and thermo-nuclear devices, and instruments and rockets for cosmic space research, he will appoint an appropriate committee to decide priorities in the widest and best economic and defence interests of the nation.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Machinery already exists for this purpose.
    Mr. Beswick: Whilst I am aware of the committee that sits under the chairmanship of Lord Mills and considers one section only of these activities, is there not a need for one body responsible for the deployment of our technical and scientific manpower over the whole field? Is not the Prime Minister aware that many responsible and informed people in this country feel that we are in danger of spreading our resources much too thinly; and is it not better to undertake rather fewer projects and do those superlatively well?
    The Prime Minister: Those are all arguments that come up when these things have to be settled, as anybody who has taken part in administration knows, but I think that the broad machinery must be that the Cabinet must be the final arbiter; for the appropriate committees of Ministers and the appropriate Ministers to put forward their projects, after which the final decision has to be made as to what is the most effective use of our resources from time to time.

    SUMMIT CONFERENCE
    Mr. Healeyasked the Pime Minister whether, in view of recent developments at the Foreign Ministers' Conference, he will now propose the early convocation of a Summit Conference.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if, in the light of the difficulties encountered at the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva, he will now initiate consultations with other Heads of Governments about the summoning of a Summit Conference.
    The Prime Minister: It is my hope that the Foreign Ministers' Conference which is to be resumed on 13th July in Geneva will lead to a meeting of Heads of Government.
    Mr. Healey: Would not the Prime Minister agree that careful study of Mr. Gromyko's speech on Friday, as well as that of Mr. Khrushchev on the previous day, shows that the Western and Communist positions on the question of Europe are not so far apart as was at first assumed; and that the recent developments at the Nuclear Test Plan Conference in Geneva alone fully justify the earliest possible meeting of the Heads of Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly in agreement with the view that the hon. Gentleman has expressed—that it would be a mistake to underrate the degree of success that has already taken place at the Foreign Ministers' Conference. The Foreign Ministers have not reached agreement, but undoubtedly the positions are more clarified and, in certain respects, are nearer together. For that reason, I hope that after a short adjournment the Foreign Ministers will be able to make still further progress.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement of his hopes of a Summit Conference, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary will be making an up-to-date statement on the Conference?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that there are a number of Questions addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend for tomorrow, and he thinks that it may be convenient to summarise them in a statement at the end of Questions.
    Mr. Swingler: Whatever the developments at the Foreign Ministers' Conference, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will take the initiative in asking for a Summit Conference, which is more rather than less necessary if progress is not made by the Foreign Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, but perhaps he will allow me to do my best to handle the matter in the way that I hope may arrive at a good result.

    RACIAL RELATIONS (AFRICA)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Prime Minister if, in the interests of improving race relations, he will consider visiting

    1029
    United Kingdom territories in Africa during the Summer Recess.
    The Prime Minister: I should certainly welcome an early prospect of visiting Territories in Africa.
    Miss Herbison: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, but is he aware that the banning of the Rev. Tom Colvin as a prohibited immigrant has considerably deepened the fears of the Africans, and if the right hon. Gentleman does manage to visit Africa during the Summer Recess will he use his good offices to try to bring about a different policy there?
    The Prime Minister: That supplementary question arises directly out of my reply, but I know that my colleagues' visits are very valuable. My right hon. and noble Friend the Commonwealth Secretary has recently made a visit, and we are, I am sure, all hopeful of creating an atmosphere and spirit in which this very difficult problem that faces us all in Africa may be resolved.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman first approach Sir Roy Welensky to make quite certain that he himself is not placed in the unenviable position of Mr. Colvin if he chooses to visit Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am bound to say that his interventions have not always been in quite the spirit of those of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): In addition to the business already announced for Friday, we shall ask the House to consider as the last Order the Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill, which has come from another place, as well as the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Mr. Gaitskell: This is rather short notice, but I understand that the Bill is relatively non-controversial, so I expect that it will be all right.

NYASALAND (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
Mr. Speaker: The House will recollect that, last Wednesday, I had to rule out of order a proposed Question by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about the Rev. Tom Colvin because the regulation of immigration into the territory is the responsibility of the Federal Government.
In the course of subsequent points of order, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said:
"Without questioning your Ruling, Sir, may I ask whether the word 'immigrant' applies to people living in an area who happen to go out of the country to visit this country? An immigrant suggests to me somebody going to a country. This is preventing a man from returning to his home and place of work. Has the Colonial Secretary no responsibility for ensuring his rights?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 441.]
I replied that the Question had not been submitted to me on that ground, and that there was a point in what the right hon. Gentleman had said which I should like to consider. I therefore made inquiries to find out whether or not this gentleman is, in fact, a citizen of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I am told that he is not. Therefore, as the Rev. Tom Colvin is not a citizen of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, he comes within the category of immigrant and, as immigration is a Federal subject, I must adhere to my Ruling that there is no responsibility of Ministers here for that subject nor for making representations upon any particular case.
I notice, however, that it has not escaped hon. Members that an action which is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government may have repercussions on matters for which the United Kingdom Government are responsible, and that Questions on the latter are in order.
Mr. Woodburn: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for what you have said. May I call your attention to the further result of our discussions? Sir Roy Welensky now proposes to make statements, presumably, about Mr. Colvin and his character, which may be in order, but is it not desirable, in the interests of proper relations between our countries and

1031
these responsibilities, that Sir Roy Welensky should not employ anything in the nature of character assassination to justify such action?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter with which I can deal. Sir Roy Welensky is not a Member of this House. Therefore, I have no control over him.
Mr. J. Griffiths: We are very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration that you have given to this matter. Is the effect of what you said at the end of your remarks about repercussions upon this country that the Question which my hon. Friend proposed to ask was really in order?
Mr. Speaker: That I do not know. I ask the House not to ask me to give advance Rulings on Questions which I have not seen. It would save the time of the House and, I think, assist hon. Members better, if, when they have framed their Question, they would consult the Clerks, who will give them any necessary assistance to bring the Question into order. I do not want to commit myself to general statements on these difficult topics.
Mr. S. Silverman: Arising out of the first part of what you said to us, Mr. Speaker, about this gentleman not being a citizen of Nyasaland, was not my right hon. Friend's point not that he was a citizen but that he was domiciled there, ordinarily resident there, having his home there? This is rather different from being a citizen. Did the Ruling which you have given take that point into account?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, it certainly did. Taking the analogy of our own immigration laws, an alien such as a Frenchman, or, let us say, a German, might be resident in this country and domiciled here without achieving our nationality. He might then go on a visit to his own country. It would be quite within our powers to deny him re-entry to this country if we thought that that was in the public interest.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. This is very important. May I submit this for your consideration? There are Federal citizens in the Federation, but there are also two Protectorates. Does that not alter the matter? There are protected persons as well as citizens, and protected persons come under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Secretary.
Mr. Speaker: I am aware of that. I think that the unit to be considered here is the Federation, which has these powers over immigration.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Joseph Bede Symonds, esquire, for Whitehaven.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Cotton Industry Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  COTTON INDUSTRY BILL
  As amended, considered.
  COTTON INDUSTRY BILL

    New Clause.—(DEMOLITION OF VACANT PREMISES.)
    Where as a consequence of the elimination of excess capacity under a reorganisation scheme premises become vacant and remain vacant for a period exceeding six months the appropriate local authority may, if it considers the premises obsolete for industrial use and has so informed the Board of Trade, issue a notice requiring the owners to demolish the premises and to clear the site.—[Mr. Boardman.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.39 p.m.
    Mr. H. Boardman: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I regard this new Clause as of equal importance with any Clause already embodied in the Bill. While the Bill itself is concerned with the controlled contraction of the cotton industry, which, incidentally, means that it is a Bill which will cause some people to lose their jobs, the new Clause is designed to take some practical steps to encourage new industries to enter the areas affected.
    Some of the old mill properties have been taken over by other industries. Some have been taken over as warp-houses, which, from a local employment point of view, does not help very much. I think that it is only fair to say that any employer who is contemplating introducing a new industry is entitled to say that he will not put modern, efficient plant into obsolete buildings which have outlived their period of usefulness.
    Many such buildings are standing in Lancashire today and have stood there for many years as ghosts of a cotton industry that was. Anyone who has seen these old dilapidated mills will agree that to allow them to remain standing is a major disincentive to any prospective employer in the area, to say nothing about what the local people who have to live with the mills think about them.
    Even if we could persuade some employers to introduce new industries to take the place of the old mills. I suggest that it is ludicrous that the Government should be prepared to pour out £30 million from public funds to try to
    1034
    encourage the cotton industry to attain a reasonable level of efficiency and then expect employers to put modern machinery into mills which, in many cases, are 100 to 150 years old.
    There is a special problem in some of the cotton towns; and I am thinking now of the towns which have been dependent upon coal as well as upon cotton. Many of these towns, I think it is true to say, have not a solitary vacant site which would carry the weight of a modern factory building. That is so in many areas, but there is one place which is safe from subsidence, and that is the site on which an old cotton mill stands, because its ground has been protected. It strikes me as very odd that we should continue to allow these old factory buildings idly to occupy the only sound sites in the area.
    It also seems to me to be sheer economic madness to allow industry to sprawl into agricultural areas while these factories stand in their idleness surrounded by people whose greatest desire is to work on the sites, in spite of having to pay bus fares to get to them, and so on. These derelict factories have become hideous monuments to a bygone age.
    The proposed Clause is permissive. It would allow local authorities to use their discretion, and they would use their own knowledge of local industrial conditions. It seems to me that if we are intent on getting new industry into these areas, a move which has become more acutely necessary as a result of the Bill, this is the sane and sensible way to do it.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. H. Rhodes: I beg to second the Motion.
    This is a very important proposal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), I think that it is about time that something was done to clear up this mess. Last night the House discussed the problem of water and sewage, which, in its own context, is very similar to the problem that we are now discussing. Our forebears, with their dynamism and ability to create, did a very good job of work. The men who built the mills were pioneers in their trade, and the men who built the waterways were pioneers in local government. They made it possible for industry to develop in the areas which they served.

    1035
    Years ago, the local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was very forward-looking in its provision of reservoirs. These things have brought problems in their train, and, while the members of the local authority were forward-looking, and able to do a job of work well in their day and generation, often what was left behind was a legacy to the following generation to keep up to date in the handling of the commodity and circumstances created by the previous generation. It was the same with sewage, and now it is the same with cotton mills.
    These old mills are strewn from end to end of our constituencies. Usually, they are sited on the canals or on the waterways. Most of the mills that I am talking about are in my constituency. I make no apology for putting forward a constituency illustration, but it is not a constituency matter pure and simple. In Ashton-under-Lyne, for two miles—at least, one mile and five-sixths, because I have measured it—cotton mills stretch one after the other. At present, two of the mills in that length are working on cotton. Of all the mills strewn along the waterway, only three have been built since the Crimean War.
    I should have thought that that would be rather startling to hon. Members, but it does not seem to have had much effect on them, because they are looking at me in a placid and unconcerned manner. They are probably thinking, "We are only batting out time anyway, so let him keep on talking". I must, however, draw the attention of the Board of Trade to something that needs to be done urgently. It is time that private industry and industry generally cleaned up their own dirt. The habits of private industry in the past, with its sewage, mine slag heaps and now its mills, have much in common with the undisciplined and untrained dog on the pavement.
    I said that these mills often were built before the Crimean War. They were certainly built before the railways, and that is why so many of them have their own private wharves, which are magnificent examples of enterprise. They are five, six and seven storeys high. I have compiled a record of the factories on the two-mile length to which I have referred.
    1036
    Early yesterday morning I went along with a photographer to take views of this length from the east. As the photographer was sweating along with his great big box, he said, "Well, this is the first time in my life that I have had a two-mile stroll through uselessness." I said, "I will tell them that in the House tomorrow, because you have summed it up in a few words."
    I wish to hand over these photographs afterwards, but, first, I should like to comment on them one by one. The first one shows a modern mill, about fifty years old, which is now in the hands of the Ministry of Supply. The next photograph is of an area which has on it a disused ruin. In the distance we can see a mill with a smoking chimney. That is one of two mills which are working on this length of one and five-sixths of a mile. But, under the provisions of the Bill, even that mill with the chimney smoking could be one of the casualties without Ashton-under-Lyne having any say in the matter.
    We go on and now we come to a picture of the dereliction which goes with old mills—old houses, and the old chapel, long since disused. We notice that a couple of lads are having a bit of a go at one of the windows. Then we come to the site of a factory which was burned down last week. If I were ever tempted to incite someone to commit arson, or if I wanted to commit arson, I would do it in this kind of area and to these types of buildings. Alongside is a railway station which is disused because there is nobody to bring into the factories which are now derelict.
    Then we have a photograph of a really "beautiful" vista across the river, the old junk of forgotten years coming up to buildings which were erected before the Crimean War, at a time when the building of chimneys was not within the technical competence of British builders; when it was necessary to bring builders from Germany to build our chimneys. These chimneys, which were built by Germans before we knew how to do it, are octagonal; they are graceful things, monuments. But the things on which their shadows fall are the sort of mills which used to be called very foul names by those who had to work in them. Then, suddenly there is a splash of modern—something from the 1794s.

    1037
    Then we come to a length of the canal which, had Billy Graham seen it before he went to Hyde Park, would have probably caused him to say something even stronger. We can see over the canal in this picture and there is the employment exchange, a new building, built at the time when there was much unemployment. Surely it should have been clear to the people of those days that the future of industry did not reside in that kind of building and that they ought to have had wit enough to get out. But seeing it emerging over the canal, and recalling all the human problems that went with it, I was reminded of old Joe, who, before the war, was in the queue for the dole. He said to the man in front of him, "Eh, let me come in front of thee, I have got a pain in my stomach." And the man in front said, "Nay, I have nowt in mine."
    That sardonic remark is similar to the kind of pictures of old Lancashire which Lowry paints. The President of the Board of Trade is as fond of those pictures as I am. It is not because the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the scene, because he does full well. It is because he appreciates with me the beauty of the sardonic side of that scene.
    So we go on, and come to the second of the two mills in operation. It was built in this century and it, too, may become a casualty. So we have two miles of the canal covering an area varying in depth from 100 yards to 400 yards. As we approach the end we notice that there is a modern electric railway line adjoining the canal. The canal is now the home of dead dogs and cats. It is filling itself in with its own growth, rank and stinking. It is part of the general scene which the townspeople want to leave at their back door and forget. It is part of the scene which is forgotten by most of the people in the town and rightly so, too, because do not forget that this is a fine town. Elsewhere, it has built itself out of that kind of scene, but what development could take place if the old buildings were bulldozed away along the whole of that length of the canal.
    Then we come to the latest culture, the Oxford Mills, which were built in the middle of the last century. The owner was a Member of this House. He
    1038
    used to have his workpeople inside doors at 9 o'clock at night, and if they wanted to have a bit of a "gallivant" they used to go past his house in stockinged feet. They used to take their clogs off. He made himself a monument before he died, and inscribed it. He gave orders to the Staffordshire potters to make him pots, with his name on them and extolling his virtues, which he could deliver all round Ashton-under-Lyne. But it did not prevent the generation after the Chartists from burning his house down. It did not prevent the people in Ashton-under-Lyne from remembering him in another way.
    4.0 p.m.
    A statue was put up and I must say that the ribald in Ashton-under-Lyne still paraphrase what is on the statue.
    Hon. Members: Tell us what they say.
    Mr. Rhodes: They say:
    "Here is Henry Mason,
    Who left"—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman described the statement, which he has not yet fully quoted, as one used by the ribald. It would seem to me unlikely to be Parliamentary in its terms.
    Mr. Rhodes: I respect your judgment, Mr. Speaker. You were able to sense what was coming. But I will nod when I come to the offending word:
    "Here is Henry Mason,
    Who left men in the lurch,
    With his face towards the public house
    And his … towards the church."
    That is the sort of memory in the minds of people in this district who know these mills and who are desperately anxious about the situation. The question which keeps recurring is, "What is the future for our boys and girls in view of the uncertainty that there is at the moment about the cotton industry?" What are we to do about the buildings which were used for the manufacture and spinning of cotton? I do not know whether this new Clause falls into that particular niche or not, but what I do know is that we cannot afford to neglect this great modern problem of clearing up, whether it is sewage, slag heaps, or the dross and the dirt left for us by previous generations. If we in our day can clear up only a tithe of it, we shall have justified our existence.
    Mr. Tom Brown: I rise to support this new Clause, because I believe that it is of paramount importance. If we are to close cotton mills wholesale within the next few years, as is suggested, there is likely to be even more dereliction in Lancashire than there is today.
    Many months ago—and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will pardon me for mentioning this—I discussed this question with him in the corridor, long before it was anticipated that the cotton industry would contract to the degree which it has done and will do. The suggestion which I put to the right hon. Gentleman was that a survey should be made in the industrial North-West of the number of derelict buildings which ought to be cleared because they were of no further use and a danger.
    Anyone paying a visit to the industrial North-West of Lancashire cannot help but be impressed by the dereliction that is manifest there. We see it on every hand. Down the pages of history Lancashire has been renowned for its industrial wealth. Today, in addition to cotton mills which have gone out of commission, a large number of coal mines have also gone out of commission, and the two things coupled together have intensified the dereliction.
    If one goes through the industrial North-West from Manchester to Preston, right and left, north and south, we see a mass of dereliction which is a legacy left to us by the industrialists of days gone by. We have burning slag heaps, disused quarries, derelict pitheads, disused railway stations, and now we are to have disused factories. In the interests of all concerned, not only of the travellers who travel through Lancashire but of the people who live in Lancashire, this environment ought to be changed. It can only be changed by compulsion, and that compulsion can only be applied by legislation. We are asking the President of the Board of Trade not to demolish factories willy nilly, but, where they have been vacant for a period of six months, to release the site for some other purpose.
    Let us examine the matter from another point of view. In many of our mining towns, particularly in Leigh, Westhoughton, Ince and Wigan, we have no sites upon which to build houses. Imagine a
    1040
    local authority trying to meet the housing situation when there is not a square yard of land upon which to build houses, and when, despite that fact, sites are occupied by mills which ought to be cleared away so that the land may be used to build houses.
    I have been making a calculation which may be of interest to the House. I find that we in Lancashire, apart from cotton and all the other things that go with industry, have been giving this country deep-mined coal for 413 years. Let hon. Members try to imagine the dereliction that we now have in Lancashire after having given deep-mined coal to this country for so long a period.
    This matter was mentioned when you, Mr. Speaker, occupied a very responsible Cabinet position. You were Minister of Town and Country Planning, I believe, or something of that kind. I forget exactly what position you then occupied, Sir, but you did it very well. [Laughter.] I say with all seriousness that this matter has been constantly ventilated in this assembly from time to time, and yet, despite all that we have tried to do, and all that we are anxious to do, we cannot get the Government to lend an ear to our plea.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has had this "bee in his bonnet" for a long time. So have I, and so would any other hon. Member who goes through the industrial North-West. Why should we leave these derelict factories standing there, half pulled down, with broken windows, and a danger to the children who live in the neighbourhood? If they have remained unoccupied or untenanted for a period of six months, and there does not appear to be any potential use for them industrially, the owners of these mills ought to be compelled by law to relieve the district of these unsightly ruins.
    Furthermore, there is a feeling, particularly in the North-West, that no attempt is being made by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Government Departments which are responsible to show that they are concerned about the environment of the people. After all, that is a very important consideration in their lives. I was always taught that nice, and congenial environments assisted people to rise to a high moral standard, but if we

    1041
    allow all this dereliction and devastation to be constantly facing the people morning, noon and night, how can we expect them to be able to enjoy beauty? They have no chance at all and this new Clause seeks to give them that chance. It seeks to clear up the mess—the legacy that has been handed down to us by the industrialists of the past.
    The President of the Board of Trade is not responsible. Responsibility for this continued dereliction rests with the Government as a whole. They should sere to it that in the industrial areas, when factories have finished producing and there is no further use for these milk, they should be removed, as well as the pitheads and the slag heaps. It has been said that this would cost too much money, and I have heard it said that when the mills have finished producing the owners have no money with which to do it. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade has made an examination of the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956. It is laid down there that when houses are vacated, they should be pulled down. Why should not factories be levelled to the ground when there is no further use for them, after being vacant for a period of six months as the new Clause states?
    I strongly support the acceptance of the new Clause, because I live in the midst of the dereliction, which I see every day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. One thing which pains me is to see added to all this devastation the new devastation caused by opencast mining, of which there is so much. I dare not develop that matter now, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to this point, and I appeal to hon. Members on the benches opposite to listen to it, too. In one town in my area, Ashton-in-Makerfield, in the last ten years approximately 2½ million tons of coal have been extracted and there is also the dereliction caused by the mining industry—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member at all, but really the coal question is not affected by this Bill. I allowed the previous references the hon. Member made because he was painting the picture of ruined buildings, and so on, but we must not go into the coal question while considering the Bill.
    Mr. Brown: I know, Mr. Speaker. I was carried away by the picture which I have constantly before my eyes, and which I cannot forget.
    I strongly support the acceptance of this new Clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) have said, let us decide today that we shall not tolerate this any longer. If there is no further use for the cotton mills, as there was no further use for the pits, then they ought to be cleared away and their sites made available for some other useful purposes, such as building houses for the people living in those areas.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes on this problem which, of course, affects rather differently different Lancashire towns. Perhaps it does not affect Oldham in the sense it does the constituencies of some other hon. Members, but the situation in Oldham has changed, and changed much for the worse, in the last few months.
    Our problem a few months ago was that we had no places where we could put a new industry. One of our things which worried us was those factories of which, according to my hon. Friend's factual definition of a new factory, that it is one which is fifty years old, Oldham has a fairly high percentage. A very high percentage were being bought out as useless for further production and let as stores. They were being bought up by speculators working together for people with no direct Lancashire interests, and the space which might have been used for developing our industry was going.
    Of course, there is a second serious point, that cotton mills were designed to be cotton mills and that many of them are quite unsuitable for adaptation for some sort of industry, especially heavy industry, and the Bill will not support the coming of new industry.
    Unhappily, the Conservative Government have done for industry in Oldham in 1959 what they did for us in housing in 1923. They cured our housing problem in 1923 by driving 20,000 of the population away to seek work in the South. The reduction of the population and in the standards of living had the effect that two or three families would live in one

    1043
    house, and that left us with empty houses. There is an hon. Member opposite smiling about this. He can get the population figure for Oldham and find that it is still lower than it was in 1923 in spite of the efforts which have been made recently.
    This was a very real tragedy for Lancashire. People who have not lived in Lancashire may think that this is a very romantic description, but this was history written in terms of human lives, blood and heartache and waste of endeavour of the decent powers of humanity.
    Now we are in a situation in which we have empty factories. We should do well to remember the condition of textile machinery. Platt Bros. Ltd. came to Oldham also before the Crimea.
    Mr. Rhodes: They did not start there.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: I do not mind where they started. The founder became Mayor of Oldham in 1884. When I became Member they occupied three huge premises in Oldham. Today, they occupy one, and that one is now on a good deal of short time, and there is the greatest anxiety about the diminution in the length of the order book.
    I should be out of order if I were to try to develop this, and I would not for a moment wish to get out of order, but, really, the Tory Government are not considering this problem as it should be considered. Here we have an unemployment Bill to reduce employment, and if we are having ancillary provisions further to reduce it in this industry I really cannot see why the Government cannot consider providing for other industries to come in. I have tried to make them understand that before. I tried in Committee on the Bill.
    In Oldham now we have a dreadful town and country planning problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) was perfectly right when he recited the facts. We ought to get an examination of them. Here was a town which was built in the country. It must have been intensely difficult before the Industrial Revolution. It was built, as I have said before, on seven hills, and from the main street one can still look out and see a vista
    1044
    of hills to the north and across the Yorkshire border.
    There came a time when it was literally true that there was nowhere to build without pulling down old buildings and clearing the sites. After 1945 we had to wait for our post-war buildings until we got the necessary sanctions to extend our boundaries and take in land adjoining, and then we had to start remaking all the surfaces of the land before we could build the houses; and now that employment is diminishing so much there is not nearly the same demand for houses that there was. Everyone of these things is collectively cumulative in its effect.
    There is one small point which, in the very able and moving speeches which have been made already, has not been mentioned. One of the tragedies about a derelict mill is that nearly always there is also left the millpond, and every two or three years a child falls into a millpond and is drowned. Time after time the corporation has taken up the problem with Ministers. First, it was told that nobody had any power to deal with them. Then it was told the powers existed if anyone could find them or knew them, or knew what to make of them. There is a wanton wastage of life, because a millpond is a trap. Naturally, it attracts children, as water does.
    Time after time these disasters occur, when people have made fortunes, or lost them, and have left the area and have left their mills to rot. Of course, when they rot sufficiently they can be pulled down under the somewhat elaborate provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. I want provision for these mills, for which there is no use in the industry, to be taken over by the corporation if necessary. I should like to go further and see some reasonable attraction provided for industry to come in.
    The situation is serious. No one has sought to over-paint this picture today. None of us concerned with the cotton towns has been anxious to paint the picture any worse than it is, because we know that this can have its own unhappy effect. There is a slight stimulation of demand. Recently, there has been a slight expansion of demand, in the terms of Tory Ministers, made by people who can afford to buy, but no one concerned with industry in Lancashire looks with any confidence to the immediate future.

    1045
    It would be idle to say that there is very much sign of any real improvement or any permanent improvement in the situation, and it certainly is true that part-time employment is rather tending to cloud the position and perhaps helping to spread the burden over a larger section of the community. I do not want to develop that at all, but I just wanted to speak generally to the question of these mills.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this question, even if he feels that he cannot accept the new Clause, whose wording, I think, is perhaps open to some criticism because, first, it requires that a factory should be empty for six months and, secondly, does not deal with a factory being used for anti-social purposes. I am not sure that it would effect of itself what my hon. Friends would wish to do. If the Minister would undertake to look into this position from the point of view of Lancashire towns and his own powers under development of industry legislation and discuss this quite narrow issue—
    Mr. Boardman: Nobody wants the factories to be empty for six months. All we say is that if they are still empty at the end of six months the new Clause should apply.
    Mr. Hale: I appreciate that. I did not say to the contrary. I said that the new Clause deals with mills of such poor condition as to be virtually unlettable, otherwise one could get round the new Clause by a short let.
    I have listened to the arguments with genuine emotion and admiration, but I think that the wording of the Clause leaves so many loopholes that it might not carry out the precise intention that is contemplated. The whole question of the provision, preservation or the replacement of buildings so as to give opportunities for industries to come into an area is a matter still to be dealt with and on which the Minister, if he so wished, could give more assistance.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): The case made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has. I am sure, won the sympathy of the whole House.
    1046
    I join with them in disliking very much the evidence of decay and death which is to be seen wherever there is an ancient building which has no artistic or historic merit and is useless for industry. I think that such buildings should be pulled down. I am with the hon. Members who spoke so movingly to the new Clause. They have mostly been describing existing derelict buildings, but the new Clause deals with a few mills only, which will become derelict as a result of reorganisation schemes in the industry.
    If I lived in Ashton-under-Lyne I could well understand that, although the people are employed and there is new industry about, the site of this line of old mills, of which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has been kind enough to provide us with pictures, would depress the spirit of the whole neighbourhood. It is quite right that the House should pay attention to this and that we should do all we can to get rid of scars of that kind. But I do not think that the new Clause is the answer.
    It would not be just to put an obligation to demolish on the owners, as the new Clause provides. To do that would be to single out, first, the cotton industry from other industries for a new type of obligation and then, inside the cotton industry, to single out some of the mill-owners whose mills will be closed, and not others. It would be manifestly unfair. It may be said that we ought to offer more money in compensation to those who are likely to have to demolish their buildings than to those who are not likely to have to demolish them after closure, but that cannot be done under the Bill. It would be outside the Money Resolution.
    Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has now touched upon something which is very closely related to the law as it affects the domestic housing problem. If I own an old house which was certified by the local authority as unfit for human habitation, and I was told to pull it down and I did not do so within the statutory period, the council would do it for me and send me the bill for demolition. I do not see that it is consistent to say that it would be unfair to place a similar imposition on owners of derelict cotton mills.
    Sir D. Eccles: All the mills that go out of production as a result of the Bill

    1047
    will receive compensation on the same scale. If we adopted the new Clause, some owners, the lucky ones, would no doubt be able to sell or let the mill for a new use, and so would receive more cash. The unlucky ones would see their compensation diminished by the cost of demolishing their mills under the new Clause. That would be manifestly unfair.
    I should like to call the attention of the House, therefore, to the powers which already exist for getting rid of unsightly and useless old industrial buildings. Under existing legislation, local authorities have a general power to acquire premises and sites for redevelopment, by agreement or otherwise. In general, they cannot do this except for redevelopment purposes, nor can they compel an owner to carry out demolition and clearance at his own expense. Nevertheless, nearly 500 local authorities possess wider powers that can be used for acquiring and demolishing derelict premises.
    Some of the cotton towns, among them Accrington, Bolton, Bury, Nelson, Colne, Oldham, and Rochdale have these powers. The hon. Member for Oldham, West should be interested to know that in Section 25 of the Oldham Corporation Act, 1925, there are powers whereby the corporation can acquire old mills and pull them down, and it can acquire the site even though it does not immediately have a use for it. If the local authority wants the site for housing, the powers, as hon. Members know, are there. I think that that is known as the "Birmingham Clause," which is in many local authority Bills.
    If the borough does not act, there are general powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, Section 26 of which provides that the local planning authority may, by order, require the demolition of buildings in the interest of proper planning in its area. That power is wide enough to cover the demolition of derelict mills which have become eyesores. It is not often used because the procedure is rather cumbersome and an inquiry has to be held, but the powers exist and Lancashire County Council could have used them if it had wished and could have taken down the buildings
    1048
    of which we have been shown photographs.
    We at the Board of Trade have certain powers to acquire a site for industrial use in a development area, but these powers are confined to derelict land or buildings and the courts hold that "derelict" means "ownerless" or "abandoned" and we have found that that definition is restrictive.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that if the building were abandoned the Board of Trade would have power under Section 5 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, to grant the necessary finance to a local authority to do the job if the right hon. Gentleman scheduled the area.
    Sir D. Eccles: I agree, and I have been thinking that if the owner wrote a letter and said that he had no further use for an old mill, that would constitute an effective proof that it was abandoned, in which case we could act. It is not within the sphere of the Board of Trade that we should pull down buildings for purely amenity reasons. We must stand by the criterion that demolition would improve the attraction of that area for new industry, but that is a fairly wide concept and I would say to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) that it is not a bad idea to consider a survey after the Bill has become law and when we know the extent of the buildings to be closed as a result of the reorganisation schemes.
    Perhaps I should end by saying that Lancashire has stood up to this problem very well. It would not be true to say that in spite of the immense contraction of the cotton industry, which we have discussed so often in the House, there is a persistent level of unemployment in the north-western region, higher than that of the country as a whole. That is very much to the credit of Lancashire and to those who have come into the area. When thinking of the difficulty of getting sites—and I am impressed by the fact that subsidence makes things so difficult—I believe that there probably will be found a good case for taking action in regard to some of the derelict buildings. If the House will leave that with us, we will, as time goes on, and we get a clear picture of the position, do our best to make some suggestions and to use some of those powers.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: We have had an informative and broadly sympathetic reply from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has approached this problem. There are only two general points I shall make before we come to the powers we have been discussing.
    The first is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that it is only in areas liable to subsidence that it is difficult to find new sites. In hilly areas, such as parts of the Darwen constituency and the Rossendale Valley, it is extremely difficult to get a sufficient area of level ground which is not subject to flooding. Perhaps I should point out that, although we have an industrial estate in the Rossendale Valley, there are only a few areas which are as favoured as we are.
    The second thing I want to say—we cannot say it too often—is that the old mill buildings are not ideal for other industrial uses. Practically every other industry which has come into East Lancashire is now housed in old cotton mills, which are far from suitable for the purpose for which they are now used. If they are weaving sheds, the height of the shed is not great. If they are spinning mills, there are a large number of storeys, and in many industries much greater efficiency could be achieved if it were possible to carry on the whole process on one level, instead of in the up and down way in which it has to be done at present. If we can get away from the old buildings in the new phase into which we are moving in Lancashire, and if we can concentrate upon the provision of new ones, it will be generally welcomed throughout the county.
    I thank the President of the Board of Trade for the suggestion that when the Bill has become an Act he might survey the whole area affected, and see the size of the problem and the number of factories which ought to be demolished. We shall do everything we can to strengthen him in that intention.
    On the subject of the powers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I am not quite happy about what he said. It is true that there are local authority Acts, which are well known to my hon.
    1050
    Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, but I am not sure whether some of the smaller local authorities can be expected to incur the quite substantial expenditure which would be involved, especially bearing in mind the fact that it is not their fault that the cotton mills are to be closed, but that they will be closed by virtue of a decision taken in this House. It would be much more equitable to proceed under national legislation rather than under local Acts of that kind.
    The President of the Board of Trade also referred to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. It seems to me that there is some slight advantage in the former procedure, because, if factories were demolished under it, the expenditure could be charged to the owner of the land, who, presumably, would already have been indemnified by the payment of compensation. However, I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in that respect.
    I would have thought that the solution to this problem would be for the Government to proceed under the Distribution of Industry Act and to consider making the whole of the textile area affected a development area, so that Government help could be made available, so that no additional burden would be placed upon the local authorities, and so that no injustice would be done to those people who go out of the industry leaving their mills behind them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us a gleam of hope today that he will consider extending the Development Area to cover those areas which will be adversely affected by this Bill, and to which very little help at present appears to be available.
    Sir D. Eccles: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, first, may I point out that more mills would close if we did not have the Bill than if we had it. Therefore, it should be remembered that the grant of all this money, and the working out of the reorganisation schemes, will result in a stronger and healthier industry than we would have otherwise.
    On the second point, North-East Lancashire is already scheduled, and I would like to see the scale of the problem

    1051
    outside the Development Area before making up my mind whether anything more should be done.
    Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman come and look at it?
    Sir D. Eccles Sir D. Eccles indicated assent.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Before we dispose of this Motion, may I express my own personal view? I hope that nobody in the House will underestimate the seriousness of the problem that we are postulating as Lancashire Members today. I do not want to be unreasonable, but I would prefer on such an occasion, when we have taken the opportunity open to us to raise the matter on the Report stage of the Bill, to register our feelings by voting on the Motion. I will give one or two reasons, without detaining the House for more than a few minutes, to show why I think that we should do this.
    As I said in Committee on the Bill. I have taken some interest in the work of the Lancashire Industrial Development Association. In the course of that work we try constantly to attract industrialists with the usual blandishments to establish new industries in the areas that are being deprived of the cotton industry and of the dying coal industry. What do we find? We find that we are not only up against an economic problem, but Also an aesthetic problem.
    We find that people who come from London and other parts of the South, who are used to living in rather more congenial places than some of the old, battered industrial areas, bring their wives with them for the weekend trip. Of course, ladies are "choosey" about these matters and there is a great deal of petticoat influence in industry as well as in politics, as we all know. Mrs. Smith, who comes with her husband, looks round East Lancashire or Ashton-under-Lyne, has dinner at the Midland Hotel, in Manchester, after wandering around, and she says over coffee to her husband, "You don't think you are taking me up there, do you?" It has been suggested to me that she says what "My Fair Lady" said, but I am not quite sure what words she used.
    Nevertheless, I am making a serious plea today to the President of the Board of Trade and to Her Majesty's Govern-
    1052
    ment to take serious notice of what we are saying. We need to provide a more congenial background not only for our own neighbours and fellow citizens in Lancashire by clearing away the old dross of the Industrial Revolution, but also to make it more presentable so that we shall have a better chance of attracting new industries into the areas which need them.
    This is not a flight of fancy. We have listened today to a number of interesting speeches about the situation, which has been expressed so well by our old friend L. S. Lowry, R.A., in the pictures with which the President of the Board of Trade is so familiar. I do, however, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it just is not sufficient for him to come to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, in the kind and courteous way that he always comes to that Box and in a way which is most ingratiating to the House, because he has not promised us anything except that he will have another look at the problem.
    People have been looking at this scene for generations. People who have forward-looking ideas about the development of Lancashire and making it a more liveable place have always been flogging away at this with very little support from any Government. I am not making a party point on this. Hon. Members opposite—I am not speaking of them individually, but of some of those who are often in the Chamber when we are not debating cotton—are apt to "go for" various Ministers of the Crown concerning agriculture. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am in order in mentioning this, because it is strictly germane to the point that I am making. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will listen to what I have to say before you stop me.
    One of the primary responsibilities of this House is to have regard to the proper use of our native land. The proper use of land is basic to a sound and healthy society, whether for agricultural or industrial purposes. We have set up under the Ministry of Agriculture a massive structure of county committees which are empowered to do all sorts of things to farmers who are found guilty of bad husbandry and of wasting good land. Each time we apply these powers some Tory hon. Members get up and "play Hallelujah" about it.

    1053
    This is a serious question. I say quite modestly, and, I hope, temperately, that we ought to have similar Government powers, couched in terms so as not to inflict hardship on anyone, to prevent wastage of land and allowing it to go derelict by the presence of derelict industrial premises. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find time to visit Ashton-under-Lyne when he gets a few weeks to spare during the Summer Recess and it might be a good idea if the Prime Minister gave him leave of absence to go to Bagdad. I know that it is a long way off and that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will be asking, "What has Bagdad to do with Lancashire?" I see that you are looking at me with a baleful eye. I went to Bagdad not long ago and I saw the most fantastic things going on there. [Laughter.] I am not going to quote any ribald phrases, or to deal with the sort of things of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) spoke a few moments ago.
    The only point I am making when I say "fantastic things" is that one sees people there using highly-developed mechanical excavators, bulldozers and juggernauts of all kinds—the fantastic things used for opencast mining in Lancashire and for other purposes—bulldozing half the town away. Derelict buildings are being swept away into oblivion. One sees thousands of Arabs running round with treasures of scraps of old iron. Yet we in this country, in 1959, with all the advantages of Western civilisation, are pleading, like cripples at a cross, with Her Majesty's Government to do something that the Arabs have done after about five years of modern civilisation. That is perhaps a little exaggerated.
    With very great respect and in all seriousness, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, when he was making his most interesting speech and giving such a graphic picture, boggled for a moment about quoting something. He appeared to be about to quote, if I have the gist of his argument right, the famous reference of our great English poet, Blake, to the "dark Satanic mills", which represented all that was worst in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, and the exploitation, which we now
    1054
    cannot understand in terms of modern industrial relationships, of people who were oppressed and downtrodden.
    In the modern generation, when we talk about the new outlook and the atomic age, we are becoming tired of complaining that we are left with all the dross, the pitheads and broken down factories—the "dark Satanic mills"—which are now very often rat-ridden holes, and which ought to be pulled down, if only from the point of view of public health.
    4.45 p.m.
    Perhaps I have spoken a little more strongly than I usually speak, but I have spoken from the heart on this, and that is not done often enough in the House. I am tired of all the flim-flam, the soft arguments, and about being so nice to each other—although I hope that I am always nice to everybody. I believe, as a Lancashire Member, in saying forcefully what ought to be said in the face of the situation in which we have a declining industry. We are complaining that the dross of the past must be swept away if we are to have proper use of the land and if we are to have a place attractive enough to bring in new industries to take the place of those which have disappeared.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am sorry to detain the House a little longer before it comes to a decision on this matter. This afternoon a very important discussion has developed out of this new Clause on a very important theme, and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on introducing it and giving us an opportunity of considering it.
    I felt, when I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and the speeches made by other hon. Members, that undoubtedly we were dealing with a national scandal in certain parts of our country, but I thought that they underestimated the extent to which powers exist to deal with this kind of thing. That point, of course, was, very naturally, taken up by the President of the Board of Trade and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). These powers are at present in existence and it is for consideration how far particular powers proposed

    1055
    by the Clause are needed in the situation which exists.
    The President of the Board of Trade has gone a considerable way in undertaking that he will be prepared, when the Bill becomes law, to consider making a survey and investigation of the way in which matters are developing, with a view to seeing whether an opportunity will arise of putting into effect, rather more widely than has been done before, existing powers of his Department as to the treatment of derelict land.
    I should like him to consider this afternoon whether he would go a little further and make a statement with reference to the more general power to which he referred and which exists under the Town and Country Planning Act. There has been one particular disappointment in the operation of town and country planning legislation. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) will agree with me on this, which is not a party matter, but I should not be surprised to discover that the same opinion is held upon the other side of the House when I say that one of the disappointments of post-war town and country planning legislation is the small extent to which use has been made of Section 26.
    Before the discussion is concluded I should like from the President of the Board of Trade an expression, which I do not think he will have much difficulty in giving, of his readiness, after the Bill has become law and when the survey
    which is adumbrated has taken place, not merely that he will consider a further application of the powers which his own Department possesses under the existing law, but, also, that he will consider the advisability of drawing the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the demands which exist for effective action to be taken by local planning authorities under Section 26 of the 1947 Act.
    The Bill, creating, as it does, a derelict area on particular premises, calls by its whole nature and content for the kind of action which Section 26 of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act contemplated. It would be appreciated by many hon. Members, I believe, on both sides of the House, if the right hon. Gentleman not only said what he has already said about considering the application of the powers which his Department possesses under the Distribution of Industry Act, but also went further and said that he will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the demands which exist for setting into motion the application of powers under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act for treatment of the kind of problem which the Bill will create.
    Sir D. Eccles: I shall be glad to do what the hon. and learned Member has asked.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 247.

    Division No. 144.]

    AYES

    [4.52 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Albu, A. H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Carmichael, J.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Balfour, A.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Forman, J. C.

    Benson, Sir George

    Clunie, J.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Beswick, Frank

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Caitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Cronin, J. D.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

    Blackburn, F.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Greenwood Anthony

    Boardman, H.

    Deer, G.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

    Delargy, H. J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Diamond, John

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hale, Leslie

    Brockway, A. F.

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

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Edelman, M.

    Hannan, W,

    Burke, W. A.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Healey, Denis

    Messer, Sir F.

    Snow, J. W.

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

    Monslow, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moody, A. S.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Steele, T.

    Holman, P.

    Moyle, A.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Holmes, Horace

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Stonehouse, John

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Orbach, M.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Owen, W. J.

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Padley, W. E.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Paget, R. T.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Symonds, J. B.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Paton, John

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

    Pearson, A.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Peart, T. F.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Pentland, N.

    Thornton, E.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Popplewell, E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Kenyon, C.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Weitzman, D.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Probert, A. R.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Randall, H. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Rankin, John

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Redhead, E. C.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Reeves, J.

    Willey, Frederick

    Logan, D. G.

    Reid, William

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Rhodes, H.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    McCann, J.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    McInnes, J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Ross, William

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Woof, R. E.

    Mahon, Simon

    Short, E. W.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Mason, Roy

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Mr. John Taylor and

    Mellish, R. J.

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

    Mr. J. T. Price.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Forrest, G.

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

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Foster, John

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (stone)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Cooke, Robert

    Freeth, Denzil

    Armstrong, C. W,

    Cooper, A. E.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Gammans, Lady

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Glover D.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Godber, J. B.

    Barber, Anthony

    Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Barlow, Sir John

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Barter, John

    Cunningham, Knox

    Gower, H. R.

    Batsford, Brian

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Davidson, Viscountess

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

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Green, A.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    de Ferrantl, Basil

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Gurden, Harold

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Duncan, Sir James

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Duthie, Sir William

    Hay, John

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

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.

    Braine, B. R.

    Elliott,R.W.(Newcastle upon Tyne.N.)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Brewis, John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Bryan, P.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Fell, A.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Finlay, Graeme

    Holt, A. F.

    Carr, Robert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hornby, R. P.

    1058

    1059

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Howard, John (Test)

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Mathew, R.

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

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

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

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

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Speir, R. M.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Storey, S.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Neave, Airey

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Nicholson, Sir Codfrey (Farnham)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Kaberry, D.

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Nugent, Richard

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

    Teeling, W.

    Kimball, M.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Osborne, C.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Page, R. G.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdate)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

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

    Partridge, E.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Peel, W. J.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

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

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wade, D. W.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Wall, Patrick

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Pott, H. P.

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

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Redmayne, M.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

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

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Robertson, Sir David

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Mr. Hughes-Young and

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

    Clause 1.—(SCHEMES IN CONNECTION WITH ELIMINATION OF EXCESS CAPACITY.)
    Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from "as" to "to" in line 13 and to insert:
    "it is in the opinion of the Cotton Board desirable in the circumstances of the finishing section".
    This Amendment is simply an attempt to introduce rather more precision of language into the Bill and also to set rather more precise limits to the amount of money which can be spent in compensation for the elimination of excess capacity. As the President of the Board of Trade originally introduced the Bill to the House, compensation was to be related to the number of machines of any description which were to be eliminated. In Committee, he proposed to insert the additional words which now appear in the Bill to the effect that
    "except in so far as the circumstances of the section make it desirable in the opinion of the Cotton Board to relate the compensation to other factors,"
    It was pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that those additional words gave very wide latitude to the Cotton Board to base compensation not merely on factors other than the number of machines, but on any factor whatever of any kind which the Board chose to consider relevant. When we asked the right hon. Gentleman why he wished to go as wide as that, he replied that there were special difficulties of definition in the case of the finishing section of the industry. He intended these words simply to be used in the case of the finishing section and not to be extended further. He professed himself unable to devise any more precise words which would get him over the difficulty he had in mind without going quite so wide as the words he has inserted in the Bill.
    The point of this Amendment is that it seemed to us that if that were the purpose there could be no objection to limiting those wider words to the finishing section. If the President still holds to

    1061
    the argument he advanced in Committee, I do not see why he should not be willing to accept this Amendment, unless he has thought of some better solution and better definition which would circumscribe the powers even more precisely.
    Sir D. Eccles: I first mention a very small fault in the Amendment, not that it is serious. In the subsection to which the Amendment relates the word "section" refers to a section as defined in a reorganisation scheme. As was explained in the White Paper, there are likely to be four sections in the finishing trade and, therefore, the last word of the Amendment should be "sections", in the plural.
    Even so, I should not recommend the House to accept the Amendment. As the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, we argued the case in Committee and I then said that reorganisation schemes and compensation in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections would be related to the number of machines as the yardstick, as was done in the Bill in the beginning. That remains the case. Those schemes are going forward and it will be the machine—the loom or spindle—to which the compensation will be related. I have looked at the case of the finishing section again and it is still uncertain precisely how the compensation will be measured, but it will not be on a scale more generous than the compensation in the other sections.
    It now appears that it is just possible that one or two firms which had not been thought about before may come forward to the Cotton Board and ask to be included under the Bill. Such a firm or firms would not readily fit into any of the schemes we have already defined. I do not know whether this will be the case, but if it were, I am advised by the Cotton Board that it is not at all certain by exactly what means their compensation, if they are entitled to any, could be measured.
    For that reason, I hope that the right hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because I think we can trust the Cotton Board. It understands very clearly the doubts which were raised in Committee. There is no intention at all of introducing elements for measuring compensation that would enable compensation to be "blown up," if I may
    1062
    use that phrase, in respect of particular sections.
    Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman has now thought again about this matter and that, perhaps, is a little disturbing. First, he wanted to relate compensation to the number of machines throughout the industry and he told us in Committee that in the finishing section difficulties might arise. Now he has told us that these difficulties might arise in firms which may or may not be within the finishing section.
    It is perhaps unfortunate that the Bill is framed in this way. Nevertheless, we have no serious doubts that the Cotton Board means to carry out the job in the most scrupulous and satisfactory manner that it can. Our only desire is to frame the Bill in the most precise and effective manner. If the right hon. Gentleman assures us that with the draftsmen at his command he feels unable to do that, subject to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S Silverman) might say, I do not think that we would press the Amendment further.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I agree with my right hon. Friend that nothing much would be achieved by dividing the House now or by discussing the point further, but it would be wrong if I did not record the dissatisfaction which any old Member of the House would feel about accepting in any Statute, and especially a Statute which involves the expenditure of public money, a form of words which is admitted by the Government to go far beyond what is the case.
    It may be that the alternative suggested by my right hon. Friend is not acceptable to the Government. It may be that no other form of words ever suggested in Committee or here would be acceptable, but it is clear that the words in the Bill are, or ought to be, wholly unacceptable to any Member of the House who seriously accepts that it is the function of the House to control public money.
    I hope that if we do not divide against or in favour of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter again. I hope that he will ask his draftsmen to find a form of words which will limit the powers of the Cotton

    1063
    Board in this respect to those which the Government think it ought to have, and not give it the wider indeterminate powers now given to it. It cannot be beyond the capacity of Parliamentary draftsmen to find a suitable form of words to do something which everybody can see the Bill does not do. A Bill presented in this clumsy, slipshod way does no credit to the Government, or the House, or to the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Ernest Thornton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out:
    "loss of employment due to"
    and to insert:
    "the loss of the particular employment occasioned by".
    The Amendment will ensure that where compensation is paid for scrapped machinery, compensation will also be paid to displaced workers. As the Bill stands that is not bound to happen. There is some ambiguity about the interpretation and understanding of the words in the Bill:
    "… in respect of loss of employment due to the elimination of the excess capacity."
    The aim of the Amendment is to ensure that, where an employer receives compensation for machinery that is scrapped, the operatives who were employed on that machinery will also receive compensation irrespective of where they go or what they subsequently do.
    This problem has been highlighted by the news in the Press during the last few days. It has been reported that the 53 years old head of the £3 million Taylor-Walker brewery firm is to be given £60,000 for loss of office consequent on merger. This sum will be paid irrespective of whether this gentleman goes to another highly remunerative job. It is for loss of office.
    5.15 p.m.
    We are living in a world of false values and false assessments. On the basis of the table of maximum entitlement provisionally agreed between the unions and the employers in the cotton industry, I calculate that this gentleman, who no doubt is a very estimable gentleman, is valued at 240 textile operatives. That is scandalous. The principle that applies to the payment of compensation
    1064
    to high salaried people for loss of office should apply equally to workers who are declared redundant under this scheme in pursuit of which large sums of public money are to be spent.
    I do not want to go into a lot of detailed cases, but I should like to quote examples of the problems that will arise. A firm not very far from where I live has declared its intention to close one of its two spinning mills and to transfer the operatives to its other mill and employ them on a two-shift system. That will mean that the firm and the shareholders will qualify for compensation because machinery is being scrapped. As the Bill stands, and without some guidance to the negotiators, it may well be that the workers who are transferred will not get any compensation, although some of the married women will find it inconvenient to accept work on a shift system.
    Another interesting case is that of the Cairo Mills at Waterhead. This mill has been closed for one year. The machinery is still in place. As the Bill is framed, I assume that if the firm gives an undertaking to scrap its machinery within the time to be later specified by the Board of Trade it will qualify for compensation. There is a considerable amount of machinery in the mill and the shareholders are expecting compensation of £100,000. One of the directors of the mill stated:
    "The Cairo ceased production in June of last year, and therefore has no operatives to compensate."
    It is not the intention of the Bill that large sums of money should be paid to shareholders who should be allowed to escape liability, or at least have only a very small liability, for compensating operatives who have been put out of work.
    If some differentiation in the basis of compensation cannot be made in respect of mills which closed before 23rd April, some deduction should be made, and this sum allocated to the central pool for compensating displaced workers in other mills. Firms such as I have quoted should not be able to get away with it scot-free, without paying any commensurate compensation for the workers who previously lost their livelihood.
    I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment. It lays down an important principle for the

    1065
    guidance of trade union negotiators. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the workers are represented by their trade union leaders, but the ultimate conditions of the agreements must have regard to the Bill. I understand that considerable progress has been made in the negotiations between the trade unions and employers and that the employers have accepted, or are likely to accept, the principle of an unconditional lump sum payment for half the compensation, but the other conditions to which I have referred are basic ones, which should be embodied in the Bill.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I, too, have every confidence in the skill and persistence of the trade union negotiators who are now seeking to get the best they can for their men in negotiations with the employers within the four corners of the Bill but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has said, the principle on which that compensation is to be negotiated must be laid down not by the employers or trade union leaders but by the House of Commons, and it is in that spirit that my hon. Friend has moved the Amendment.
    What ought the principle to be? There is not a word in the Bill to make it incumbent upon anybody to provide a displaced cotton worker with any other employment. I do not know that it would be very relevant to my hon. Friend's Amendment if there were, because, as he has pointed out, in other walks of life, when compensation on a very different scale and scope than this is paid, it is paid unconditionally and without any clog on it, or any interference with the right of the man who receives it to order his life exactly how he thinks fit. In the case to which my hon. Friend referred the man concerned could, if he chose, never do another day's work in his life—and he could well afford not to—but he could equally choose to do any other work and earn as much as he was able to earn, without his compensation for the loss of his former office being affected.
    The anomaly in the case referred to is that, apparently, the man concerned will receive £60,000 compensation for loss of an office that he is not in fact going to lose. As I understand the newspapers, he will remain in full enjoyment of it and
    1066
    become almost a tenant for life of it. But he guts the compensation just the same, on the basis that he has devoted a part of his life to a particular job; that that job has been taken away from him for reasons for which he is not personally responsible, and that it is therefore right that in the general financial arrangements he should be compensated for his loss.
    All that my hon. Friend is asking is that the principle shall be applied to cotton workers who are displaced from their employment as a result of the operation of a scheme under the Bill. What can there be against that proposal, in principle? What is wrong with it? Why should there be any difficulty about it? Why was it not readily accepted? Why was it not put into the Bill in the first place? If, after spending 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years in an industry, and even in one factory, a man loses his job, although he may find some other employment outside the industry—and more likely outside it if its excess capacity is being reduced—he must begin again with all his roots pulled up, and all his associations and background, and the skills that he has painfully acquired and developed in a lifetime, taken from him. That is why he is compensated. We should not interfere with that payment of compensation simply because he is resilient enough and has the guts enough to adapt himself to the new circumstances, and make a new life for himself in the new world which the Bill has created for him.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: I was hoping that by this time the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to tell us more about the negotiations which have been taking place. We are in difficulties in trying to define certain principles in the compensation terms when the trade unions and employers are actually engaged in working out a scheme, which we hope will be an agreed one. For all I know, the trade unions may have rather different ideas than have hon. Members in this House about the form and nature of the compensation. It is obvious that many questions may be asked, not only on the Bill but on the Amendment.
    I had assumed that the words in subsection (2, b) meant "the loss of the

    1067
    employment" in which the worker was engaged at the time, but if the unions are proposing that there shall be a modification or even a cessation of compensation for a displaced cotton worker who obtains suitable alternative employment, my interpretation is clearly not necessarily correct.
    Mr. Thornton: If I remember rightly, the Minister gave it as his interpretation that the words "loss of employment" meant the loss of the particular job at the particular firm. I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a case where one of two mills owned by the same firm was closed and its operatives transferred to work double shifts in the other mill. As I understand the Minister's interpretation, no compensation would be payable to the displaced operatives, although compensation would be payable to the shareholders of the firm in respect of the machinery made redundant.
    Mr. Houghton: I wondered what attitude would be taken up by the trade unions in those circumstances. Generally speaking, compensation in respect of redundancy is not granted if the employer is able to offer the man concerned a comparable job in the same field of employment without loss of pay. It is merely a transfer from one place to another.
    I am connected with the public service, where redundancy gratuities are not paid if one job ceases and another is offered in the same sector of employment for the same remuneration but in a different place. An employer pays redundancy compensation only if he says "Goodbye" to the worker. That is really what compensation is for. It is the discharging of an employer's liability towards an employee when his employment with him ceases. I do not know what view the unions will take about that sort of situation if it comes about under the reconstruction scheme.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend will notice that in the case of the brewery firm the gentleman in question is to be transferred to another job within the same group of breweries. It is a case parallel to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Houghton: Yes, but with great respect, unfortunately what happens in the case of a brewery chairman and other V.I.Ps. and business tycoons cannot be the basis of compensation of other workers. It seems to me that it really does not take us anywhere. Much as we may deplore some of the things that happen and though we may regard them as ludicrously generous, especially if they result in an untaxed gain, they have nothing to do with the realities of the situation in this industry or with the compensation terms of, possibly, a large number of workers.
    I am genuinely seeking light on what the Bill will do in certain eventualities and more light still on what the unions want done in certain eventualities. If the Parliamentary Secretary can assist the House in the matter I am sure that we shall all be very grateful to him.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: Perhaps when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he could clear up one point raised by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr Thornton). It seems to me, as I understand the method of dealing with the question of compensation, that all spinning mills will receive compensation for the spindles that are destroyed and that all those mills will pay into a common pool to provide compensation for the employees. Otherwise I do not quite understand what subsection (5, a) means when it says
    "for raising by means of charges to be imposed"
    unless it means that all mills are going to pay. That means that the example mentioned by the hon. Gentleman of one mill which was going to scrap spindles but which had already parted a year or so ago with some of its employees will, in fact, have to pay, according to an agreed standard, some money into a common pool to be eventually paid out to all the employees in the cotton trade whose services will be dispensed with. If that is not the case, then the hon. Gentleman has raised a point which needs dealing with.
    It seems quite inequitable for a firm which closed down six months ago to get a large sum of money for spindles which are going to be put under the hammer compared with a firm which has attempted to keep going and has lost, possibly, £50,000 in the last six months,

    1069
    a firm with a realisation of public service and a feeling of responsibility towards its employees, which has endeavoured to weather the storm, has lost a lot of money and has, finally, decided that it must close down, That firm will get the same compensation for its spindles but may lose an amount equal to half that compensation by way of payment to its employees which it will have to put off.
    If that is what is to happen, it seems that we ought to endeavour to correct it, but if my first interpretation is correct, it seems to me that the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will not arise.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): Hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate the spirit which motivated the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who seconded it. The Amendment follows on exchanges which hon. Gentlemen had in Committee with my right hon. Friend on the question of whether operatives who were made redundant through the operation of this Measure would be adequately compensated. We all appreciate the necessity for that. There is no doubt at all, I think, on this point. As my right hon. Friend told hon. Members in Committee, the words at present in the Bill would enable the arrangements to provide for compensation to be paid to persons who lose their existing jobs irrespective of whether they find new ones, if that is how the unions and the employers want them to be framed.
    The Government's view, however, is that the arrangements must be settled between the two sides and not imposed upon them by the Board of Trade. We are not prepared, as my right hon. Friend made abundantly clear in Committee, to compromise on this fundamental principle which is really a matter for negotiation between the unions and the employers. Indeed, the arrangements now in contemplation as the result of recent meetings between the representatives of employers and unions in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections will include provision for compensation partly in the form of unconditional payments and partly of weekly instalments subject to termination or reduction in the event of the operative obtaining other
    1070
    employment. As I said earlier, it is not for the Board of Trade to lay down the conditions.
    With reference to the two points raised by the hon. Member—
    Mr. S. Silverman: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain further why he thinks that this particular principle ought to be left to be negotiated instead of being laid down by Parliament. Is it not the case that it leaves it open to the negotiators to assess compensation on this basis, but does not make it mandatory upon them to do this? There being only a limited amount of money at stake and the argument being a very long and difficult one about how much money one can get for compensation and how to apportion it, that puts the negotiators on the trade union side in an extremely difficult position and makes it difficult for them to stand out for the principle which they would like in case it affects the amount of money which they are likely to get. If we laid down in the Bill this principle as a principle of compensation, then that would be outside the area of negotiations and the negotiators would be free to discuss the amount and methods, and all the rest of it.
    Mr. Rodgers: We spent a great deal of time arguing why the Government had taken this line. It was because in their wisdom they thought that it was a method which the unions and employers would prefer and, indeed, that it would be better for both parties. Indeed, I think that to date the results in the three sections which I have mentioned falsify the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I do not think that the unions have found themselves inhibited or in any great difficulty in applying the principle on which we have operated, that is voluntary agreement between the two sides of industry, as is traditional.
    I turn now to say a word or two about the two points raised by the hon. Member for Farnworth. Again, I would like to stress that both matters are really for the unions and the employers. But I think, in the first case, that where one of the mills is closed down and the operatives have been offered alternative employment in another mill owned by the same company, no compensation would he paid unless the man was asked

    1071
    to take a lower paid job. I think that is the case there, but I should not like to be dogmatic about it.
    With regard to the case of the Cairo Mills where the machinery is standing but where the operatives have been laid off for some time, this is a matter for Mr. Burney and the Special Committee to see what steps ought to be taken. It is not for the Board of Trade to lay down compensation conditions in a case like that any more than it is overall, as I told the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
    A further snag in the Amendment is that if it is accepted, the scope of the condition under subsection (2, b) on which the Board of Trade must be satisfied would, we believe, be somewhat restricted. The effects of the Amendment are uncertain and might be quite different from what hon. Members opposite expect. The limitations to
    "loss of the particular employment occasioned by"
    might be construed as implying that Parliament was interested only in ensuring that an operative had compensation for the period between losing his job and getting a new one at the same or a higher wage and did not envisage the possibility of compensation payments being resumed if he lost the new job during the period over which his entitlement to compensation would otherwise have continued. We believe that it might be so construed. It might be construed that an operative should lose his instalment payments—not his lump sum—if he got another job. In view of the ambiguity and for the reasons I have stated, I very much hope that hon. Members opposite will either withdraw the Amendment or that the House will reject it.
    Mr. Jay: I am rather puzzled by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and I am now left in considerable doubt as to what the Bill means on this point. The broad principle which my hon. Friends want to put forward, and on which we all agree, is that compensation should be available to the employee who loses his job even though he gets another and should not be available only if he is left unemployed.
    It seems to me that the argument introduced by my hon. Friends is relevant and that, since this is the principle which is
    1072
    applied in the case of those highly-paid personnel of whom we have heard, it ought to apply also in the case of ordinary cotton workers in Lancashire. I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that the case of one or other of the highly-paid company chairmen is irrelevant, if only for this reason.
    When these large sums are paid for loss of office, even though the director concerned immediately takes some other job in the firm or out of it, it is not just a question of a private arrangement being made in a private firm, as nobody knows better than my hon. Friend. The normal practice, we understand, of the Inland Revenue is not to charge tax on these sums which are described as compensation for loss of office. Therefore, it is recognised as public policy by the Treasury, through the Inland Revenue, that tax should not be paid in that case, even though it is perfectly well known that it is compensation simply for losing the individual or particular office, or however it is described, even though another job is at once obtained.
    Mr. Houghton: My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to refer to my observations. He will recall that in Committee I spoke emphatically in favour of unconditional compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence we then had of what the unions were prepared to agree to did not include unconditional compensation. So I am at least pure in heart on that.
    As regards tax, my right hon. Friend knows that these payments would not be subject to tax either. His reference to the brewery chairman—it is a great pity we cannot all be brewery chairmen—
    Mr. S. Silverman: Or brewery shareholders.
    Mr. Houghton: —was a matter of scale and amount and not, it seemed to me, of principle. I hope that there is no rebuke implied in my right hon. Friend's observations, otherwise I would wish to join issue with him a little more strongly.
    Mr. Jay: It is a great pity we cannot all change round from being one brewery chairman to another brewery chairman. However, on the principle, I think, we are all agreed.
    I am slightly puzzled by the Parliamentary Secretary's doctrine now that

    1073
    what the Bill does, and what we ought to do, is to leave this point to be wholly determined between the trade unions and the employers in each section of the industry. Looking at the Bill, as I always do, not as a lawyer but as somebody hoping to understand English, even if not plain English, it seems to me that what subsection (2) now says is that if these schemes are to be approved and public money is to be paid, the Board of Trade must be satisfied of certain conditions. One of the conditions under subsection (2, b) of which it has to be satisfied is that arrangements have been made within the section of the industry for the payment of compensation in respect of loss of employment due to the elimination of surplus capacity. That is to say, if the Board of Trade is not satisfied of that, it does not pay the money and the scheme does not go forward.
    In Committee, in answer to my question as to what the phrase
    "in respect of loss of employment"
    now meant in the Bill, I understood the President of the Board of Trade to give an answer in line with what we have proposed: that is to say, that it means that a person gets the compensation even though he obtains another job. It may be that we have to add the qualification "another job in another firm".
    5.45 p.m.
    If that is so, the Bill appears now to say that the scheme cannot go forward unless the Board of Trade is satisfied that there is an arrangement of that kind in force, in which case, surely, it is not open to the employers and the unions to make a different arrangement, because if they did, it would not qualify for the receipt of public money. If the Bill does not mean that, can we be told exactly why not?
    Mr. J. Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that before accepting any scheme which is put forward by one of the sections in the cotton industry and laid before this House, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade must be satisfied that the condition that adequate compensation has been paid to displaced workers is met. The decision on what is adequate compensation, however, is left to the two sides to negotiate. If it
    1074
    is proved, it will then be part of the scheme which my right hon. Friend would consider.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) must have missed the point I mentioned concerning the arrangement that already has been reached in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections, where, I understand, the unions and the employers have agreed to pay compensation in two forms. One is unconditional payments whether a man gets another job immediately or not. The second is weekly instalments, subject to termination or reduction in the event of the operative obtaining other employment. That, I understand, is the agreement which has now been reached in those three sections. In a sense, that partly answers the right hon. Gentleman as to whether compensation will be paid irrespective of the fact that a man gets another job.
    Mr. Jay: It may well be—do not dispute it for one moment—at that agreement has been reached in those sections and that compensation is to be paid in both forms. This in itself, however, does not affect the meaning of the Bill. Why am I wrong in supposing that the Bill as it stands, assuming that the interpretation given by the President of the Board of Trade of the words "loss of employment" is right, must mean that at least some compensation must be paid in such a form that a man gets it regardless of whether he takes another job? If this is so, some of our anxieties at least would be met. I speak subject to correction by the more legally learned Members of the House, but is it not the case that that is what the Bill now means?
    Mr. Rodgers: As I understand it, it means that the compensation can be paid irrespective of whether a man gets a job, if that is what both sides of the industry so recommend.
    Mr. S. Silverman: If I understand correctly the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), he is saying that the words of subsection (2, b) mean more than that a scheme of compensation can cover loss of employment even though other employment is obtained. What my right hon. Friend is saying is that the words mean that it must cover that, at least

    1075
    to some degree. He is further saying that, as he understood the President of the Board of Trade in Committee, the President was also of that opinion.
    It makes a great deal of difference to what the House might like to do with the Amendment whether the point is, in fact, covered by the existing words of the Bill. I hope I have made myself clear. It is sometimes difficult to do so when dealing with semantics rather than with the principles of the Bill. The point is whether the principle of compensation for loss of employment due to the elimination of excess capacity, irrespective of what happens afterwards, is to be compulsorily applied as the Bill now stands or whether it is open only to those who negotiate compensation to cover it if they like.
    Mr. Rodgers: As I understand the Bill, it is only open for the compensation to be paid irrespective of what happens afterwards if both sides feel that is a correct solution in the particular case.
    Mr. Thornton: We are pursuing an interesting point. I have had a long negotiating experience with the employers, and our relationship is quite good. I say, not in any critical sense, that from the outset the employers were determined not to pay anything in the
    nature of a lump sum settlement, and that it was only after it became apparent that the unions were not prepared to accept that position and that the proposal in the Bill was that unconditional compensation should be paid, that the employers changed their position. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I was very grateful to him for his powerful plea about unconditional lump sum payments because it was most helpful support to the case which I was attempting to put. The scheme we are discussing now is, to use the phrase of the President of the Board of Trade, rather unique, in that unconditional payments for scrapped machinery may be made. My contention is that unconditional payments should be paid also to the workers who are displaced.
    Mr. Rodgers: What has happened in negotiations between the unions and the employers is a vindication of the attitude of the Government, which is that these matters are best left to unions and employers. The illustration given by the hon. Member for Farnworth is better than anything I could have said at this Dispatch Box.
    Question put, That "loss of employment due to" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 210.

    Division No. 145.]

    AYES

    [5.53 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Brewis, John

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Aitken, W. T.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

    Browne, J. Nixon (Graigton)

    Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.,

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Bryan, P.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

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

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Arbuthnot, John

    Campbell, Sir David

    Erroll, F. J.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Carr, Robert

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Fell, A.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Atkins, H. E.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Conant, Maj, Sir Roger

    Forrest, G.

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Cooke, Robert

    Foster, John

    Barber, Anthony

    Cooper, A. E.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Barter, John

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gammans, Lady

    Batsford, Brian

    Corfield, F. V.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Glover, D.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Godber, J. B.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Cunningham, Knox

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Cower, H. R.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Green, A.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Body, R. F.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Doughty, C. J, A.

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Dray son, G. B.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Braine, B. R.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Braithwaite, Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Duthie, Sir William

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maclean, sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Hay, John

    McLean, Nell (Inverness)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Macleod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Henderson Stewart, Sir James

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Maddan, Martin

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Shepherd, William

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

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

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Mathew, R.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Howard, John (Test)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Speir, R. M.

    Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Storey, S.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Neave, Airey

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

    Teeling, W.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Nugent, Richard

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Orr, Cant. L. P. S.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Kaberry, D.

    Osborne, C.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Page, R. G.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdate)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Kimball, M.

    Partridge, E.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Kirk, P. M.

    Peel, W. J.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Wall, Patrick

    Leburn, W. G.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

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

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

    Pitman, I. J.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Pott, H. P.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Linstead, Sir H. M.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

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

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Woollam, John Victor

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Profumo, J. D.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Redmayne, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McAdden, S. J.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Renton, D. L. M.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Chapman, W, D.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Albu, A. H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Cliffe, Michael

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd'(Car'then)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Clunle, J.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Balfour, A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Benson, Sir George

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Beswick, Frank

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Deer, G.

    Grimond, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hale, Leslie

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Diamond, John

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Boardman, H.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hannan, W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Donnelly, D. L

    Hastings, S.

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

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

    Hayman, F. H.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Healey, Denis

    Bowles, F. G.

    Edelman, M.

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

    Boyd, T. C.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Burke, W. A.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Holman, P.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Holmes, Horace

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Holt, A. F.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Howell, Charles (Perry Ban)

    Carmichael, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Hoy, J. H.

    1078

    1079

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mort, D. L.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Moyle, A.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hunter, A. E.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Steele, T.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Orbach, M.

    Stonehouse, John

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Owen, W. J.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

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

    Padley, W. E.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Paton, John

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pearson, A.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Kenyon, C.

    Peart, T. F.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Pentland, N.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Popplewell, E.

    Thornton, E.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Tomney, F.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Vlant, S. P.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Probert, A. R.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Proctor, W. T.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Logan, D. G.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Weitzman, D.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Randall, H. E.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Rankin, John

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    McCann, J.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Reeves, J.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    McInnes, J.

    Reid, William

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Willey, Frederick

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mahon, Simon

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Ross, William

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Mason, Roy

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Mellish, R. J.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Woof, R. E.

    Messer, Sir F.

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

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Monslow, W.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Moody, A. S.

    Snow, J. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewls'm,S.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Mr. Short and Mr. Simmons.

    Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
    "and
    (c) that bodies representing the interests of a majority of the persons employed in the section have agreed to those arrangements so far as they relate to persons whose interests are represented by those bodies".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): With this Amendment we can discuss that in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
    "and that such arrangements have been agreed to by organisations which in the opinion of the Board of Trade represent the majority of the employed persons affected by the arrangements".
    Sir D. Eccles: The Amendment is designed to meet the wishes expressed in Committee last week, and I think that we have found words which carry out the intention of both sides of the House.
    We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that agreement in principle has been reached among the spinners, doublers and weavers on both sides that the lump sum unconditional payment shall be one-half of the compensation and the other half shall be in weekly payments at a rate which
    1080
    is abated so as not to conflict with a man's entitlement to unemployment benefit. That is what the unions have decided to be best for their members, and, as I said previously, I am glad that there is an element of lump sum payment in it, because I think that that is a good thing.
    This change in the principles of compensation, which was agreed last Thursday and which has since been agreed by the bodies representing both employers and operatives, very considerably increases the liability of the employers. I pay tribute to both sides for having modified the previous set of principles and coming together in the way that they have. It gives us good hope that in all other matters in which co-operation between the two sides is essential to the success of the Bill, that co-operation will be forthcoming.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The President of the Board of Trade has substantially met the point which we put to him in Committee. We are grateful to him for the consideration which he has shown to the arguments which we advanced on that occasion. It is true to say, I think, that the position of the

    1081
    trade unions in these negotiations is now stronger than it was and I hope that some of the speeches which have been made in our debates on the Bill may have helped in that direction. We appreciate the gesture which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and in the circumstances, I do not propose to move our Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
    "and
    (c) that consultation has taken place with the appropriate local authorities in any area to be affected and that every practicable step has been taken to meet such objections as they may have".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take that in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
    "and
    (c) that adequate consultations have taken place with the local authorities in the areas affected".
    Mr. Silverman: I regard this as an Amendment of principle to the scheme of the Bill. As the Bill stands, it is a cotton industry Bill alone. All the factors which have to be taken into account are factors strictly and narrowly within the area of cotton industry problems, namely, whether capacity is excess capacity or not, and whether, when capacity has been determined to be excess or surplus capacity so that it is eliminated, compensation shall be paid both to the owners of the eliminated mechanical capacity and to the labour which is eliminated or made redundant. As the Bill stands, no other consideration is taken into account.
    It was repeatedly said from this side of the House on Second Reading that we regarded that as one of the main defects of the Bill. I do not know what was said on this matter by hon. Members opposite, since we heard very little from them on Second Reading or in Committee. The point we have always to bear in mind—and it is something which the Government must have had in mind when they decided to introduce the Bill—is that the present state of the cotton industry has social consequences of a fundamental kind. Yet, in the measures which they propose in the Bill, the Government pay no attention to them.
    Among the bodies to be consulted one would have thought that the local
    1082
    authorities would have taken a high place, because if the Bill works at all it will have a disastrous effect in many towns and small villages of Lancashire. There are villages which depend solely on the work done in a solitary mill. If that mill is regarded as being excess, if, in the scheme which the Minister confirms and the House adopts, that mill disappears, it means that the whole livelihood of the village has gone. It must be somebody's duty to have regard to consequences of that kind.
    During the Committee stage we asked the Government to make these social changes one of the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether a scheme was good or not. The Government would not do it. We are now asking them to do something less than that, but something which still takes it into account to some extent. We say, "At least, when the scheme is being formulated, have a look at what the social consequences will be. Go to the local authority and say to it, 'If the scheme is carried out in this form, what will it mean to you? What objections have you, as a local authority, to the scheme's being carried out as it has been formulated?'".
    The Amendment does not ask the Government to make the local authority the judge of whether or not a scheme shall go forward. It does not say that if the local authority has objections that is the end of it. It does not even say that if the local authority has objections which the Government cannot overcome that shall be the end of it. It asks for something short of those two propositions. It says, "At least, find out what the objections of the local authorities are, find out whether they are good objections, find out whether there is any way of overcoming them, and do not approve the scheme in the end until at any rate you have consulted the local authorities in some way and their objections have been considered."
    It is impossible to understand why the Government boggle about that. Clause 1 provides almost in its very first words that some bodies shall be consulted by the Cotton Board and the Board of Trade. It does not expressly provide that local authorities shall be among them. The Amendment asks that they should.

    1083
    I referred a moment ago to the problem of the small village with only one mill. That is not the whole problem. On the first Amendment, dealing with the clearing of sites where there are derelict factories, one of my hon. Friends talked about finding houses for workers. That is not the problem in many Lancashire towns. The chief problem is to find tenants for the empty houses which are there now. There is already a considerable rating problem in many of the towns in the North-East Lancashire area. Nelson is losing about £5,000 a year in respect of rates for empty houses. Colne is losing a proportionate amount. I am sure that Burnley is losing in the same way, but perhaps losing less because it has more alternative industry. Other towns are in the same position.
    Suppose that in towns like those in my constituency, where cotton is certainly the basic industry and almost the only industry, the excess capacity elimination schemes have the result of closing down one-third of the cotton mills. Is it not clear that that creates an enormous social problem? We have already said that a Bill which was doing the job properly would seek to plan not only the cotton industry, but the area. The Amendment does not go as far as that, but it says that that should be taken into account.
    The North-East Lancashire area is a Development Area. It has a development committee on which all the local authorities are represented, and the committee tries to attract new industries into the area within or outside the distribution of industry legislation. It is enormously concerned if the Government are proposing to reduce cotton producing capacity in the area. Why cannot the Government consult it?
    6.15 p.m.
    There is not merely the area development committee. Nearly all the towns in the North-East Lancashire area have their own development committees. Nelson has had one for many years, and it has been not altogether unsuccessful within the limits of the powers which the Government have accorded it. Colne has had one more recently, and it is a very active committee. Its chairman is the prospective Conservative candidate who will be opposing me at the next
    1084
    General Election. Why should he not be consulted? His committee is concerned, the Nelson committee is concerned and every local authority in the area is trying to assess what will be the effect on our development problems of a Bill which is to contract the cotton industry still further, whether it will increase the migration of population from the area, whether it will increase the wastage of social capital, whether it will lead to more empty houses and more empty shops as well as more empty factories, and whether it will increase the rate at which the population becomes an ageing population.
    They are not going to sit back and do nothing about it. They are active already, and they are doing reasonably well using their own powers, using their energies, using their initiative and using their imagination, inviting people to go there and to some extent succeeding; but all these are matters which have to be related to what their fate will be when the Bill is passed.
    All we are saying to the Government is, "Do not imagine that you can act in this way so as to introduce an element of still greater subversiveness into the social machinery of a whole area, and do not think that you, as a Government, are entitled to spend public money on doing that without taking into account at all the elected representatives of the population of the area and the problems for which they are responsible to the people who elected them."
    I hope that the Government will consider this matter a good deal more sympathetically than they have any of the Amendments with which we have so far dealt. I do not want to be emotional about this subject, but one could easily be emotional about it. The House has heard many speeches about this area, about its past and about the contribution which it has made to the national glory as well as to the national wealth, its increasing and accumulating sufferings, and its attempt to rehabilitate itself while the Labour Party was in office between 1945 and 1950 when people were assured that the future of the cotton industry was secure.
    The Government cannot ignore these things. For the young people leaving school, there are already apprenticeship and juvenile employment problems.

    1085
    What are the children to do? Are they to remain there, or are they to go out of the area, and if so, are their parents to go with them? The Government must pay attention to these matters. They must act with a sense of responsibility to the area as well as with a sense of responsibility, if they have one, to the industry. They were slow enough in doing anything for the industry itself. Let them at least at this stage make it clear that they will not ignore the problems of the area.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir D. Eccles: I explained on the Committee stage that any proposal to write social factors into the conditions for determining which capacity shall be eliminated would cut right across the whole plan of reorganisation of the cotton industry. The object which we are seeking to achieve by the Bill is very difficult. Let no one think that it will be easy to reorganise this industry and leave it confident, compact and competitive. As one looks round the world, keen competition is to be seen everywhere. We know that if a Free Trade Area for Europe comes into being competition will become even keener.
    We shall not be able to restore confidence in this industry or secure that very large sums of new money are invested in it unless we cut out the dead wood. That can be done in two ways. First, it can be done by compulsion. We could make a survey in London, with such technical advice as we could obtain from Lancashire, and we could then, by Order, concentrate the industry, as was done during the war when it was necessary that workers should go to armament factories. Secondly, it can be done by a voluntary scheme, bearing in mind that voluntary action is in peacetime most likely to attract the real co-operation of the people concerned. The Government have rejected compulsion and have decided to undertake reorganisation of this great industry on a voluntary basis. Mills will be given a short time in which to qualify for the compensation terms being worked out by the Cotton Board's special committee.
    When considering the Amendment, which would introduce another concept into the choice of mills to close down.
    1086
    it is important to remember that the Cotton Board will not select any mills to close down. Indeed, the risk is that not enough owners of mills will apply for compensation to achieve the first object of the Bill, which is to leave the industry in an efficient shape.
    What would happen if we accepted the Amendment and placed on the Cotton Board the duty of consulting local authorities about accepting an application for compensation from any particular mill owner, if on social grounds an owner who applied for compensation was refused that compensation and told that his application could not be entertained? The mill might then close of its own accord, in which case its workpeople would receive no compensation. Alternatively, the mill owner will say that he must have a subsidy if he is to keep open. We cannot compel a mill to keep open. If we once stray into the realms of subsidies for operating cotton mills, gone for ever is our hope of reducing the surplus capacity, of cutting out the dead wood.
    Mr. Boardman: Is it not a point, also, that a private company has no social responsibility?
    Sir D. Eccles: Indeed not. If the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) will look round the great bulk of our firms today, he will find that the boards of directors have a very great social responsibility.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not seen my hon. Friend's point. We agree that very many private firms have a great sense of social responsibility. In Lancashire many of them have shown it. But they cannot show it after they go out of existence. The point is who will show any social responsibility for the consequences of their closing down?
    Sir D. Eccles: A mill cannot continue if it is making a loss. If the owner of such a mill applied for compensation under the terms of the Bill, it would be impossible to refuse the compensation and then tell him that he must stay in operation.
    If we consulted local authorities, naturally their advice would be that certain mills should not close. It is open to local authorities to make their views

    1087
    known to the Cotton Board. I know that the Cotton Board is ready to hear them. The House must examine what it would mean if we accepted the Amendment. In the Lancashire area of the cotton belt there are eighty-five local authorities. There is the county council. There are eight county boroughs, twenty non-county boroughs, forty-six urban districts and ten rural districts. It is not possible that the interests of all those local authorities would coincide.
    Mr. W. A. Burke: Is a mill going to close down in each one of them?
    Sir D. Eccles: I cannot tell the hon. Member that. I know that it would wreck the possibility of a rational reorganisation of this industry if the Cotton Board had to take into account the views of eighty-five local authorities in Lancashire as well as some in Yorkshire. Todmorden and three or four other local authorities in Yorkshire would have to be consulted also.
    Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
    Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member keeps rising. He must let me continue.
    Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman should talk about the Amendment.
    Sir D. EcclesThe anxieties of local authorities are very well known to us and appreciated by us. As I said in Committee, the mayors of many of these towns have been down to London to see either the Prime Minister or myself. We understand their anxieties. We understand what it means when the population has diminished—loss of rates, loss of custom for their shops and a feeling that their town is on the downgrade.
    The first thing to do for all these local authorities is to stop that deterioration. The first thing that it is right to do in their own interests is to produce an efficient cotton industry with a good hope of expansion hereafter. If we were to take into consideration now the kind of social factors which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would have us take into consideration, we should not do that which is our first duty, namely, to leave the cotton industry in a thoroughly healthy condition.
    I fully agree that we must not stop at making the cotton industry compact and
    1088
    efficient. We have a second duty, which is to look after the casualties. The casualties will not be anything like as numerous as the hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods will be assured if the Bill is a success. So I am very ready indeed to consult the local authorities but, as I have already said this afternoon, we shall be in a much better position to talk to them about the future of their population when we know where the mills are to close and when we have some estimate of the residual unemployment that will result.
    We have a number of powers in the Development Area part of North-East Lancashire—more powers than we have in an area that is not scheduled—but we are prepared to look at the problem, and to do an exercise as soon as the size and nature of the problem becomes apparent. On the other hand, I think that I should be doing a grave disservice to Lancashire by accepting an Amendment that sounds very nice when put to an individual authority but which would have the effect of blurring, and, I think, of spoiling, any chance that we may have—and I think that it is quite a good chance now—of shaping this industry so that it becomes competitive and expanding once again.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Perhaps I may say a few words with the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade was as a dove of peace on the last Amendment, but I am disappointed with his latest reply.
    We all agree that it is not easy to reorganise the cotton industry, and I do not think that anyone has suggested that it is. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, although it was tempting to do so, we did not table Amendments in Committee relating, for instance, to the need for the regrouping of units in the industry, or other Amendments directed to rather more radical reorganisation than is likely to take place. We have not suggested that there should be a compulsory scheme. We have agreed to give the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to procure a voluntary redeployment of industry a chance, although we have expressed grave doubts whether this Bill will achieve the ends that we know he has in mind.

    1089
    I want to put to the House, very simply, what we are trying to do by this Amendment. We are saying that if a firm suggests to the Cotton Board that one of its mills should cease to operate, and that mill is in a village whose whole livelihood and social life depends on it; and if, at the same time, the firm has another mill of approximately the same size in a town where there is a diversity of industry, the Board should say to the firm, "We think that it will be much better for you to close the mill in the town, where there is full employment. If you wish to close the mill in the village, we cannot agree to that proposal, and no compensation will be available." We believe that that would have the general effect of serving the social interests of the area without doing any harm at all to the structure of the industry. The case is as simple as that.
    We appreciate, of course, the readiness of the President of the Board of Trade to consult the local authorities on these and other matters. The difficulty is that, so far as we can see, he will talk to them about their future when, perhaps, a future will not any longer be available to them. Unless we can have a much more helpful reply from the right hon. Gentleman, I shall certainly ask my hon. Friends to vote in support of the Amendment.
    Mr. John McCann: The Minister has made quite a lot of play with the number of authorities that are affected in the textile area. To us on this side, the number stresses the seriousness and size of the problem.
    The Amendment is simple. It says that the appropriate local authorities must be consulted. The important thing is to know that every practical step has been taken to meet such objections as the local authorities may have, and we can tell the right hon. Gentleman here and now that they are already viewing with seriousness any contraction in the areas affected. It is the complete and utter responsibility of a local authority to bear in mind the social implications of unemployment in its area.
    Hon. Members opposite will recall that during municipal elections they have made great play with the importance of local government—" Keep local government local"; "Take local government out of the hands of the Ministry." I fully agree that the local authorities should
    1090
    have the responsibility for the social and cultural amenities of their town or area. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said that the local authorities should not be the final arbiters. In page 7 of the White Paper we find:
    "The Government for their part will assist through the machinery of the Ministry of Labour and, where appropriate, by use of their powers under the Distribution of Industry Acts."
    It goes on to say:
    "Judging from past experience (see paragraph 4) the numbers who will have a continuing difficulty in finding new work will be much less than might be feared."
    That might have been the case in the contraction of 1952, but in the last twelve months the number of jobs available in the Lancashire textile towns has fallen to the point, where, in some cases, there are 26 unemployed for each vacancy. It is against that background that Lancashire has to look at the problem.
    The Rochdale local authority, recognising the problem a year ago, tried to get inserted in its local Bill a Clause giving it the power to encourage industrialists to come to the town by making loans to them, but the town clerk writes:
    "At the hearing before the Lord Chairman of Committees on 7th May the representative of the Board opposed these provisions and based his objection on the grounds that it was the province of the Board of Trade to secure a proper distribution of industry and he mentioned the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill …"
    which, it was claimed, would solve the problem.
    Rochdale still has 45·5 per cent. of its population engaged in the textile and ancillary trades. Against that background we face mill closures. New industries are obviously a factor, but one finds that in the last two months of last year and the first month of this year, in the Rochdale spinning sub-area, provision was made for one new factory of 8,000 sq. ft.—20 ft. by 400 ft. I do not think that we shall get much machinery or employment out of that in an area in which 45·5 per cent. of the people are in the textile industry.
    Migration is the most important reason for providing that local authorities should be consulted. Time and time again my hon. Friends and I have complained of migration. I know that I

    1091
    have given the following figures to the House on previous occasions, but all we can do is to keep drumming them in until the Government realise that migration is essentially a social as well as an economic matter. In 1950, Rochdale had a population of 89,530. That figure had dropped to 85,310 at the end of 1957, last year we lost another 800, and all the indications are that this year the rate of migration is accelerating.
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now realise why it is that we want him to consult the local authorities. The local authorities may now be planning services for people who will not be there to use them, or by taking account of migration they may be running the risk of not having adequate services should there be a fresh influx of population. Before the war, one of Ireland's main exports was young men. Unfortunately, the position in Rochdale is becoming the same. Therefore, I beg the President of the Board of Trade favourably to consider this Amendment.
    This is not an attempt to delay the Bill, which we agree will make for a more efficient industry. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that this more efficient textile industry will not operate evenly over the whole of industrial Lancashire. While it operates efficiently in one area, it can, in the name of efficiency, completely denude another area of work. That is the problem we face. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it through the eyes of the local authorities. The local authorities, in the last analysis, have the problem of looking after the welfare of their people.
    Mr. Burke: I merely wanted to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question. I agree with him entirely that the big problem is, first, to get rid of the dead wood in the cotton industry. As he knows, every local authority is
    very much concerned about what is to take the place of the dead wood. He knows also—I raised this question on the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act—that, to a large extent, the power to build new factories now lies with him. If an area is a Development Area, the power lies with the Board of Trade.
    If a factory in a certain area is closed, will the right hon. Gentleman agree, if the Amendment is withdrawn, to consult the local authorities about putting another factory in its place? That is the kind of thing that we really want. If the industry itself decides to go out, will the Minister then consider putting something in its place?
    Sir D. Eccles: I would remind the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) that Burnley is in North-East Lancashire and, therefore, is in the Development Area. I have said that we are ready to build factories there with Government money, if we can find an industrialist. We have better hopes now that trade is picking up. Certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary and I will give this and other areas in the United Kingdom where there is the problem of unemployment continuous attention and high priority.
    I quite understand the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), but, with great respect to him, an efficient cotton industry could not be evenly distributed over Lancashire. That is one of our difficulties. To have an efficient industry, we are bound to have a lack of balance in distribution between certain areas. It is better to achieve an efficient industry with that lack of balance and then make it good in the kind of ways which the hon. Member for Burnley suggests. That is what we intend to do.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 246.

    Division No. 146.]

    AYES

    [6.42 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Beswick, Frank

    Brockway, A. F.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Broughton, Or. A. D. D.

    Albu, A. H.

    Blackburn, F.

    Brown Thomas (Ince)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Boardman, H.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

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

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Balfour, A.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Carmichael, J.

    Benson, Sir George

    Boyd, T. C.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Rankin, John

    Chetwynd, G R.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Cliffe, Michael

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

    Reeves, J.

    Clunie, J.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Reid, William

    Coldrick, W.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Kenyon, C.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Ross, William

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lawson, G. M.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lee, Frederlok (Newton)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Diamond, John

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Logan, D. G.

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

    Edelman, M.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    McCann, J.

    Snow, J. W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McInnes, J.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Steele, T.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Stonehouse, John

    Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

    Mahon, Simon

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Swingler, S. T.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Gooch, E. G

    Messer, Sir F.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Monslow, W.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moody, A. S.

    Thornton, E.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Tomney, F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mort, D. L.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moyle, A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Hale, Leslie

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Weitzman, D.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Hannan, W.

    Orbach, M.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Hastings, S.

    Owen, W. J.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Padley, W. E.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Healey, Denis

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

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

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paton, John

    Willey, Frederick

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Pearson, A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Peart, T. F.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Pentland, N.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Holman, P.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Holmes, Horace

    Popplewell, E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Prentice, R. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Woof, R. E.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Probert, A. R.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Randall, H. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bingham, R. M.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Corfield, F. V.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Body, R. F.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

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

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip Northwood)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Braine, B. R.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Brewis, John

    Dance, J, C. G.

    Barber, Anthony

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Barlow, Sir John

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Barter, John

    Bryan, P.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Batsford, Brian

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

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Campbell, Sir David

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Carr, Robert

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

    Duthie, Sir William

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Cooke, Robert

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Elliot,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N.)

    1094

    1095

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kaberry, D.

    Pott, H. P.

    Erroll, F. W.

    Keegan, D.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Fell, A.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kirk, P. M.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Redmayne, M.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Leburn, W. G.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Gammans, Lady

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

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Glover, D.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Glyn, Col, Richard, H.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Godber, J. B.

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

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Goodhart, Philip

    Longden, Gilbert

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Gower, H. R.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Sharples, R. C.

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

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Shepherd, William

    Green, A.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Grimond, J.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    McLean, Nell (Inverness)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

    Speir, R. M.

    Gurden, Harold

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maddan, Martin

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)

    Storey, S.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hay, John

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

    Mathew, R.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Teeling, W.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Mawby, R. L.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

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

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Holt, A. F.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Neave, Airey

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Howard, John (Test)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

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

    Wall, Patrick

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Nugent, Richard

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

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

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

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Osborne, C.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

    Page, R. G.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdals)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Jennings, J. c. (Burton)

    Partridge, E.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Peel, W. J.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Pitman, 1. J.

    Mr. Hughes-Young and

    Mr. Whitelaw.

    Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
    "and
    (c) that in respect of every excess capacity proposed by the reorganisation scheme to be eliminated adequate consideration has been given to the need of providing employment in the area affected and of the appropriate distribution of industry".
    The House has now decided that we should not in the Bill require the Board of Trade to consult with local authorities in the cotton areas before selecting mills for closure under the scheme. What we propose, leaving aside local authorities, is that there should be consultation within the machinery of the Board of Trade and
    1096
    the Cotton Board to ensure that before individual mills are selected for closure the effect on employment and unemployment in the neighbourhood is taken into account in additon to the technical facts and figures within the firm and mill.
    Although the President of the Board of Trade has been conciliatory on some subjects today, he is still inclined to be a little stubborn on this point. I ask him not to turn down this principle so dogmatically that he is unable to give effect to it in carrying out the Bill. I regard this point as the most important in the discussions on the Bill, since we

    1097
    are all agreed that what matters to displaced employees, even more than compensation, is that they should get jobs. We propose, leaving aside the local authorities, that there should at least be some consultation by the committee which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to set up under the Cotton Board with individual firms about which mills should close and that in the course of that consultation the employment situation should also be considered.
    I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not suggesting—it would be quite foolish to do so—that in making this selection the relative efficiency or inefficiency of an individual mill or the comparative costs between one mill and another should be left out of account. We propose that, in addition to those extremely important factors, the need for employment and the distribution of industry, or lack of it, in an area should also be taken into account and that these factors should be weighed one against the other.
    Throughout our discussions, the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said, "You cannot do this because what we are aiming at is an efficient cotton industry, and, therefore, the issue of the efficiency in each mill must be the determining factor". What I think he has not fully realised is that often—this has been the experience in the concentration of this and other industries—one can find an enormous gap between mills in terms of efficiency and costs. In some cases there is a large gap, but it may be that between one, two or three mills there is very little in it either way. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point. It may be immaterial for an individual firm whether it closes this mill or that.
    If this situation is not considered from the employment point of view, the result may well be something that nobody intended or foresaw, namely, that a mill is closed where unemployment is probable and where it can be foreseen. A firm will not close a mill in another area which is fully employed and much more fortunate even though, from the point of view of efficiency and costs, there is no material difference between the two.
    I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the experience in many cases, and it follows that if there is no
    1098
    consultation we are likely to get the most haphazard results which nobody would wish. Three or four mills may be closed in a heavily concentrated cotton area which is already suffering from unemployment. On the other hand, mills may continue to work in other areas which are fairly fully employed and not nearly so dependent on the cotton industry. I will not give examples of different areas in Lancashire, but there is every prospect that this will happen if there is no consultation, whereas, with a little thought and examination, it may well be possible to avoid it.
    I do not think that our proposal departs from the spirit of the White Paper, which states that the committee, agency, or whatever it is to be called, under the Cotton Board is to approve details of reorganisation schemes. If it is to approve other details, surely it can at the same time consider the point to which I have referred. I do not believe that Lord Rochdale or his colleagues, still less the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade authorities, would regard our proposal as impracticable or undesirable. It clearly can be done and the irony of the situation is that it was done with, one might almost say, meticulous care when the industry was concentrated in wartime. Although we are not operating under the same conditions as we were during the war, the principle is the same, namely, that there is an uneconomic result if manpower is released where it cannot be re-employed, whereas there is a more economic result if the operation is so planned that manpower is, so far as practicable, released where it can be used in alternative productive work.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of what he has said hitherto, will not close his mind to our suggestion. As I have said, I do not think that it is inconsistent with the White Paper or with the Bill as it stands. If the right hon. Gentleman would at least keep the matter open and make an effort to maintain the principle of consultation and to weigh one factor with another, we may achieve what I should have thought every hon. Member would want to achieve, namely, the quickest and fullest possible re-employment of those who will inevitably lose their jobs as a result of reorganisation under the Bill.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. H. Hynd: I wish to support the Amendment. To emphasise the need for it I will quote an illustration from my own division. This process has been going on for some time and that is the reason for the production of this Bill. Industry in Lancashire has been moving. Cotton mills have been closed and other work has taken their place, unfortunately not in sufficient quantity to fill all the gaps. But there has been this change which in Lancashire is recognised as necessary. People are prepared to see further movement of that kind, and a further change-over from cotton to some other industry, but all the time we have been trying to do what this Amendment suggests, which is that where it becomes necessary to close cotton mills, for example, every effort should be made to provide alternative employment.
    Unfortunately, there is a lack of coordination in this work. The circumstances I am about to relate are not the fault of the President of the Board of Trade. There is a firm which wishes to build offices and workshops in my Division in the famous town of Oswaldtwistle, but it has been refused permission by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Ministry should have consulted with the President of the Board of Trade before reaching such a decision, because Oswaldtwistle depends on the cotton industry, and every opportunity should be seized to bring in fresh work. Instead, this project has been turned down, against the wishes of the local urban district council. It has been told that the Minister has decided that this area is not scheduled for industrial purposes.
    That is strictly true. It is not scheduled for anything. On the town map the area was shown as one not likely to be developed in the foreseeable future. It has no amenity value at all. It is backed by a rubbish dump 20 ft. high. On one side it is bounded by an evil-smelling stream. Opposite is a cotton mill and an engineering company, and in the next block there is a soft drinks preparation plant.
    One would have thought that in an area where cotton workers are being displaced, if a firm said, "We are prepared to build works to provide immediate employment for 50 people and possible
    1100
    employment for 100 people," any Ministry would give permission straight away; or, at any rate, approach the President of the Board of Trade and say, "I understand that you are introducing this cotton reorganisation scheme. Would it help to give this permission?" But no, the permission is refused. That is an example, which I do not wish to elaborate, of the sort of thing that is going on. I suggest that it shows the need for some provision to be inserted in the Bill such as suggested in this Amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept.
    Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has evidently discovered, as have most of us, that planners are good when they are on one's own side. Regarding the case he mentioned, I will do my best to discover whether there is any chance that these people can find a site where they can start to build.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said this was a different principle. But the principle in this Amendment does not differ from that in the last one. We are asked to consider the level of unemployment when persuading mills either to stay open or to shut. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that very often there will be cases in which there is little difference between two mills. That is not the advice which I have received, and I have inquired carefully on that subject. To start with there would have to be a firm which had several mills and was ready to shut one of them, and that mill would have to be more or less comparable with another of its mills. I am told that such a circumstance is very rare, and I notice that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) agrees with me. That being the case, I do not think it would be very easy to bring this kind of condition or qualification to their notice.
    On the other hand, the employment situation in the cotton belt is such that I think employers will consider seriously whether it is to their advantage to continue to have this or that mill in operation. If I can, I should like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman about this problem by giving the facts as we now know them. I have been able to get the unemployment

    1101
    figures for June in respect of the twelve D.A.T.A.C. areas in the cotton belt. The national figures are not yet ready, but I have secured this information. It is striking when one remembers that the D.A.T.A.C. areas were selected because of the high and persistent level of unemployment there, and only for that reason. Now one sees the change in the position. I will quote the figures for one or two towns at random. Let us take Oldham to start with. In June, 1958, a year ago, the figure for Oldham was 3·5 per cent. In May, 1959, it had risen to 4·8 per cent. The June figure is 3·1 per cent., well below the figure for a year ago. Perhaps I may take the figure for Colne. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) did not stay in the Chamber after he had delivered his last speech. The figure of unemployment for Colne in June, 1958, was 3·3 per cent. In May, 1959, it was only 2·6 per cent. It is now 1·7 per cent. In June, 1958, the figure for Nelson was 5 per cent. In May, 1959, it was 2·2 per cent., and in June of this year it was 1·5 per cent.
    I should like to give the figure for Rochdale because the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) has been very good and has stayed in the Chamber all the time during our debate. In June, 1958, the figure for Rochdale was 3·1 per cent. In May, 1959, it was 2·2 per cent., and in June it was 1·9 per cent.
    Mr. McCann: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that reduction is caused by people leaving the town? A lot of people are moving out and emigration is our main worry. The reason for these figures is not that more people are finding jobs but that people are leaving the town.
    Sir D. Eccles: When the hon. Gentleman sees the figures for vacancies for last month, I think that he will take a rather more optimistic view of the situation.
    What is interesting about these figures is the very big drop in the numbers of people temporarily stopped. One hon. Member was afraid that the number of those temporarily stopped was increasing, but the very opposite is happening. There is a sharp drop in that number. Indeed we know that at the moment the cotton industry is picking up very well, and that is one of the reasons why it
    1102
    will be quite a struggle to get a sufficient number of firms to agree to go out of the industry. Therefore, if we introduced any additional conditions such as have been asked for in this Amendment and the two previous Amendments, we should make it even more difficult.
    Mr. Jay: Do not these figures illustrate my point? Do not they show how quickly unemployment figures go up and down in the areas? Whatever the level in a particular area, does it not remain true that if five mills suddenly closed down, in, say, Nelson, there would be heavy unemployment in that area, whereas if the same number closed down in Preston, it would have little effect on the general employment situation? Surely that remains true.
    Sir D. Eccles: When the right hon. Gentleman considers the magnitudes he will realise that we are talking about a spread of only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. It is a curious fact about unemployment in this country—where it is so much lower than in other countries—that if the figure goes over 3 per cent. to 3·5 per cent., the Government are supposed to be in danger, but if the figure goes down to 1·5 per cent. they are supposed to be facing inflation and a boom. It is a remarkable thing that the whole reputation of the Government depends, as it were, on only 1½ persons out of 100.
    The right hon. Gentleman says it is wonderful how the unemployment figures go up and down. I accept that, provided that he will congratulate the Government on the fact that they have now come down again and if he is as pleased as we are about the very remarkable results in these very D.A.T.A.C. areas. I do not know what we shall have to do with a D.A.T.A.C. area in which there is only 1·5 per cent. unemployment.
    I would conclude by saying that it is a good thing that unemployment should have fallen in these areas, and that that will make it easier for us to do what all hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House want to do, namely, to bring new and alternative work for those who are not likely to get permanent jobs in cotton in the future.
    Mr. McCann: Some of us are quite concerned about the fact that only one week's notice is necessary in order to close a mill, whereas eighteen months

    1103
    are required to bring a new industry into the area. As I understand it, the operation of the new Bill will be spread over five years. The reorganisation will be determined by the amount of machinery which we can get, and if the Board of Trade could say that a mill could be left open for twelve months, and, in the meantime, could bring in industry and spread that operation over five years, would not that help this particular project?
    Sir D. Eccles: This is a tough problem and we have to pursue a tough policy if we are to get the results we want. Therefore, although I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, I think the real answer to him is that if general trade keeps good, as it is now, we shall be able to absorb those in the cotton industry who lose their jobs, and, if it does not keep good, nothing that any Government can do could entirely meet the question. Therefore, with those considerations in mind, I hope the House will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Rhodes: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one further point? We have an area which has been scheduled as a D.A.T.A.C. area, for whatever reason. It has been brought to the attention of the Government, and it may be that action is taken because of a slight difference between one area and another—a difference of 1½ per cent, such
    as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a few minutes ago. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a difference of 1½ per cent, in unemployment can make a Government think very hard about changing the status of a whole area.
    This is precisely what we have been saying for a long time. An area which adjoins an area which has been designated may approximate to that situation at one time, and at another time may be above or at another time below that percentage. That is a point of consideration in designating a complete area. It is only likely that Members like myself, who represent areas of the kind which I was describing this afternoon, feel rather hurt about this indiscriminate scheduling of areas, when the problem in the adjoining area in another month's time might be precisely the same, from the criteria point of view.
    I ask the Government to think in terms not so much whether the unemployment is just below or just above, but of the actual intrinsic need, and to decide whether to get rid of the rubbish in the shape of old buildings or bring in more industry, rather than apply a rigid criterion.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 237.

    Division No. 147.]

    AYES

    [7.15 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Albu, A. H.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Clunie, J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Coldrick, W.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hale, Leslie

    Awbery, S. S.

    Crossman, R, H. S.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Balfour, A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hannan, W.

    Benson, Sir George

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hastings, S.

    Beswick, Frank

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hayman, F. H.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Healey, Denis

    Blackburn, F.

    Diamond, John

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

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Boardman, H.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

    Edelman, M.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Holman, P.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Boyd, T. C.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hoy, J. H.

    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)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Hunter, A. E.

    Burke, W. A.

    Foot, D. M.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Forman, J. C.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney C.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

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

    Callaghan, L. J.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Carmichael, J.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Paton, John

    Storehouse, John

    Kenyon, C.

    Pearson, A.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Peart, T. F.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Pentland, N.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Swingler, S. T.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Popplewell, E.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Prentice, R, E.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Logan, D. G.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Probert, A. R.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    McCann, J.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Thornton, E.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Tomney, F.

    McInnes, J.

    Randall, H. E.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Rankin, John

    Viant, S. P.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Warbey, W. N.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Reeves, J.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Mahon, Simon

    Reid, William

    Weitzman, D.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Mason, Roy

    Rhodes, H.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Monslow, W.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Willey, Frederick

    Moody, A. S.

    Ross, William

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Short, E. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Moyle, A.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Winterbottom Richard

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Woof, R. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Orbach, M.

    Snow, J. W.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Owen, W. J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Padley, W. E.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Steele, T.

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Corfield, F. V.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Cunningham, Knox

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hay, John

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Barber, Anthony

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Barlow, Sir John

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Barter, John

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Batsford, Brian

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Holt, A. F.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hornby, R. P.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Duthie, Sir William

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Bingham, R. M.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Bishop, F. P.

    Erroll, F. J.

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

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Body, R. F.

    Fell, A.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Finlay, Graeme

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Braine, B. R.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Brewis, John

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Glover, D.

    Kaberry, D.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Bryan, P.

    Godber, J. B.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

    Goodhart, Philip

    Kirk, P. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Carr, Robert

    Gower, H. R.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Leavey, J. A.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Leburn, W. G.

    Cooke, Robert

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

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

    Cooper, A. E.

    Green, A.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Grimond, J.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    1106

    1107

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Longden, Gilbert

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Storey, S.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Osborne, C.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Page, R. G.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Lucas,P.B.(Brentford & Chiswick)

    Partridge, E.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Peel, W. J.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Teeling, W.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Pitman, I, J.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    MacLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Pott, H. P.

    Thompson Kenneth (Walton)

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Maddan, Martin

    Redmayne, M.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Maitland,Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Wade, D. W.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Wall, Patrick

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

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

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Shepherd, William

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Neave, Airey

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Woollam, John Victor

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Speir, R. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Nugent, Richard

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    7.24 p.m.
    Mr. Rhodes: Just formally to move the Third Reading of a Bill of this description is not good enough. I say again, as I did on Second Reading, that if I could find tellers who would stand by I would very willingly vote against this Measure. It has been ill-conceived; it has been introduced at the wrong time; the money which is made available has not enough strings to it; and it is unworkable, because it is indefinable.
    It may be that one or two people who know their business on that side of the House will now, on Third Reading, give us the benefit of their experience and, perhaps, an analysis, from an economic point of view, of how it will benefit any one of these sections of the trade. I shall listen with great interest and humility if they are able to prove to me that there is anything in this question of increase of efficiency likely to ensue from this Bill.
    I do not know whether hon. Members read the Manchester Guardian last Saturday morning, but if they did they will have read the speech of Mr. Harrison, who is the head of English Sewing Partners, a gentleman for whom I have
    1108
    the greatest regard, whose judgment I have always respected because it has been sound. He is not the sort of man who would badger either a Government Department or anybody to achieve a temporary advantage. His position is one of analyst; he has the ability to assess what is likely to be beneficial in terms of change.
    Mr. Harrison told the organisation which assembled last Friday—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Bowden), were he in the House, would bear out, because he was with me at the same place—that he could not see from the inquiries and research which had been made by that organisation how, even if the new machinery were put in and worked as it is likely that it will be worked—with 38-hour shifts, too—and with the price the machines are, the members of the organisation could do anything but break even with the cost of producing a similar yarn on one shift with the old machines.
    It is the most depressing thought that up to this point we have not had a sufficiently accurate analysis from an economist's point of view—and I do not mean the point of view of an academic person: I mean the point of view of a person who knows his job—of what the machines are likely to yield in terms of years. It makes one wonder why we

    1109
    have not had it. However, the reason is not far to seek. We had a reflection of the real reason in this Chamber during the passage of the Bill.
    When I said that the Bill was born wrong I meant that the inception was from the wrong premise. We on this side of the House took great advantage of the fact that the cotton industry became a depressed industry some months ago and we repeatedly pressed the Government to act. It is the duty of the Opposition to tell the Government where they think the Government are going wrong, but it is the Government's duty to assess the situation in terms of economic need and not to give way to something which may be crudely put forward as a vote-catcher.
    We did not vote on the Bill on Second Reading, and we shall not be voting on Third Reading. I must repeat that if common sense had prevailed on both the Socialist and Conservative sides of the House, a discipline in terms and conditions could have been written into the Bill, had we been wise enough, so as to leave politics out of this subject. We on this side, because of the compensation which it provides for the workers, have not voted against the Bill. But that is not a sufficient basis for putting an industry on a proper economic footing. Provision is not made for altering the structure of an industry and for giving money to people who do not need it for the sake of accepting "lolly", to quote a colloquialism. But that is what the Bill amounts to, and we shall very much regret what is being done under the Bill. It will not succeed.
    I hope sincerely that we shall be able to say that the Bill has really benefited trade, but I am sure that it will not benefit it in the way desired by those who are best equipped to think about these matters. I should like to show to the House a little exhibit in the form of the proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Textile Institute held at Scarborough this year. The conference was devoted entirely to the subject of machines. Its purpose was to ventilate ideas about machinery in the industry.
    In the light of Mr. Harrison's comments I have looked up some of the statements made at that conference, and in the light of the experience which the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) and I had in Japan, I have made
    1110
    some interesting comparisons. One of the experts in this trade gave in his paper two instances of the productivity of machines. According to his figures, the machines which are available in the country at present in a highly efficient mill are 20 per cent. down in productivity already compared with what we saw in Japan. If that is the case, it is the Government's duty and the duty of those who are paying the money to see that money is not spent foolishly.
    I regret that up to now there has been no semblance of an economic argument for the installation of this machinery, either in the course of debates in the House or from either side within the industry. The Government, unpopular in Lancashire, wipe out the yarn spinners in England. The spinners must fend for themselves. Competition cuts right through at a time when they are in difficulties and it makes haywire of their prices. The industry needed discipline, and a stiff one, but I wonder whether it is thoroughly understood that what is likely to be created under the Bill is another monopoly. We are likely to substitute one monopoly for another, but without the ability in this case to do anything about it through the Monopolies Commission.
    We as a Parliament are saying that the industry would be best worked as a monopoly, but we have had no guarantees that the machines will be worked for the best. I ask the House to imagine the kind of desultory argument which will proceed for many months on whether a 38½-hour or 40-hour week should be worked, or whether two shifts should be worked at all. The Bill is founded on the belief that everybody will be co-operating for the best inside the industry, but there is no agreement on that point.
    This is why I say to the industry at this point, "For goodness' sake, when the schemes are put up see that they are such as will bear investigation and critical analysis." It is the duty of all of us in the House to see that these schemes are subjected to the most rigorous examination. Things have gone so well for the Government in terms of timing that it was suggested last week that schemes for sections of the industry might be brought forward towards the end of the Session. I do not want to be too vitriolic on this subject, but I would remind the House that we have spent all

    1111
    this time on a Bill which has been described time and again as nothing more than an enabling Bill and yet we may reach the last week of this Session without sight of the arrangements or schemes which are to be put forward by any of the sections in the industry.
    We can all be busy scurrying about on this, that or the other, whether it is holidays or elections, while the real point of the Bill, and our responsibility to the taxpayer, is lost. I am not likely to get anybody to assist me in opposing the Third Reading, but I think that it behoves the House to insist that we have a day on which we can discuss the details of each scheme, because it is in the schemes that the importance of the Bill resides.
    I think, too, that we shall have to do some rethinking in terms of the entry of machines. Do not let us start off, this time, lagging behind the productivity of machinery manufactured in any part of the world. I warned the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill that this could only mean postponing the time when we shall again be faced with the same problem, and then we shall either have to face it in the way we are doing now, with another reduction, or else we shall have to introduce protection. It is as simple as that.
    The present spurt of trade is the seasonal one which usually comes one year in three when there is good weather. I beg the Lancashire cotton trade not to be beguiled into thinking that because we are having a good summer, and stocks are being shifted, they can sit back and wait for the next man to do something about the position. It will not work that way. Every one of the upturns in trade has been followed by something worse than has been known before.
    I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will think over these things. He has dealt with the Bill very fairly and he has been as accommodating as a President of the Board of Trade could be who has already committed himself up to the hilt. I warn him not to expect too much. Let him take this as a lesson in the encouragement of productivity of the machines of Lancashire and of housing those machines as they should be housed.
    7.43 p.m.
    Mr. William Shepherd: The House always listens with attention to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and I do so with special attention because I know that in his own business, which is wool, he has applied the highest levels of efficiency and has risked his own money in getting first-class equipment. When people do that, we listen all the more attentively to what they say to other people about what they should do in their businesses.
    The hon. Gentleman challenged us to advance an economic argument for the Bill and I must say, frankly, that there is not one; that is to say, there is not one worth £40 million.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Or 6d.
    Mr. Shepherd: If it were the case that all we hoped to derive from this legislation was the activity and the change represented by £40 million of investment, it would be money almost thrown away. I will try to tell the House why I support the Bill, although I believe it is dangerous and I wish that we had not got to pass a Bill of this nature.
    In my view we would not be having the Bill had not the post-war history been what it was. The real reason why the cotton industry got into its present state was that (a) we had far too much easy trade in the years 1946 to 1951 and (b) we had far too splendid a result from out attempts to recruit more labour to the mills in the early years after the war. Had we had a harder time in those five years after the war, or had there been a failure in the recruitment of labour, I feel certain that we should not be facing in Lancashire the present serious situation.
    None of us on this side of the House who believes that the Bill is justified wants to avoid facing the facts of the situation.
    Mr. Thornton: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, whilst I agree with him that the industry was rebuilt too quickly between the years 1945 and 1951, surely he will give credit for the large contribution made by the cotton textile industry to Britain's export drive in those crucial years?
    Mr. Shepherd: I am not one of those who wish to write off the cotton industry

    1113
    What I want to do is to get it into a position where it can face competition, at any rate in Western Europe, and we have not reached that situation yet. I do not write off its export value because, even though last year we imported more yardages than we exported, the net value of the imports as against exports was £22 million. That was because we export more expensive fabrics and import less expensive ones, so it has its merits in that direction.
    However, we should not try to ignore the fact that unless there is a facing of the facts by both sides of the industry, as a consequence of the Bill £40 million will be poured down the drain.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not £30 million?
    Mr. Shepherd: It will be £30 million or £40 million. One of the objections to this procedure is that commitments are made before getting the other side of the bargain, and that is not normally the way I like to see business done.
    I have said that we must face the situation. The situation now is that we in Lancashire cannot compete with the countries in Western Europe. I am ignoring Asia. Productivity in spinning is about 7 per cent. below what it was before the war. Our entire cotton industry is in a deplorably unsatisfactory state, and if I were asked why we are in this situation I would say that there are mainly two reasons.
    The first is that owing to the restrictive practices of the yarn spinners the price of yarn was kept up at an unduly high level. On the other side, the restrictive practices of labour made it virtually uneconomic to spend huge sums of money on investment in new machinery. I was appalled the other day to hear one of the leaders of Lancashire say that if he put another £1 million into his business, he would go outside Lancashire. The truth is that if there are, on the one hand, restrictive practices by the yarn spinners and, on the other, restrictive practices by labour, one embarks on new machinery with huge risks to the capital and burdens the business with a cost of production not much less than that of the man who has machinery dated 1808. This is not a state of affairs which should be tolerated, and if we tolerate it after the Bill becomes law, all the
    1114
    money that will be spent by the Government will be wasted.
    We have to face up to the fact that labour has to give a new deal in Lancashire. I am not one of those people who criticise the Lancashire workers. I think that the only people who criticise the Lancashire workers are those who do not know them. One will not find a better crowd of people anywhere in the world than the Lancashire textile operatives, male or female.
    It is nevertheless a fact that in a situation such as we have today, involving enormous capital costs, we cannot get sufficient production to cover our outlay unless we have new arrangements in respect of labour, including shift working and the like. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen opposite realise how much this business costs. Let me give one example. If we were involved in a textile business here and we wanted to set up a spinning mill to employ 400 workers it would cost us £2 million to do it. That is £2 million to employ 400 workers—200 on two shifts. We should turn over in that mill during the course of a year about £1 million worth of business, and it would take us two years to turn over our initial capital. The conversion value of the material that we were handling would be about £400,000. These are stupendous figures.
    If this enormous weight of capital is not matched by some forward-looking ideas on the part of labour, the Bill is a sheer waste of time, because we shall not be able to operate effectively against Western European competition on the basis of the present arrangement. Indeed, it would be better that we should not try, because it is no good pouring down the drain millions of pounds of private shareholders' money and millions of pounds of Government money which would only result in our being shut out of the markets of the world.
    Therefore, I say that the Bill is justified only if it means that each side of the industry realises that it cannot go on as it has been going on in the past and that we must have a new start in Lancashire from which we can hope to achieve a better showing than we have achieved in the post-war years. We can do this. There is nothing that is done in Holland, Germany or Belgium that cannot be done as well, or better, here.
    Mr. McCann: Is being done.
    Mr. Shepherd: That is true in many respects, but if there had been more satisfactory conditions, more of the mills would have been in operation. The pressure against doing something by way of modernising and keeping our house in order has been so great that there has been no real incentive to those who have tried to do it.
    Mr. McCann: I have followed the hon. Member's argument with great interest. I can go a long way with him, but, surely, he is missing two points. One is the competition from the Far East, which created a lack of confidence here, and the other is the fact that since the war £150 million has been spent on the Lancashire industry in doing exactly the thing that he is saying has not been done.
    Mr. Shepherd: When one realises how little £150 million buys and that this is the gross invested figure, not the net, and that to employ two shifts of 200 men one has to put down £2 million, one realises how small on a total labour force of 200,000 that total investment has been.
    I think it would be wrong to argue that this industry has had the capital investment which was necessary to meet the conditions of competition in the world today. So far as the East is concerned, I am quite prepared to believe that the Bill is justified because, coming on top of dealing with the Asian problem and the restrictive practices problem, and in the anticipation of getting more flexibility in the matter of labour operations, there is a chance of the industry realising where its future lies and of going forward.
    I am not a pessimist about this industry. I know that there are men in it who are operatives and men in it who are directors of the highest level, and managers as well who are the equal of any in the world. We have, however, to realise the fact that if we take this £40 million from the Government and say that it is another sop to keep us going for another couple of years, all this money will have been of no avail.
    I have one final point to make on Asian competition. We are proposing to spend money in an attempt to build up this industry to something like competitive efficiency. I hope that the Government will not take the view at the end
    1116
    of three years that Asian competition is to come back. There, again, I feel that this would be a waste of money. I do not want to argue this case because I should be out of order in doing so on this Bill, but I am not satisfied that the Government's stand against any regulation of imports from a Commonwealth territory is sound or necessary. I think that we shall not throw over the whole concept of the Commonwealth by doing this. When I think of how India, for example, altered the treaties of 1939, I realise that other Commonwealth countries do not regard the position as so immutable as we do.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend in his capacity as President of the Board of Trade, realising that he is spending a dubious £40 million—[An HON. MEMBER: "£30 million."]—£30 million or £40 million—will try to safeguard this expenditure by seeing that we do not at the end of three years find Asian competition once more flooding in.
    I am satisfied in my own mind that some reasonable regulation is not inconsistent with our responsibility as a colonial Power. Therefore, I give the Bill a not entirely unqualified blessing. Whether it succeeds or not does not depend on this House; it depends on those outside in Lancashire. If we can make them realise the opportunities before them and that they have in this House a great deal of good will, and particularly if labour will realise that there must be more flexibility and that the out-of-date wages lists must go and that machinery has to be worked two shifts, and if possible three shifts a day, then I think that the Bill will do some good. It must not be regarded as a form of public assistance. It must be merely a starting point for a new deal in Lancashire, and I hope that will be so.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) says that he brings to this Bill a not unqualified blessing. I listened very carefully to his speech and I did not hear any words of blessing at all. We have listened to two well-informed and challenging speeches, both of a somewhat pessimistic nature, and that is disturbing on Third Reading of the Bill. If the Bill does anything at all of use it is to invest money in the future of the cotton industry. That is something to be noted by those who say

    1117
    that the Government should not invest money in private industry. That is precisely what we are doing in a somewhat unconventional way.
    Another observation that I would make in passing is that the two other national industries falling on difficult times like cotton have, fortunately from many points of view, already been nationalised, so that their problems can be dealt with on a national scale with a full sense of public responsibility and with a knowledge that whatever investment is made in those industries will return to the national good and not go to private profit. I am sorry to introduce this somewhat partisan note on the Third Reading of this Bill, but the occasion for enabling people to get something straight are so rare that one has to seize the opportunity when it occurs, and it seems to me that the opportunity occurs now.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I take it that my hon. Friend is not apologising for doing so.
    Mr. Houghton: I am certainly not apologising for it.
    It is important to note that the Bill deals with private enterprise in decline, and it is a very unpleasant spectacle with many grievous consequences—social, human and economic. Private enterprise in prosperity is most peremptory and imperative in telling the Government "Keep out. Do not interfere. We do not want help or interference. We want to be left alone, and we can then prosper." However, when industry falls on evil times, the assistance of the State in one form or another is called for persistently.
    The cotton industry is suffering mainly from the expansion of cotton textile industries in other countries which are competing with us in world markets and of late have successfully invaded our home market. To protect the industry from the latter, a demand was repeatedly made for the imposition of tariffs and quotas to enable the home industry to have the full benefit of the home market. The Government took the view that, having regard to our Commonwealth obligations, they could not assent to the imposition of tariffs or quotas on imported Commonwealth goods and were not prepared to create diffi-
    1118
    culties within the Commonwealth on the general question of trading relations even for the sake of protecting an important industry like cotton.
    I do not say that the Government were wrong in taking that view. To have consented to the imposition of tariffs and quotas would have been a marked departure from our traditional policy of trading relations within the Commonwealth, although it can, of course, be urged that other countries within the Commonwealth cannot indefinitely expect to send their goods here free of quota and duty if they are going to take what we may regard as unreasonable steps to protect their own industries to the damage of ours.
    Furthermore, the problem of the cotton industry arises because it is heavily concentrated in one part of the country. Too many people are dependent upon it in too few places. The effect on the social, municipal and economic life of the cotton towns has been fully described in moving terms by many of my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: How does the hon. Gentleman propose that the poorer peoples in the underdeveloped parts of the Commonwealth should be able to raise their standard of living if we deny them the right to sell what they produce?
    Mr. Houghton: I have great sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). During the past two years I have had the opportunity of going to India and Pakistan twice, and I have had that question put to me by people with whom I have discussed the problems of the cotton textile industry in Britain. They have said, "How can we raise our standard of life, how can we buy the things we want in world markets for capital development, if restrictions are to be placed on the export of about the only thing we can for the time being export to other countries, including your own?"
    It is very difficult indeed to meet that point having regard to the big differences between our standard of living and theirs, and their economic problems and our own. Yet we cannot be oblivious to what is happening in our own cotton areas. It can, of course, be urged to

    1119
    some extent in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question and the question which was put to me many times in India and Pakistan that a prosperous Britain is probably as good a support of their economy as an enlargement of their export trade, for they will at least need from this country help with their capital equipment and we shall have to give it by loan, grant or special facilities of one kind and another. However, it is most important, I admit, that we should refrain from doing anything which may impair the opportunities of those other Commonwealth countries to improve their economic position and standard of life.
    As I was saying, the Government decided, for reasons which seemed to them to be overwhelming and which were certainly of great weight, not to impose tariffs or quotas on Commonwealth imports. If private industry is suffering from the effect of the competition of other textile industries elsewhere and the Government decline to give the industry some measure of protection against that competition, then, clearly, decline on account of natural causes, as one might say, is aggravated by the Government's refusal to adopt conventional methods of protection.
    Having reached that decision, the Government undoubtedly had an obligation towards the industry. I do not object to the provisions of the Bill to give compensation to those who will go out of business. It was the only thing in this or a similar form that the Government could do at this stage, and it seems to me that there is little profit in going back over the past into what might have been done in recent years. We are faced with a situation for which the Government had some responsibility.
    Therefore, the aim of the Bill, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) said, is purely an enabling Bill, is to enable Ministers to approve schemes of reorganisation and use Government money for the purpose of implementing them so that the industry may be smaller, more efficient and more competitive at the end of the day.
    If that aim is not achieved, then I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle that the money will have been wasted. This is not in its ultimate purpose
    1120
    merely the giving of money to people who will agree to go out of business. It is not just compensation for loss of their assets or goodwill—whatever may be left of that—or an effort to save their private fortunes. This is a means to an end and if it does not achieve that end, it will have failed and the money will have been wasted.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, it is rather disappointing that we have not had more convincing and tangible evidence that the Bill will bring about the purpose which it seeks to achieve. We have not seen any of the reorganisation schemes. We have had only a glimpse of the compensation terms. Everything is on trust.
    The Minister will have a very big responsibility for the schemes which come forward, and the House will have a responsibility, too. Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, it will be extremely difficult for the House critically to examine the merits of particular schemes. Which of us will be able to say that particular schemes are good or bad, or ought to be different, or bigger or smaller, or in different areas, or in different sections of the industry? There will be a few hon. Members who may have views on the matter, but the House as a whole will not.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I remind my hon. Friend that even if the House came clearly to the opinion that a particular scheme had many defects, there would be absolutely nothing whatever that the House could do about it, because the scheme would come before the House in the form of an Order in Council which could be accepted or rejected only as a whole.
    Mr. Houghton: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for mentioning that. It shows that the House will have little effective power over the results of the Bill.
    I am sure that both sides of the industry will go into the scheme determined to make it work if they possibly can. This is a supreme challenge not only to this industry, but to private enterprise, which is asking for Government help to reorganise itself and to make itself more efficient and more competitive. We shall

    1121
    certainly wish from time to time to hear what the industry is doing to meet that challenge. If the industry is basing its hope merely on being smaller for the trade which will come to it easily and without effort and without improvement in efficiency, the expenditure of public money will not be justified.
    The industry has to be more efficient and more competitive in the hope that it will be able to expand in the future, for there will be an unlimited world market for textiles as the standard of life of the poorer countries improves. Those countries will want more clothing and in many Asian countries that will mean cotton textiles.
    As one goes about the world one can see that half the people are not properly clad, and it will be cotton textiles which will give them the raiment they require. There will be a tremendous market for cotton textiles and there is no reason why this country should not have a share of it.
    Those are my thoughts on the Third Reading of the Bill and there is nothing more that I can usefully say. I have no special knowledge of the cotton industry except that one part of my constituency is heavily involved in this operation. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne with close attention. There is no doubt that he and the hon. Member for Cheadle made observations which both sides of the industry should read and which the country should note. I hope that before we finish with the Bill we shall hear something from the right hon. Gentleman, now that it is all over bar the final speeches, to give us greater reassurance than has come from all the debates which we have had on the Bill.
    8.15 p.m.
    Sir John Barlow: I do not propose to keep the House for very long, but I should like to say a few words since this is a Bill of importance to the north-western part of England and to Lancashire in particular. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) laid great a stress on the fact that the Bill is a supreme challenge to the cotton industry. In that, I agree with him entirely. This is a method which has been conjured up to try to resuscitate
    1122
    and make efficient and economic an industry which, owing to world and national conditions, has been in decline for generations.
    We have a great responsibility to this industry. Personally, I think that it has been overlooked by successive Governments for far too long. Over the last twenty years, various Governments have tried to make a stab at doing something about it, but substantially they have all failed. Whether this scheme will meet the case remains to be seen. I think that it will. I think that the time is ripe and that the Government have got hold of something which will meet the situation provided that there is proper and adequate co-operation and a sense of responsibility among all the parties concerned, that being of the utmost importance.
    On Second Reading, I said that labour had great responsibility to come to terms with employers. It was suggested that I was holding a pistol at the head of labour. It was nothing of the kind. All sides have equal responsibility to make the scheme work. Several people could frustrate it altogether, but it would be deplorable for Lancashire and the industry if that were allowed to happen.
    The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), to whom we all listened with the greatest respect, seemed to be the one man in the House who was marching in step. He was full of criticism of this venture, but I thought that it was undue criticism. As he pointed out, this is an enabling Bill. This is only the first part, a small part, of the Government's policy for meeting the situation in Lancashire.
    Mr. S. Silverman: What are the other parts?
    Sir J. Barlow: I was coming to that. They have been pointed out by the hon. Member for Sowerby and they are most important. I am referring to the schemes to which the Board of Trade will subsequently agree. The different sections of the industry and the Board of Trade will have to agree on something which will eventually result in an efficient industry. Otherwise, the whole scheme will be a complete flop.
    The President of the Board of Trade has been rather courageous in bringing

    1123
    forward this scheme at this time. Successive Presidents of the Board of Trade in this and former Governments have been most bitterly criticised by Lancashire. It may be that this is the first opportune time at which the industry has been ready for such a scheme. In any case, the industry now has an opportunity of helping itself, provided that it agrees to reasonable schemes for each of the seven or eight parts of the industry.
    It was suggested by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that far more discipline was required than appears in the Bill. There may be some discipline in the schemes out forward. We on this side do not like too much discipline, because it savours too much of planning and we dislike that. We agree that money must not be wasted, and I and other people have said time and again that if this scheme does not result in an efficient economic industry money will have been wasted. We have all tried to avoid that.
    It has been suggested that there might be heavy unemployment. That aspect has been over-emphasised. In many parts of Lancashire there are vacancies in the textile industry. There may be cases of hardship resulting from the Bill, and I would be the first to say that we ought to meet those in a reasonable way. We do not want to create hardship, but we must take a fair view of the whole scheme. I do not believe that there will be any material hardship. The schemes that will be worked out, and are being worked out now, will meet that difficulty. At the same time, we do not want money wasted in any direction in these schemes.
    I welcome the Bill as giving the industry a chance to help itself with Government backing. I dislike the idea of a Government pouring money into an industry in difficulty, but there are cases when it is right and proper that it should happen. This is one of those cases, due largely to our responsibilities in our Commonwealth policy in this country. It is more important to uphold our Commonwealth policies as a whole and spend a few million pounds than it is to let down the Commonwealth.
    Having said that it is admirable that the President of the Board of Trade has introduced the Bill and that I am very glad to see it going through with such little opposition, I was disappointed when
    1124
    my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage, somewhat decisively criticised the designs and methods of salesmanship in Lancashire. That has been a common criticism by some people for a long time, but it has been overdone. Many of the more up-to-date and modern firms have admirable designs. They search the world for the best designs. They have some of the best salesmanship in the world and if my right hon. Friend gives me the opportunity I shall be delighted to try to prove those facts to him. What my right hon. Friend said in criticism of those two aspects may be true in some cases, but as a whole it is far less true today than it was twenty years ago; indeed, it is substantially untrue today.
    One question that the President of the Board of Trade has not fully answered to my satisfaction is how these payments will be affected by taxation. When he made his statement on 23rd April I asked him what the position would be. Obviously, it was too soon then for him to give a categorical reply, but he said that the matter was being looked into. Before any of these schemes are being put forward, in many cases the one all-important factor will be how these payments will be affected by taxation. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us a categorical answer tonight. If he does not do so, the trade will be disappointed.
    This Bill is only a beginning, but it is a good beginning, and I and my hon. Friends on this side on the back benches welcome it as giving a great chance to Lancashire, and we wish to thank the President of the Board of Trade.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) said that the Bill was welcomed by the back benchers on that side of the House. At the moment there are four back benchers on that side. One hon. Member is conspicuously asleep. Two hon. Members have spoken, one of whom backed the Bill with faint praise, and the other was the hon. Member himself. A fourth hon. Member is waiting to speak and we shall see the measure of his enthusiasm if he catches the eye of the Chair.
    The Bill is capitalism's confession of failure and breakdown. Here is an industry which confesses that it cannot pay its way in the world, that it cannot

    1125
    maintain itself, that it cannot look after after its casualties, that it cannot re-equip itself to compete with other people, that it cannot compete with its Far Eastern competitors because of their low standard of living, and that it cannot compete with its Western competitors because of their high standard of living. It is after a century and a half of great opportunity, during the majority of which time it had a virtual world monopoly in this trade, that this situation has arisen. One can only imagine what right hon. and hon. Members on the other side would have to say about a nationalised industry that had put itself in that position.
    Having confessed itself bankrupt and defeated, the industry now comes to the State and says, "Give us money" and the State does. It is given money by the State under a Government which, like the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich, rejects planning, rejects control, and believes in discipline only when it is at the giving end, but never when it is at the receiving end. The character of our criticism of the Bill has been expressed on Second Reading, throughout a long Committee stage, on Report and notably in the Third Reading debate so far. The Bill is misconceived. It is too little and too late.
    It is misconceived because it deals with only one aspect of the malaise which affects the whole area; because it deals with it by giving money without retaining any control, and because it deprives itself of any capacity for seeing that any of its measures will take account of the social necessities which alone provide the justification for the expenditure of public money.
    It is too little because no one can conceive that this amount of money, spent in this kind of way, is really going to put the industry in a position, three years hence, to compete with all the forces which have driven it to its present condition—and it is too late because it endeavours to deal with the situation when it is almost past recovery.
    Mention has been made, especially by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), of mistakes made between 1945 and 1951. What mistakes were they? He said that we ought not to have been building up the industry in those five or six years.
    Mr. Shepherd: I did not say anything of the kind. I said that it was unfortunate that in the years 1945–51 there was such a tremendous demand for Lancashire textiles, almost irrespective of cost. Secondly, it was unfortunate that we succeeded in recruiting so much labour. Had we been less successful we might have been driven to improving the mechanical set-up in the industry more than we did.
    Mr. Silverman: I thought that that was what I said. It is no use saying that something is unfortunate unless one means that it should not have happened. Does the hon. Member mean that it should not have happened, and that the Labour Government were wrong in doing what they did between 1945 and 1951? Never mind about the unfortunate situation for the cotton industry; we know what an unfortunate situation the whole country was in during that period. The hon. Member ought not to use a word like "unfortunate" in such a vague way. I say that he means it ought not to have happened, and I ask him now to say whether it should have happened or not.
    Mr. Shepherd: I will try to enlighten the hon. Member. When I said that it was unfortunate I meant that if an industry has things very easy it is likely to take things rather easier in its forward-looking attitude towards development than would otherwise be the case. The trouble was that between 1945 and 1951 Lancashire had it too easy.
    Mr. Silverman: It is now 8.31 p.m., and I do not think I can pursue the argument with the hon. Member in this way much further, but I still say that he has not discharged the onus that rests upon him of saying whether the Labour Government were right or wrong. I say that we were abundantly right. We could not have achieved any success unless we had gone to Lancashire at that time and joined the production committees. We could not have done it unless employers, trade unionists, and politicians on both sides had not joined these committees and told the people to come back into the industry.
    It is no good saying now, ten years later, that it was unfortunate. We had to do it because, as Lord Woolton told us from the "Business" Cabinet before

    1127
    the General Election, we were then, at the end of the war, a bankrupt country. We had no export trade. The first thing we had to do was to build up our export trade as quickly as we could, in any way we could, in order to provide ourselves with some foreign currency with which to get the rest of our industry going. Lancashire and the cotton industry bore the whole burden of that effort for three years after the war, and the hon. Member now tells us how unfortunate it was.
    Lancashire was then carrying the burden of the whole country, and we undertook moral obligations to the workers in the industry in what we then did. We have never fulfilled those obligations and we never can fulfil them. The Bill is a denial of those obligations. We encouraged people to bring back their youngsters into the mills—people who had said that they would never go back to the mills or allow their children to suffer the privations and insecurity which they themselves had suffered, if they could prevent it.
    Furthermore, at that time other people were having it a lot easier than was the cotton industry. There was a demand for light industry all over the country. If Lancashire people had resisted the Government's appeal to them to go back into the cotton industry and rescue the country from the bankruptcy in which the war and twenty years of Conservative Government had left it—[Interruption.] It was bankrupt in 1945, was it not? The former right hon. Member for Epsom said it was, and so did the then Minister of Reconstruction, Lord Woolton. We all knew it, and when we went into Lancashire with those industries both sides of the House joined in making these appeals. If that had not been done, Lancashire could have diversified its industries between 1945 and 1951 as easily as Birmingham or the south. One of the main defects of the Bill is that it does nothing to diversify industry in the cotton areas while it is contracting the cotton industry.
    What happened from 1951 onwards? There has been much airy talk about Commonwealth obligations. India and Pakistan have been mentioned. However, the principal problem which has accentuated and accelerated the decline
    1128
    in the cotton industry over the past seven or eight years is not India and Pakistan. It is Hong Kong. Before 1951 there was no Hong Kong cotton industry. It was created for the first time in 1951, not for the purpose of Commonwealth development, but for partly philanthropic and partly political reasons connected with refugees from China. Between 1951 and 1958 the Hong Kong cotton industry grew very rapidly. By 1957 cotton provided about 60 or 70—I am not sure that it was not 80—per cent. of all exports from Hong Kong. Those textile exports from Hong Kong provided 20 per cent. of all the cotton imports into this country in seven years.
    I ask hon. Members to read in the Government's White Paper what was happening to the cotton industry in Lancashire during those seven years. Four hundred and fifty mills closed in those seven years. This was not the natural growth of a Commonwealth industry. It was an artificially created textile industry in Hong Kong, largely subsidised by the Government. We were subsidising Hong Kong for the purpose of building up the textile industry when we were declining to give any help to Lancashire, either in competing with it or in finding something else to do.
    During all those years we were appealing to the Government, the President of the Board of Trade and all his predecessors. We asked them what they would do about this competition; what they would do about the cotton industry; had they any plan and why did they not make up their minds what the future of the industry was, arrange for it to have sufficient capacity to deal with that and provide Lancashire with other industries to take the place of the part of the cotton industry taken away? We were met with stalling and evasive answers week after week, month after month, year after year for seven years.
    Now we have the scheme. Whose scheme is it and why do we have it now? There are two reasons for having it now. The first is that the Yarn Spinners' Agreement has been declared illegal. If it had not been declared illegal, we should not have had the Bill. The second reason is that a General Election is coming in a few months' time and the Government cannot afford to leave Lancashire to say

    1129
    that it has been thrown overboard altogether by them. Therefore, the Government come along with a scheme and talk cheerfully, airily and quietly about how wonderful everything will be in three years hence.
    This is a bad Bill. It does not face the problem. The Government do not picture what the social necessities of the case are and try to devise an attractive plan to deal with them. The Government do not like plans. They do not like compulsion. They do not like to know where they are going, or what they ate doing, or why. But they have no right whatever to legislate for an industry, and still less to provide that industry with millions of money, unless they do know exactly what they are doing, and where they are going, and why—and keeping control of the expenditure.
    If the Government believe in private enterprise and say that neither Government nor State has any interest in the matter, or any right in the matter, they should keep out of it and leave the industry to make the best of the mess it has made, But the Government dare not do that. We all know now that this kind of looking the other way and washing one's hands of the business will not do. Some kind of Government interference there must be. Some kind of Government assistance there must be. Some kind of Government—I hesitate to say control or plan, but some sort of Government scheme there must be.
    In those circumstances, how do the Government act? They provide the industry with money with which the better off or the more hopeful can buy out their less optimistic competitors. They provide a scheme whereby, without their taking any share or interest or control in it, money can be provided for these people, who have earned hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds in the last twenty or thirty years, to reequip their industry. But there is nothing whatever for those more public-spirited elements of the industry who have re-equipped themselves already—
    Mr. Holt: They pay the levy.
    Mr. Silverman: They pay the levy, yes, and the body of taxpayers provides the rest.
    1130
    Is this really a satisfactory way to deal with what is rapidly becoming a national catastrophe of the first water? We begged the Government during all those years to give us the advantages of the Development of Industry Act. It took us years to persuade the Government to make this a Development Area at all, and after six or seven years they had not lifted a little finger to do anything about it.
    When they introduced the 1958 Measure, we begged and prayed of them to make this an area that could profit by it—to the extent that anybody could profit from so futile and puny a piece of legislation. They resisted that. We had to bring the mayors in their chains of office, and thousands of workers to parade in the Lobbies, and in the streets of London, and we got a negative reply from the Government all the time.
    Then we get a Measure of this kind; a Measure that does not even begin to deal with any of the admitted evils whose existence alone justifies Government interference. If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that Lancashire people will be deceived by this Bill, he has a rude shock coming to him.
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. J. A. Leavey: I have aways approached the Third Reading stage of any Measure in the belief that there cannot really be very much more to say—or perhaps I should qualify that by saying not very much more that is new to say. Invariably, I find myself wrong, and I have made the same mistake this evening. After a full Second Reading debate, and after careful consideration of the Measure in Committee and on Report, one could be forgiven, perhaps, for assuming that there was not much more ground to rake over, but I have learned, once again that that assessment of the position at this stage is wrong. We have had powerful speeches from both sides in this Third Reading debate.
    Knowing, as I hope I do, my own limitations, I shall confine myself to a few observations. I shall not seek to go over the ground which has been covered by hon. Members who have spoken so far, either at this stage or earlier. I will acid, too, if I dare, that more particularly might one expect there to be little new to say on the Third

    1131
    Reading of an enabling Bill. We have been reminded throughout our discussions that this is an enabling Bill, and I hesitate to use the word again.
    Three or four months ago, before the idea of this reorganisation scheme had been mooted, those of us representing Lancashire constituencies faced, as we had faced for several years, a very difficult situation for the people we represent. I believe that we had made some impression upon right hon. and hon. Members representing other parts of the country, who had been inclined, over the years, to take the view that Lancashire's troubles were the fault of Lancashire, or, more specifically, that the troubles in the cotton industry were due to shortcomings in the cotton industry. I think that we had, by the turn of the year, convinced many of those who were very critical of the cotton industry that their criticisms were probably not well founded.
    Then came this scheme and the Bill. We have heard from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) severe criticism of it. We have had qualified support for it from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). We have heard a fairly pungent analysis of it from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). No doubt there are other hon. Members who would criticise it, as economic theorists, if they chose to take part in the discussion. I see the Bill in a somewhat different light. I support the Bill and the schemes which are to follow.
    As my right hon. Friend said on an earlier occasion, the alternatives are limited. It is the easiest thing in the world to offer purely destructive criticism. We could allow things to job along as they were. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber now would support that course, with all the social and economic evils which would inevitably follow. We could have protected the industry by quota or by tariff from the competition which was proving so damaging. I judge that neither Opposition nor Government supporters seriously contemplated that as the cure for Lancashire's troubles.
    We were faced with a third possibility, that a scheme of this sort should be introduced. I have no doubt that it
    1132
    could have taken a dozen different forms. The form it has taken has been to persuade, to bribe, to encourage—a variety of words could be used—the industry to reorganise itself. The assistance, encouragement or temptation has been Government help and the taxpayers' money. In my judgment, £30 million is big money. It has been scorned by one hon. Member. I am thankful for small mercies, in the sense that we have seen schemes of this kind involving somewhat less than the £30 million proposed.
    Moreover, it is quite misleading to assume that this is the limit of the new money which will be spent in the industry during the next five years. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) quite rightly checked my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle when he said that the sum was £40 million, though the specific number is not known. It may be 30 or it may be 40. The point that I seek to make is that the industry will itself be contributing a substantial sum.
    The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle have suggested that on economic grounds one may be able to shoot holes in this scheme. That may be true. On purely economic and social grounds, of course, it is not perfect. I do not imagine that the House has ever put on the Statute Book a Measure of this sort which could claim perfection on economic or social grounds. I believe that this Bill is as good a compromise as it is reasonable to expect, and that in its application through the various schemes which will come forward we shall see the industry given the opportunity, which I believe it will grasp, to be more efficient—to spin a pound of yarn for less than it is either possible to do or is being done today and to weave a yard of cloth for less money in real terms with a smaller use in real resources than is the case today.
    Mr. Holt: I have listened closely to the hon. Member and I thought that at last we should hear from an hon. Member opposite, not excepting the President of the Board of Trade, what is envisaged by some of these schemes. I tried to

    1133
    obtain this information from the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading, but I could not obtain anything. May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as he has a personal knowledge of the spinning trade, what he expects to be the nature, for instance, of the spinning scheme and how he expects it to work out?
    Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the figures which the President of the Board of Trade gave in the White Paper. It was stated that 10 out of 25 spindles are now idle. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that merely 10 out of 25 spindles will be smashed or that more than 10 will be smashed? If the latter, what will happen to the workpeople who are now running these spindles? They will lose their employment. Are those spindles to be replaced by new and modern ones? If they are, from where will the workpeople be found to run them, because this will happen twelve months later and we hope that the work-people in the meantime will have found another job?
    It is this kind of thing which I find utterly frustrating about the Bill. We have had no details about how the Government visualise these schemes. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how he visualises them?
    Mr. Leavey: I shall gladly try to help the hon. Gentleman. I envisage that a proportion of the existing spinning plant will be destroyed. I do not know whether it will be 10, 11, 12, 13 or 14 of these notional spindles out of 25.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does anyone know?
    Mr. Leavey: I do not think that anybody knows. Nobody can know at this moment, because it is largely in the hands of those who now own the plant to decide how much of it they believe it is expedient to scrap.
    It has been said so often that I hardly dare repeat it, but this is not a matter of the Government, the Cotton Board, or anybody else selecting spinning mills and weaving sheds for closure. I believe that in the process of eliminating what has been termed dead wood we shall reestablish confidence in the industry—not confidence for a particularly rosy future, but we shall re-establish a feeling in the industry that there is a new chance, and
    1134
    I believe that that is the first thing that the Bill will do. The same arguments apply to the other sections. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) did not ask me for my views about the weaving side of the industry, but no doubt his question embraced that point.
    I am conscious that crystal-gazing and forecasting is as dangerous in the economic sphere as in the political sphere, but I believe that we shall see the reinvestment of money, which is to be paid by the industry and partly by the Government, in new modern plant which will be run, I hope, on a two-shift and perhaps three-shift basis.
    I know that it is easy to stand here and talk about the shift system and the need in economic terms to operate a shift system. But it has serious social implications for people working regularly at night; for people sometimes working at night and sometimes on the second or the third shift. But I believe that the alternatives are even worse and I think that there are hon. Members opposite who would support me in that view. I say to the hon. Member for Bolton, West that that is how I see the thing developing. I believe that by the application and the full use of new and modern plant there may be a reduction in the cost per unit and an increase in the competitive strength of the industry, which will at least be part of what my hon. Friend wants to achieve.
    I have touched on the social implications. During the Committee and Report stages of the Bill we have had some discussion on the obligations that rest on the Government, on employers, and also, I believe, on the trade unions, in that connection. What will be the impact in terms of employment? The very fact that we have recognised the absolute need to provide for compensation is an admission that we believe that there will he some people who, if they lose their job under the scheme, will find it difficult to get another.
    We know that there is a high age level in the industry and that a fairly high proportion of the workers are women. There is real concern that some of them will not get new work. I would sooner face this fact than try to gloss over it. I hope that the compensation scheme will go as far as it is possible to go to meet the needs of those people.

    1135
    If we adopt a "lie down and die" attitude to this scheme; if we say that it will not work because not enough money is coming from the Government; that it is unsound economically; that the social implications are more than we can face; that some other scheme ought to be devised; that for two, three or four years we should impose tariffs or quotas on foreign competition—if we proceed on those lines, which are very easy lines on which to argue, we shall arrive back at the first alternative. We shall have done nothing. I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member of the House really believes that we should leave things exactly as they are.
    The point has been made—and I seek to make it again—that we are now looking to the industry and those engaged in it to produce details of individual schemes. I join with hon. Members who have stressed that a heavy responsibility will rest on them. Lancashire, or the cotton industry, is "on the spot" in this respect. Schemes are to be produced and I hope that they will command general support. There will be arguments. Perhaps argument and haggling is going on at the moment about the value and amount to be paid for spindles or looms.
    There have been negotiations between the trade unions and the employers on the exact terms and the details of compensation and it is right that there should be such negotiations. It is right that those negotiations should be robust. I believe it is right, when the Government are paying out a considerable sum of the taxpayers' money, that their view should he known. I hope that we shall not damage the opportunities provided for Lancashire in the Bill by condemning it before the really operative parts of many of the schemes can be made known and put into effect.
    Of course, there will be difficulties. Viscount Chandos was quoted in the newspapers recently as saying that in the particular sphere to which he was referring there was what he called a lot of "me, too-ism." We must face the danger that in the application of re-organisation schemes there will be what perhaps I can call "the other fellow-ism", in which we shall find some people suggesting that it should he the other mill which should close down or the other
    1136
    man who should scrap his plant, but not the person in question.
    I dare say that we shall see what we see in other walks of life—a general acceptance of the theory, economic and social, except when there is disagreeable application to oneself. That is a possibility, but while we can pick holes in this scheme and the Bill, I think that, on balance, it stands the best chance of doing what everybody has been crying out should be done, namely, helping the Lancashire cotton industry. If I may borrow some words of my right hon. Friend, it is likely to succeed in making the Lancashire cotton industry more confident, more compact and more competitive, and with these very sound aims in mind I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. Thornton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has returned to the Chamber, because I want to join issue with him on one or two of the comments he made during the course of his interesting and, as usual, very lucid speech.
    I submit, from a long experience of the cotton textile trade union movement—and I am still the vice-chairman of the largest cotton textile trade union—that in recent years I have known of no single case in which a union has refused to operate double-shift working—and, in some cases, they are operating treble-shift working—where new plant has been installed and the working conditions were reasonable for shift operation. There are, of course, many cases on record in which the unions, quite rightly, in my opinion, have refused permission for shift working in old mills, which, without air conditioning, are virtually industrial slums by modern standards.
    Mr. Shepherd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not suggest—at least I hope I did not create the impression—that the trade unions had opposed shift working. What I said was that the unions demanded about 20 per cent. for redevelopment, and something like 20 per cent. premium for double-shift working, and by the time one has paid these premiums, plus the amortisation of the plant, the total end cost is almost as high as if one was working old machines one shift a day.
    Mr. Thornton: As I understood it, and I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I did not hear him make that point, though he did refer to restrictive practices. I will, however, take up the point he has made. It is quite true that the unions insist upon a 20 per cent. premium for double-shift working, but the purpose of that is merely to give to the worker a full week's wage.
    When one realises from Ministry of Labour earnings statistics that the average wages of men in the cotton textile industry are 30s. a week lower than the average for the whole of British manufacturing industry, and that the average earnings of women are just about equal to the average in all manufacturing industry, then, by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, if less than a 20 per cent. premium were paid the gap between the weekly earnings of cotton operatives and those in the rest of British industry would be widened. It is not reasonable that anything less than that should be accepted, because if a new industry were to go into the cotton area and establish a modern plant operating a shift system, the wages it would have to pay would have to have regard to the weekly pay packet of the operative, entirely apart from the hours that were worked.
    I suggest that the main reason why Lancashire has not re-equipped has been the lack of confidence in the future of the industry. This Bill does not go far enough. It deals only with the effect and not with the cause of Lancashire's decline. It does not deal with what is likely to cause a further contraction in the industry. As the White Paper points out in paragraphs 1 to 8 quite succinctly, the main cause of the decline in the cotton textile industry over the last 45 years has been the continuing loss of export trade.
    Most of that loss was inevitable. It was due to the changing world and to industrialisation in different parts of the world, and was an inevitable decline. Part of that loss of export trade could have been avoided, but it was due, no doubt, to the fact that under those contracting conditions, where confidence was never strong—it cannot be in a contracting industry—our industry lost export trade, due to its being uncompetitive even with Western European producers.
    1138
    I think it is fairly true to say that in each decade since 1914 the exports of the Lancashire cotton industry have been halved, and since the post-war peak of 1951 our exports have been halved again, in this last decade. This trend may continue during the next ten years. Seeing that exports are now only 400 million yards of cotton textile fabrics against 7,000 million in 1914, the halving during the next ten years of our present level of exports will be about 200 million, spread over ten years. That would mean an average decline of about 20 million yards a year, or roughly 1 per cent. of Lancashire's present level of production.
    A further decline of exports of that size is manageable, and is, indeed, ascertainable, and that is not the reason for the lack of confidence in the future of the industry now. It has, I believe, been true in years gone by that the lack of confidence which has always been there has been due to the contraction of the industry based upon the lack of export trade.
    We come now to the second stage of this decline which, as has been said earlier, has been due to the increase in the level of imports, chiefly from Asian Commonwealth countries. These two factors in the last six or seven years have overlapped and have been responsible, as I said in the Second Reading debate, for the most rapid rate of contraction in the history of the industry.
    The importance of the impact on our industry of these Asian exports, I say quite frankly, has often been exaggerated from Lancashire quarters. They have an important adverse effect, I agree, but the impact of these Asian imports has been often exaggerated from Lancashire quarters. If the average level of imports in the period 1949–52 is compared with the average level of exports from Lancashire during those years and the years up to 1958, one finds that for every two yards of production lost in Lancashire due to increased Asian imports, five yards have been lost due to the continued loss of export trade.
    I believe that that is a fair statement of the position in the last seven or eight years, but in 1958–59 the position is very different. The whole balance of confidence rests upon the uncertainty which the future has to offer if these imports

    1139
    come in again, uncontrolled and unrestricted, because it is not 400 million yards of exports that are at stake—that problem is ascertainable and manageable—but the hoped for demand for 2,000 million yards of home production as the maximum further decline that can take place. I hope that I have made the point that there has been a shift in the reason for lack of confidence in the future.
    After the voluntary agreement lapses, if it does, in two years' time, these imports could suddenly increase, as they have done, by 100 million yards in one year, and that would be equivalent to 5 per cent. or more of our present level of production. This is an unpredictable and unmanageable position and it is not surprising that with this threat to the industry confidence remains considerably shaken.
    I should like to quote from what I think is an authoritative source, namely, Mr. O. L. Jacks, the chairman of Ashton Brothers & Company of Hyde, as reported in the Manchester Guardian on 11th March this year. Ashton Brothers has completely re-equipped. It has the most up-to-date machinery in every department of production. It has been my privilege to see cotton textile mills in many countries in Europe and in Asia, but I do not think that there is anywhere a more efficient firm than Ashton Brothers, and there are mills in Lancashire which are equally efficient and well-equipped.
    Mr. Jack says:
    "If any misconception exists that Lancashire is likely to re-equip mills in an effort to produce at Asiatic prices it can be categorically stated that the most modern equipment available could not neutralise the disparity between European and Oriental wages after making normal capital recovery charges."
    I believe that is a true statement of the situation and that our most efficient firms, completely re-equipped and working on a shift basis, cannot compete with Asiatic prices because of the difference in wages.
    Unless this basic problem of Asian imports is grappled with, and we must agree that the Bill does not attempt to grapple with it, confidence will not be restored, large-scale re-equipment will not take place, and in several years' time
    1140
    there is the danger that the same problem of excess capacity will re-emerge and £30 million or more will have gone down the drain.
    The clear trend of the last fifteen years has been that Asia will produce a larger proportion of the world's textiles and that Europe and North America will produce a smaller proportion. I am not one of those who believe that Asian imports should be excluded or cut back. We in the Western world have to make our contribution to industrialisation in the East, and we must assist the people there to raise their living standards. There is a distinct danger, however, that some of the Asian countries, including Hong Kong, India and Pakistan, will over-expand their textile productive capacity, if they have not already done so, and there are definite lessons to be learned from a study of the textile industries of the world over this century.
    The trend is quite clear. Whilst the production of cotton textiles continues to expand, roughly, by 1 per cent. per year, in line with the growth of world population, the world trade in cotton textiles continues to decline. Japan, in ignoring the advice given by the Anglo-American Textile Mission of 1950, of which I had the honour to be a member, re-expanded her textile capacity to 10 million spindles. In consequence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) will confirm, 2½ million spindles in Japan are sealed because the Japanese cannot sell their capacity. There is the danger that Hong Kong, Pakistan and India will do the same thing, because the expectation of an expanding world market in cotton textiles will not be realised. As demand expands, new industries are created in the markets that give the biggest offtake.
    I submit that there is need for a gradual and orderly adjustment, as is happening in Western Europe and in North America, both of which are tending to take larger quantities of Asian cotton textile goods, but only very gradually. For example, the United States of America limits the imports of Japanese cotton textiles to a figure equal to only 1½ per cent. of American domestic production.
    Mr. Alan Green: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? I am not dissenting from his argument. I think he is right in saying that we must govern the rate at which change takes place, so that it is tolerable to those affected. At the same time, I hope he will not overlook the fact that we have a different relationship with Hong Kong and India from that of America with Japan. It is more difficult for us to govern the rate of change of our relatives, so to speak, in Asia than it is for those who are outside the Commonwealth. It is a real problem, and we must not confuse the two.
    Mr. Thornton: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not confusing the two. I am attempting to show that this trend in the acceptance of Asian manufactured goods is a gradual movement in a II the rest of the Western world, except in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the relationship of Japan with America was in many respects something of a colonial relationship. I want to emphasise the trend that is taking place. It should be gradual and one in which orderly adjustments can take place. Unless this is done in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the present Bill and the giving of £30 million of public money, confidence will not be re-established in Lancashire because of the threat that the door can be re-opened at any moment.
    The White Paper suggests that Lancashire's future lies in moving into new types of goods and meeting new markets. That is good so far as it goes. This, however, is a continuing process in all countries and in all industries. Hong Kong and India are moving into higher quality goods and they will be confronting us with a further challenge in qualities and ranges of fabrics which they have not yet tackled.
    There needs to be, as I see it, an orderly reduction of productive capacity and a residual efficiency in the plant and the mills that remain. These are important objectives. The Bill aims at these objectives, but I very much question whether they will be attained. It is very doubtful in my opinion. The Bill gives only negative types of control. There is no guarantee at all in the Bill that the most obsolete mills will close. In fact, obsolete mills can remain running. I
    1142
    think that some of them will, and that some of the relatively efficient and medium-range mills will close.
    Between the wars, these objectives of orderly reduction and residual efficiency were not achieved. There is the same danger now that we shall have a large-scale scrapping of machinery and of mills with little or inadequate re-equipment. Again, there is this lack of confidence which itself will determine the degree of re-equipment that takes place.
    The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) on Second Reading made some critical references to the plan for cotton. That plan did at least attempt to face up to some of the several problems with which the Bill does not cope—basic problems which ought to be tackled.
    There is one basic problem at the beginning of the industry's processes and that is the problem of raw cotton supplies and the hazards which now confront the spinners in their purchases of raw cotton. I do not think that the best supporters of free enterprise on the benches opposite can say that the Liverpool Cotton Market has been a great success. It is well known that even those employers who supported the winding-up of the Raw Cotton Commission now bitterly regret it. Many of them in recent years have spent sleepless nights over the risks that they have been running on a falling market and the very big losses that have often resulted.
    Another important problem which must be tackled if confidence is to be restored is, at the end of the process, that of merchanting and marketing. Unless this is tackled adequately and effectively, I visualise in the future no great confidence in our industry. Paragraph 11 of the White Paper says:
    "The Government, however, believe that action can be taken to establish a compact, up-to-date and efficient industry able to take full advantage of changes in demand and fashion at home and abroad."
    I doubt very much whether this will be achieved as the result of the Bill, I doubt very much whether there will be the necessary degree of re-equipment, and I doubt whether our merchanting organisation is effective enough as at present organised to give those results.
    There is no single, easy solution for the problems of our industry, for it has

    1143
    many problems. The Bill poses one, but in the opinion of many on both sides of the industry the Bill is motivated as much by political and electoral expediency as by a desire resolutely to solve the industry's problems. Even here the Government may have miscalculated, because Mr. Alec E. Higham, chairman of Highams Limited, was reported in the Evening News on 9th June as saying:
    "I must say that in many respects the Government's textile scheme savours much more of a memorial service than a revival meeting."
    The speeches on both sides of the House in this debate have savoured more of a memorial service than of a revival meeting.
    As I said on Second Reading, the best that can be said of the range of debate is that we have had a tepid enthusiasm from the Government benches while from the Opposition benches we have had a rather cautious pessimism. In spite of that, and notwithstanding my own criticisms and misgivings, I hope that the Bill will contribute more than I dare expect to easing and resolving the problems of the hard-pressed textile areas of Lancashire. I have been associated with the industry all my life and I have a rather sentimental attachment to its constitution, its work, its people and all that is associated with it. I hope that the Bill will make a contribution.
    I should like to express my appreciation to the President of the Board of Trade for his unfailing courtesy and consideration and his conciliatory attitude, which has been shared by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    I wish the Bill success. I do not think it is the answer to our problems. In so far as it makes a contribution, it will be only a small one. Unless the Measure is followed up far more resolutely, and unless there is a real determination to deal with the problem of Asian imports—it is not that I am unsympathetic to the needs of those in other countries, but this is a problem which needs careful consideration and gradual adjustment to avoid catastrophic rates of contraction—I very much fear that in five, six or seven years' time we shall hear another story in this House of the need to cut out dead wood and shall be taking part in another major contraction of what was once Britain's greatest industry.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Jay: Although I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) in recommending the House to vote against the Third Reading, I think that we were right not to give this Measure a perfunctory Third Reading. We have finished all the proceedings on the Bill in moderately quick time and although it is far from perfect or even adequate, as has been made abundantly clear in speeches by my hon. Friends today, and although it is a melancholy comment on the failure of the Government's policy towards Lancashire over the last five years, it remains better than nothing. The mistakes are now largely irrevocable and the Bill is far from being what it might have been—a revival of the cotton industry and the provision of new employment in Lancashire.
    However, I agree with the final sentences of the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) that we can now express the hope that the Cotton Board and the industry will make the best possible use of this rather meagre and rather belated assistance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth that at times we have had an almost unusually conciliatory attitude from both the Parliamentary Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade in the course of these proceedings. Nevertheless, before we part with the Bill I think that Parliament and the public should mark clearly what we are doing and the precedent which we are creating.
    We are empowering the Government to pay out as a free gift about £30 million—I hope that it will not be £40 million—of public money to persuade private firms to scrap redundant plant and to install new plant. We are asked to do that, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) rightly said, without any guarantee that we will get greater efficiency or full employment in the areas concerned. Whatever this is, it is certainly not private enterprise, or Tory freedom, or keeping the Goverment out of business.
    In fact, it is State aid to private firms which are assumed in the Bill not to have the resources or the initiative to help themselves. This aid is given as a free gift without any control or participation by the State or by the public in

    1145
    return. The trouble is that this is neither laissez-faire nor planning, which, we have been told again today, the party opposite does not like. The Government admit that laissez-faire in this case would have been quite unworkable, but they do not have the courage or intelligence to introduce a plan in which the re-equipment of the cotton industry and the development of new industries in Lancashire could have gone side by side, so as both to improve efficiency and to give us full employment over the whole area. To that extent, this is the loss of a considerable opportunity.
    Some hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who was also very eloquent this afternoon, have expressed grave doubts about the grant of public money as a free gift to private interests. We are now seeing—and it is a remarkable commentary on the Bill—all sorts of private industries queuing up and asking for State aid—steel, shipbuilding, shipping, aircraft and many others as well as cotton. They all turned up cap in hand at the moment when the Institute of Directors was telling us all that any form of financial investment by the State in industry is ruinous and dangerous to the industry in which the investment is made.
    I do not believe that the use of public money to assist the cotton industry, particularly after the damage done by Government policies over recent years, is necessarily wrong in itself, but I think that we should have greater safeguards in return for the use of these public funds. At this stage I will mention only two. First, I ask the President of the Board of Trade again—and I emphasise this because the rules of order made it a little difficult to discuss it during the Committee stage—why should public money supplied to these firms for re-equipment be given as a free gift and not as a loan or in return for issues of shares or securities? Why should the Government lend £100,000 to a firm to install new machinery on the assumption that greater efficiency and profitability will result? I cannot understand why there should not be some form of participation by which, if the situation is improved and higher profits are earned, some of those profits would accrue to the taxpayer who has lent the money.
    1146
    In all these matters State investment may well be a good principle but State subsidy is an extremely dubious one. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) who at one point compared this arrangement with D.A.T.A.C. Where State financial aid is given to firms in Development Areas under D.A.T.A.C. that help is given as a loan. A rate of interest has to be paid and the firm is under an obligation to pay the money back. I think that the Minister will agree that there have been no cases of a free grant under D.A.T.A.C. That is a better bargain for the taxpayer, and I suspect that in many cases better use would be made of the money because the firm would know that it was under a financial obligation to return it.
    The other aspect of the financial operation that we have not touched on is the payment of compensation for scrapping the machinery. What will happen to the scrapped machinery? Is the scrap value of it to accrue to the firm in addition to the compensation, or is that to he returned to the Exchequer to save at least some of the public money? We ought to know what will happen to the machinery that is scrapped.
    The other failure of the Bill is the absence of any real scheme by which the distribution of industry activities of the Board of Trade in this area could have been coupled with this reorganisation of the cotton industry. If, as we repeatedly urged, the President of the Board of Trade had been willing to bring the Cotton Board in to select the individual mills on the one hand, and if, simultaneously with this operation, he had been willing to schedule the whole of these areas under the Distribution of Industry Act on the other, we should have had a real plan, the two parts of which would have interlocked with one another. Although the Minister has not been willing to put anything into the Bill to that effect, I hope that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will do all they can to see that such efforts as the Board of Trade is making to bring new industries into these areas are in some way integrated with the changes in the cotton industry that we will have under this Bill.
    Whatever doubts we have about the merits of the Bill. I think that we can

    1147
    all now wish Lord Rochdale and those responsible every success in using even the rather inadequate means that we are putting in their hands. After all, Lancashire has had a good many shocks in the last twenty years, what with the depression of the thirties, the drastic concentration during the war—which was an upheaval for Lancashire but of enormous value to the war effort at that time—and then the very rapid expansion of exports after the war and, incidentally, the employment of many overseas workers—something which the hon. Member for Cheadle failed to mention. There was also the depression of 1952 and the imposition of a quota on Asiatic imports afterwards.
    As for the comment of the hon. Member for Cheadle about the years 1945–51, it may be that the rapid expansion left some problems, but I am quite convinced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said, that it was then absolutely right to organise and accelerate that expansion. If we could get those exports from the cotton industry in those years it was right to do so. The war left many problems, but there is no doubt that it was right to fight the war, and the same thing can be said about the expansion of the cotton industry in the years immediately following.
    As to present and recent imports from Asia, I say nothing about the question of quotas but I have never been able to understand the right hon. Gentleman's opposition, as a matter of principle, to any form of tariff on textile imports from the Commonwealth. If we examine the tariff schedules we see that we impose tariffs on many other Commonwealth imports, including other textiles, such as rayon. I do not think that the Minister can adduce a valid argument for not at least putting cotton in the same class as textiles, such as rayon, which bear a tariff even if they come from Commonwealth sources.
    I was a little inclined to feel that the Minister was rather gay in quoting some of the much better employment figures. We are all glad to hear about them, but I think that he may be taking an unduly optimistic short-term view of the industry. We must remember two things: first, that the recent summer weather has had a good deal to do with the present recovery
    1148
    and, secondly, and more important—as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth pointed out—that the present arrangement with Hong Kong is a temporary one and may have disappeared in three years' time, when the present troubles may re-appear. We must not be too complacent.
    Despite all that, however, there is no basic reason why, with the re-equipment of the cotton industry and a real influx of new industries into these areas, Lancashire should not soon be as expansionist and as fully employed as are the Midlands or the London area.
    I want to ask the Minister one question about the Orders to implement the reorganisation schemes, which are still to come before the House. They will presumably be presented to us between now and the summer Recess. The House should have plenty of time to consider those Orders, and not have them rushed through with insufficient time for consideration. Hon. Members on this side of the House would have liked the Bill to be a very much bigger step towards the transformation we want to see in Lancashire—towards greater efficiency and full employment—but, such as it is, for the sake of the people of Lancashire we wish it at least a speedy and a thorough trial.
    9.45 p.m.
    Sir D. Eccles: I wish to thank the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for his closing words. The Government are grateful, because there is no doubt that this is a great experiment on which we are embarking and the good will of both sides of the House is an important factor in giving this experiment a chance to succeed.
    I will deal with one or two special points which the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have raised and then try to deal with the main criticism which has been made against the Bill. Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's last point about the Orders for reorganisation, I appreciate that the timetable is very short, but we are up against it. We will do our very best to lay the spinning, doubling and weaving reorganisation schemes before the House shortly before the middle of July, which will give us a chance to consider them. I hope that that will be possible.

    1149
    I feel that the good will expressed towards this experiment means that the Government can count on the co-operation of the House in trying to approve these Orders before we go away for the Summer Recess. Otherwise, as I said the other day, it means a delay until about November. During that time some of the good will which has been generated, and which is carrying forward these schemes today, may evaporate. I am not referring to a General Election. I see hon. Members smiling. A General Election is no doubt in their minds. I am thinking of nothing but cotton. Therefore, I will do my best to bring these Orders forward in good time, but we shall need the co-operation of the House to put them through before we rise for the Summer Recess.
    The right hon. Gentleman then asked what will happen to the machinery which is to be scrapped. I am told that a spindle, for example, will be worth about 5s. scrap value at the maximum. That money will acrue to the mill owner. In fixing the compensation terms, we are trying to screw down the maximum amount, and the fact that there will be just that very small realisation from the scrap merchant will be taken into consideration by the Cotton Board when proposing the terms for compensation.
    I hope that I may trouble the House with two small points, because they are important to those working out the reorganisation schemes. The first relates to the industry's share of the costs of compensation for the elimination of excess capacity. As the House knows, that is to be raised by a levy upon all firms in the industry. Naturally, these people desire that the levy payments be spread over a certain period, perhaps two or three years. Therefore, if the money is to be paid out in a shorter time than that, it is necessary to borrow in order to make the payments at the correct time. The Cotton Board is, therefore, proposing to borrow from the banks the necessary funds to meet the industry's contribution.
    I understand that there will be no difficulty in making the necessary arrangements with the banks, and the Government do not propose to lend to the Cotton Board or to give guarantees on its borrowings from the banks. But in the
    1150
    very unlikely event of the Cotton Board finding itself in a situation where there was a possibility of loss to the banks arising in respect of their loans the Government would be prepared to consider with the Cotton Board how best any such obligations could be met. I do not think that it will arise, but it is part of the efficient working out of this scheme that the Cotton Board should be in a position to borrow before the moneys from the levy come in.
    The second point is that I moved an Amendment—
    Mr. Jay: I think that we should be quite clear on the point just mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that he means that the Government might conceivably lend to the Cotton Board to cover the gap—not that they contemplate a further free payment?
    Sir D. Eccles: No, I do not mean any further free payment. It is simply a question of acting in the very unlikely event of difficulty as between the Cotton Board and the banks. After all, one cannot tell what might be the country's monetary situation in a few years' time. If there should be any difficulty, I think that it is right to have told the Cotton Board in advance that since these levies are part and parcel of the whole scheme we will be prepared to talk with the Board and see what should be done.
    The second point is that the House was good enough to give us an Amendment which ante-dated the work now being done by the Board's special committee. One of the reasons for asking for that power was that I wanted to appoint, as soon as possible, the two new independent members to the Cotton Board. I should like to tell the House that I have invited—and I am glad to say that they have accepted—Mr. Edwin Hall, of the National Union of Mineworkers, who is a member of the General Council of the T.U.C., and Mr. Cuthbert Robinson, of Messrs. Thomas Robinson, which is a leading firm of woodworking machine makers. I believe that these two gentlemen will make a great contribution to the Cotton Board in the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill.
    I was very much struck by speeches made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and Heywood and

    1151
    Royton (Mr. Leavey) and others, because, in a way, they brought out the essence of the difficulty. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that the Bill is badly timed, that it will not do any good, and that it will not succeed because the conjuncture of events and past history makes it really impossible, in this day and age, for a great reorganisation scheme of this kind to succeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) said that he thought that this was possibly the first time that such an idea of an industry-wide reorganisation could succeed.
    That reminds me very much of the origins of the Bill. I, in a very modest relationship with the cotton industry as long ago as when I was trying to get together the decorations for the Coronation, took a fairly poor view of some parts of the Lancashire industry. I did not think much more about it until it fell to me to go to the Board of Trade. When I got to the Board of Trade I found that the cotton industry—which is, after all, of immense importance to our economy—was, if I may say so, in rather low spirits.
    At the same time, going to textile exhibitions, which I had not done for a year or two, it seemed to me that the quality of the best British cottons at the exhibitions was rising. I asked myself, "Is it not possible that with all this increase in taste, through the secondary schools and in other ways, there may be a new age opening for the cotton industry?"
    Then, of course, a series of events occurred, the conjuncture of which must, I think, be accepted by the House as very extraordinary. First, there is the question, and it has been touched on by many hon. Members, of our Commonwealth policy of duty-free imports. By sticking to that policy—I am sure it is right that we should—we demonstrate our faith in the Commonwealth association of nations in different stages of economic maturity. We show that the developed country and the underdeveloped country understand the obligations between the two and prefer trade to aid.
    I assure hon. Members that, if we did not take this step, it would be almost certain that other members of the Commonwealth would erect between
    1152
    each other barriers higher than they have now and that the example to the rest of the Western world of the United Kingdom going back on generous treatment to the developing countries of the Commonwealth would be a severe, possibly a fatal, blow to the economic association of our great family. That was one thing which suddenly loomed up.
    After that came the Free Trade Area negotiations. One almost forgets when they started; it must have been nearly two years ago. Directly the Free Trade Area negotiations started, I saw that this development was very important for the British textile industry. I went to Manchester at that time, two years ago. We had a great meeting of all the cotton employers, who very kindly came to hear about the very beginnings of the Free Trade Area idea.
    I was abused up hill and down dale by the older members of the cotton industry. They said that they could not stand this competition, that free trade with Europe was a great mistake, and that it would be very bad for their businesses. After the meeting, four or five of the younger managers, none of them, I would say, more than 35 years of age, came to me and said, Give us a chance. Let us have free trade with Europe, and we shall do better than we have ever done before. Do not listen to the older gentlemen here. We will put the industry on the map".
    If I may quote just one and a half lines from Shakespeare's Richard 11, I felt then that
    "… even through the hollow eyes of death I spy life peering".
    It seemed to me that I saw the emergence of a new kind of manager. From that time onwards, it became clear, in a most interesting manner, that in the cotton industry there was a division of opinion about whether it was a good thing to have a Free Trade Area in Europe or not and, gradually, those who were in favour of the Free Trade Area increased as a proportion among those concerned. That was the second thing which occurred.
    The third factor, which has been mentioned by hon. Members, was, of course, the judgment of the Restrictive Practices Court. I do not think that it took very much prescience to see that that case was likely to be decided against the

    1153
    Yarn Prices Agreement. Nor did it take particular intelligence to realise that, if that judgment was given, it would create a new urge towards rationalisation in that part of the industry.
    Fourthly, as I think the House will agree, the increase in incomes in the richer nations of the world was opening up markets for quality textiles in a very interesting manner.
    Putting all those things together, the fact that we had our Commonwealth policy, that we were expecting a Free Trade Area, that the Restrictive Practices Court was likely to pronounce against the Yarn Prices Agreement, and that, in general, the demand for higher quality cotton fabrics was increasing, there was a situation being created in which, if one could not then induce the Lancashire industry to reorganise, there never would, it seemed to me, be a chance. If I may ask a rhetorical question: what sort of people are they in Lancashire? I reckon that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is not a bad sample. They are extremely individualistic.
    Mr. Rhodes: I thought that I was a bit more than a sample, but, then, I am not from Lancashire at all. I am a Yorkshireman.
    Sir D. Eccles: I really knew that the hon. Gentleman came from Yorkshire. The characteristic of these people, when one tried to get them together at first, was their extreme individuality. Not only are they extremely individual, but, with the organisation of the industry into this curious horizontal organisation which is reflected at the moment in seven or eight sections, and which, I hope, before long will lead to combinations of one kind or another, it is very difficult to get them to come together and agree upon a great scheme of this kind. I thought that unless we caught this tide which was flowing for the reasons which I tried to outline to the House it might never flow again.
    I therefore agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich, at least within my limited experience—I accept that it is very limited—that this is about the first time that we have ever had a chance. That is why I have driven very hard the carrying out
    1154
    of the Bill and why I am grateful to the House for having accepted the Amendment which allows the work which is now going on to be regularised if the Bill becomes law. This is a chance which we should try to take, although I do not know whether we shall succeed. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle made a most valuable speech, because he pointed out that we must do more than give money—much more. There must be a willingness to co-operate on both sides of the industry which will carry this programme and the utilisation of the new machinery to success. We cannot dodge the fact that the costs on our most modern machines are not satisfactory. I shall not say who is at fault or whether the premiums for the second shift are too much or too little. It is not for me to say that. All I know is that, on an international comparison, our costs today are not satisfactory, but I believe that we should not have obtained what we have obtained from both sides of the industry if that kind of problem was not now to be solved.
    I think that some hon. Members were rather sceptical whether the trade unions and employers would so quickly work out an agreed settlement of compensation for displaced workers. The trade union leaders who came to see me showed a very great realisation of the problem and a great sense of responsibility. So have the employers. It is because I believe that that is not just a flash in the pan that the people from Lancashire, having regard to all the various things which have hit them, are now prepared to make a drastic reorganisation that I feel we ought to give the Bill every possible chance to succeed.
    Mr. Houghton: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a much stronger urge behind the move to agreement on compensation because in default of it the schemes for reorganisation could not receive the Minister's approval. Will there be the same urge to get the costs of production down?
    Sir D. Eccles: I know that the hon. Gentleman is right to be cynical, because we who give our lives to politics become a little cynical. But in this case I am not cynical. I believe that there is in Lancashire a real desire on both sides of the industry to give this great industry a new chapter of life. That being the

    1155
    Government's view, I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  POWER LINES, DUNGENESS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Criticism is frequently made that matters raised on Adjournment debates relate only to a particular constituency. The facts which I bring before the House tonight do indeed start in my constituency, but they may have a very much wider application. I am aware that there are certain hon. Members who are disturbed about some of these facts and may even be present tonight in the hope that they may be able to add something on similar lines.
  The facts are that an inquiry was held about the possibility of having an atomic power station at Dungeness. That inquiry was held towards the end of last year. When it started a statement was made that there was a possibility that there would be transmission lines to the westward from that power station. My constituency starts a few miles away from where it is proposed to place the power station. In accordance with the proper procedure the clerk of the Battle Rural District Council, representing the area lying immediately nearest to the west of the site of the proposed power station, attended the inquiry and then for the first time he learned that there was a possibility of transmission lines being taken to the westward from Dungeness.
  It so happened that he was not able to be present at the inquiry except on the first day and he was given permission to make a statement towards the end of that day. It was made quite clear by the inspector holding the inquiry that the question of transmission lines to the westward of the power station was not a subject of the inquiry and therefore any observations or representations made about those transmission lines were irrelevant to those proceedings.
  1156
  The statement which the clerk to the Battle Rural District Council made at the inquiry raised two important points. The first was that it was wrong for an inquiry to be held at which the question of transmission lines to the west was not included in the terms of reference. There had, in fact, been an inquiry on an earlier occasion about transmission lines to and from that power station going through Kent, and it would, therefore, seem quite reasonable to assume that it would have been right to suppose that these other transmission lines would have been relevant to this inquiry.
  It is not necessary for me to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the matter it is very difficult to persuade the people of Sussex that if there are inquiries as to the possibility of where power lines are to go in Kent, no similar principle need be applied to Sussex.
  The second point made by the clerk to the Battle Rural District Council in his statement to the inquiry was this. Once it was decided where the power station was to be, one would probably know where the power was to be taken; and it followed that there would be only a small possibility of varying the route of the power lines. It would be a question of economics, and only minor deviations from the most direct route would be possible. Anyone who looks at the map will see quite clearly that there are only two possible routes which the power line could take. One is up the Rother Valley and the other up the Brede Valley. Those who know these valleys will be aware that they are very beautiful parts of England, and to put a power line in either of them without the most careful consideration is something from which I think any Ministry ought to shrink.
  There has been a suggestion that it should be taken underground, or that it should go under the sea. I think that there was also a suggestion that possibly the power line should be put along the coast. This part of the coast, as anybody who knows it realises, is very beautiful. I had the privilege, only a week or two ago, of going in a Fishery Protection Vessel along this part of the coast and having a look at it from the sea. I am quite certain that the possibility of putting a power line which is visible on any part of that coast is something which would

  1157
  certainly not commend itself to people who know how attractive it is.
  The clerk of the rural district council made his representations, and it seemed that that was about the end of the story. So an approach was made to me. I therefore wrote to the Minister, and he replied on 5th January, when he said, among other things, that the inspectors would, no doubt, take into account, when presenting their report, the question as to where the power lines were to go. If the inspectors would "no doubt" take into consideration the position of these power lines, it seems to me quite wrong that it was not possible for representations to have been made to the inspectors before they either did or did not take into consideration the possibility of where the power lines were to go.
  The other matter mentioned in this letter was that the detailed route for such a line would require a great deal of negotiations, and, of course, there would be various authorities involved, and that that would be a matter which would take some time. I say that that was an entirely irrelevant submission, because nobody would suggest that the detailed route should be worked out at the inquiry. All that the clerk of the rural district council was asking was that representations about the possibility of a power line should be made at the inquiry and as part of the inquiry, and that the details should be worked out later and the wayleaves and the exact positions of the power lines could be considered subsequently.
  That did not seem to me to be a very satisfactory reply, so I wrote to the Minister again. In his next letter of 9th February, he said, among other things, that even if such representations had been made, he did not think that they would have been of "material assistance" in reaching a decision about the proposed station. It seems to me a most remarkable proposition that a Minister can come to the conclusion that representations which he has not heard would not be of any assistance to him in coming to the decision which he is about to make. Therefore, I wrote to him a third letter, and I received the reply on 10th March, which roughly repeated the same type of proposition that I have mentioned to the House.
  I then put down two Questions to the Paymaster-General, and these Questions
  1158
  were answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. In his Answer to the first, he suggested that I was under a misapprehension, and went on to say:
  "My noble Friend's inspectors take full account of possible routes to be taken by transmission lines associated with the proposed power station."
  It seems to me a very remarkable position that I should be under the misapprehension that the inspectors would take into consideration full account of possible routes on which no representations had been made at all.
  I would say that these inspectors have nothing on which they could make any decision, for they did not know where these power lines were to go, and if they were to take anything of that kind into consideration it was their duty, and it was the duty of the Minister, to include these considerations in the inquiry which was held towards the end of last year. So I say that if there is anybody under a misapprehension, it was my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who seems to think that it is possible to decide on a proposition on which the facts are not laid before him.
  The Answer to my second Question was:
  "The route of the proposed transmission lines from a power station at Dungeness to a sub-station at Lydd and from this sub-station to Canterbury has already been the subject of public inquiries."
  That goes back to my first point—that if we can have an inquiry in the one case, why should we be denied the opportunity of making our representations before a decision is taken as to where the power station is to go? My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
  "My noble Friend in reaching his decision will also take full account of the probability that a further transmission line running Westwards will be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 13.]
  There, again, it seems to me we are back where we started, for his noble Friend will take full account of something on which no representations have been made to him at all. I therefore feel that these Answers are couched in bureaucratic language, which certainly does not commend itself to my constituents.
  I had a look at the observations which were made in the Franks Report about how these inquiries should be conducted, and there were three principles

  1159
  laid down: openness, fairness and impartiality. On fairness, the Franks Report said:
  "Next, take fairness. If the objector were not allowed to state his case, there would be nothing to stop oppression. Thirdly, there is impartiality. How can the citizen be satisfied unless he feels that those who decide his case come to their decision with open minds?"
  How can it be said that an inquiry held subsequent to the events which I have outlined will be held by somebody who is coming to consider the matter with an open mind?
  Further, the Franks Report says that
  "fairness to require the adoption of a clear procedure which enables parties to know their rights, to present their case fully and to know the case which they have to meet".
  My constituents feel that they have not had the opportunity of putting forward their case, as, indeed, they have not.
  This is a matter which has received publicity outside my constituency. There was a letter written by Councillor Reitlinger, the present vice-chairman of the Battle Rural District Council and published in The Times on 14th March last. The Brighton Evening Argus had a leading article on 3rd April last. The News Chronicle, on 26th March last, said this:
  "As he has not heard the suggestions the Minister cannot know whether they would be helpful or not. This contempt for local government is bureaucracy at its worst. It seems the Government is treating the public inquiries merely as a matter of form. … Every effort should be made to create harmony instead of a conflict of interests."
  I raise this matter tonight in the hope that in some way harmony may be restored, and if there is any way in which my hon. Friend can help to do that I shall certainly be very grateful. Although it is too late to do very much to help in this case, I feel that the debate may be of some use if my hon. Friend can give an undertaking that, when there is an inquiry of a similar nature in the future, all the relevant factors shall be heard before the decision is taken. If my hon. Friend can give an undertaking that the approximate line and destination of power lines from any proposed site should be regarded in future with the formal application as something which should be considered at the inquiry, then I think that this debate will not have been in vain.
  1160
  But as long as we have letters from the Minister saying that his inspectors will "no doubt" take into consideration something which they have not heard, or if the Minister writes that something which he does not know and is to be put to him later would not be of any "material assistance" to him, I do not believe that there is any possibility of progress. In coming to a decision the Minister should take every step to ensure having the whole picture presented to him. Deciding a case piecemeal is not satisfactory to the people who will be affected by that decision.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able at least to say that in future cases this principle will be laid down, and if he does that tonight that will be of help to other persons, even if it is not of much assistance to my constituents.
  10.19 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) for raising this important matter. I shall start with one or two very brief general observations and then deal with the special point. I should like to say at once that my noble Friend and the Ministry responsible do not think that the present situation is necessarily perfect, and certainly have not the slightest desire to ride roughshod over local opinion. Anything that can be done increasingly to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done will, as always, be very sympathetically considered.
  One must start in all this by realising the difficulties of the Central Electricity Generating Board. These stations must be built somewhere. Indeed, it is constituents like my hon. Friend's who are everlastingly saying "Why don't you hurry up with rural electrification?"; but they do not want to have the wires bringing over the power. If a station is in an urban area they say it is not safe. If it is in the country they say that the best agricultural land in England cannot be spared, and if it is in a wilderness like Dungeness that is the last remaining breeding ground of some strange insect, and the station must not be built there.
  The Board is in an extremely difficult situation. There is only one other nuclear power station site possible in

  1161
  this part of England and that is at Red-ham Mead on the Thames. That site is so small that even if a station were built there in the near future there would have to be at least one if not two other similar stations, whereas a station can be installed on this site to a capacity of about 1,500 megawatts, which is on a totally different scale. Therefore, whatever is done, whether conventional or nuclear, there will have to be more stations in the south of England. The whole basis of the grid is that it must be linked up and somewhere an east-west transmission line is necessary. It is against that background that we must consider the special problem of this case.
  I should like to state briefly the facts as I have been able to discover them after careful enquiry. I do not think there is any dispute that the Generating Board carried out its statutory duties and informed the planning authorities, the County Council of Kent and the County Borough of Lydd in an application for consent on 26th June. I should like to read a phrase from that application which is material:
  "An additional double circuit 275,000 volts transmission line will be required to connect the load centres in the West and a route for this will he submitted to the Local Planning and Local Authority in due course."
  On 9th July, in accordance with standing practice, Kent wrote to Sussex, and some time before 6th August, Sussex County Council wrote to Battle. It is perfectly true, and I do not want to overlook any of the facts, that Kent County Council did not in terms refer to the fact that the line to the west would be required but it informed Sussex, and Sussex informed Battle, that all the particulars, including a statement which referred specifically to a line to the west were available at Lydd, and that was in August four months before the inquiry began on 16th December.
  I will not go into the matter of advertising, though similar information was given in national and in some local newspapers. I accept at once that it was in good faith that the Battle authority said that it knew only at the inquiry for the first time that such a line to the west would be required. I can only say, without any sense of criticising it or any other of the authorities concerned, that if one is informed that the particulars of something are available for
  1162
  four months and one does not look at them or, having looked at them one does not notice the specific words to which I have referred, it is perhaps a little unfortunate.
  We then come to the point where it might be asked, "That may be all true but were the observations which Battle made on the first day of the inquiry in some way prejudiced because they were not relevant or within the terms of reference of the inquiry itself?" We must draw a distinction, which was quite clearly drawn by those holding the inquiry, and they were not only an inspector of the Ministry of Power, who might be held to be to a certain extent interested, but also an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the report concerned is a joint and unanimous report.
  It is perfectly true that the exact route of the line to the west was not before the inquiry and could not be gone into in detail, but the fact that there would have to be a line somewhere to the west was not only before the inquiry but the representative of Battle Council made a very good statement of the objections to it. The fact is that the necessity of a line to the west was material to the inquiry, was within the terms of reference and was, in fact, so dealt with, and not in any way cursorily.
  I have here before me the evidence taken. There are 150 pages of evidence so it is not a cursory document. In the agreed report which will be published with the Minister's decision in due course, there are over 50 pages relating 15 objections which will have to be considered. I must not quote it because under the rules of order I would perhaps have to give the whole of the document at this stage. It refers the Minister specifically to the fact that he must consider the need for a western transmission line in giving or refusing his consent.
  So my hon. Friend must appreciate that, far from anything being done in a hole and corner way, or anybody being deliberately prejudiced, the fact that such a line would be required was, or ought to have been, known several months before the inquiry. They did make a statement, a good statement. The two inspectors drew the special attention of my noble Friend to that statement, and of course it will be one

  1163
  of the things to which he is now directing his mind.
  The fact is that the Central Electricity Generating Board is in a difficult position. It knows that the North Fleet-Canterbury line is essential to reinforce the electricity supply of Canterbury. In fact, I am informed that temporary arrangements will have to be made in future for preventing actual breakdowns in Canterbury, the need for reinforcement is so great.
  Having got so far, the Canterbury-Lydd line is necessary to deal with the cross-Channel cable. Having done that, we are in the position that a big station must be put somewhere. I am not prejudging my noble Friend's decision when I say that there were strong reasons given before the inquiry, which appear in the report, for putting a station near to these lines which will run under the sea near Lydd. Wherever we put a station down there it will require a connection to the west in some direction. The exact line for that will have to be settled later; all the machinery will be gone into, and the Battle Rural District Council and the Sussex County Council, and so on, will have their statutory right to argue as to whether it shall go up the Rother or the Brede Valley or elsewhere.
  In deciding whether, in view of the urgent need to increase electricity supplies for the South-East, this is or is not a good site for a station, I submit that all that is required is to bear in mind that it involves an east-west line somewhere. Whether it goes along one particular route or another is not material at this stage. My noble Friend will have to ask in effect, "Are the overriding grounds for a large station in this area such that we must place a connection more or less in an east-west direction across Sussex and the western part of Kent?", but it is not material to him to know exactly in which place it should go.
  It is material to point out, I think, that the primary planning authority concerned, the Sussex County Council, said in terms at the inquiry that it is content to rely on the assurance given to the residents at Rye by Mr. Wacher, the representative of the Central Electricity Generating Board—and also to Mr. Chattoe, who represented the Council for the Preservation of Rural England—that
  1164
  the route would be fairly well to the north of Rye and that current would be fed into the line between Three Bridges and Brighton at some point north of the South Downs.
  That is as much as the Generating Board knows or could know. It could only know exactly if it knew where the growth of electricity south-west of London would take place—which nobody could know—and where the other station or stations further down the Channel would be built. Even if it knew that, it would only push the difficulty further, because it would want to know whether it would have to go further into Hampshire.
  We are in difficulty here. If we could tell everybody to stop using electricity for five years we could make a complete survey and put our stations in the best places all over England, and, conceivably, one could draw up an exact route for all the transmission systems. But that is impracticable.
  Therefore, I put it to my hon. Friend that we are faced with a genuine difficulty. It is impossible for the Generating Board to know exactly where it has to put the lines, and it is impossible for my noble Friend to wait before deciding, broadly speaking, where he is to consent to stations. Otherwise the supply of electricity in southern England would come to a standstill. So we can only do our best. We can only give a general indication, and that general indication was given by the Generating Board. I very much regret if it was not drawn as clearly to the attention of everybody concerned as it was in the documents properly deposited at Lydd.
  As I began by saying, my noble Friend is very willing to consider whether, as my hon. Friend said, for the future there may be any way in which we can avoid even the semblance of not doing justice to local opinion, but I think that in the light of what I have said my hon. Friend can be reassured that this is not any bureaucratic attempt to override a fair consideration of local needs. We have, however, to face it that if the country as a whole is to get a vast and increasing use of electricity, these generating stations have to be put somewhere, and wherever one puts them one has to link them up with all the other stations, and that presents a very great difficulty both

  1165
  to the Generating Board and to my noble Friend.
  I do not think there is any suggestion that the Generating Board did not fulfil all its statutory obligations. I can assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend will do his very best for fair judgment, in the light of the joint and unanimous report of the inspectors of the Ministry
  1166
  of Power and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and if any improvement can be made or suggested by my hon. Friend, it will be very sympathetically considered.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Industry, North-East Scotland (Financial Assistance)
  Industry, North-East Scotland (Financial Assistance)
  Hire Purchase
  Hire Purchase
  World Bank (Egyptian Loan)
  World Bank (Egyptian Loan)
  National Gallery Pictures (Reproductions)
  National Gallery Pictures (Reproductions)
  Proposed Free Trade Association (Membership)
  Proposed Free Trade Association (Membership)
  Rubens Painting
  Rubens Painting
  Income Tax (Personal Case)
  Income Tax (Personal Case)
  Women's Voluntary Services (Assistance)
  Women's Voluntary Services (Assistance)
  Building Societies, Leek (Trustee Status)
  Building Societies, Leek (Trustee Status)
  Tourist Allowance, Canada
  Tourist Allowance, Canada
  Public Services (Expenditure)
  Public Services (Expenditure)
  Post-war Credits
  Post-war Credits
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  River Thames (Pollution)
  River Thames (Pollution)
  Sulphurous Fumes, Mansfield Colliery
  Sulphurous Fumes, Mansfield Colliery
  Oswaldtwistle (Refusal of Planning Permission)
  Oswaldtwistle (Refusal of Planning Permission)
  Rural Areas (Piped Water)
  Rural Areas (Piped Water)
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Leek and Cheadle (Water and Sewerage Grants)
  Leek and Cheadle (Water and Sewerage Grants)
  Power Station, Nottingham (Washing Plant Experiment)
  Power Station, Nottingham (Washing Plant Experiment)
  General Development Order (Article 4)
  General Development Order (Article 4)
  Local Government Commission (West Midlands Special Review Area)
  Local Government Commission (West Midlands Special Review Area)
  General Grant (Teachers' Salaries)
  General Grant (Teachers' Salaries)
HOUSING
  Requisitioned Houses (Purchase)
  Requisitioned Houses (Purchase)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Bricks (Supply)
  Bricks (Supply)
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Detainees
  Detainees
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Legislative Council Members (Official Facilities)
  Legislative Council Members (Official Facilities)
EAST AFRICA
  Tanganyika and Uganda (Financial Situation)
  Tanganyika and Uganda (Financial Situation)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Postage Stamps
  Postage Stamps
  Honours (Recommendations)
  Honours (Recommendations)
MALTA
  New Schools
  New Schools
  Constitution
  Constitution
NYASALAND
  Commission of Inquiry (Report)
  Commission of Inquiry (Report)
KENYA
  Detention Camps
  Detention Camps
  African Women, United Kingdom (Higher Education)
  African Women, United Kingdom (Higher Education)
BERMUDA
  Cinemas (Boycott)
  Cinemas (Boycott)
CYPRUS
  Negotiations
  Negotiations
CAMEROONS
  Future
  Future
ZANZIBAR
  Legislative Council (Speaker)
  Legislative Council (Speaker)
SOMALILAND
  Students, United Kingdom (Engineering Courses)
  Students, United Kingdom (Engineering Courses)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Bricks (Supply)
  Bricks (Supply)
  Avebury
  Avebury
  Temporary Bungalows, Leyton (Removal)
  Temporary Bungalows, Leyton (Removal)
  Women's Employment Exchange Prescot
  Women's Employment Exchange Prescot
SCOTLAND
  Aberdeen Development Plan
  Aberdeen Development Plan
  Poliomyelitis Vaccinations
  Poliomyelitis Vaccinations
  Pier, Portree
  Pier, Portree
  Glenelg-Kylerhea Ferry (Approach Roads)
  Glenelg-Kylerhea Ferry (Approach Roads)
  Kyleakin Harbour
  Kyleakin Harbour
  Proposed Licensed Premises, East Kilbride (Inquiry Report)
  Proposed Licensed Premises, East Kilbride (Inquiry Report)
  Clean Air Council
  Clean Air Council
  Scottish Health Services Council (Reports)
  Scottish Health Services Council (Reports)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Newsreel Films
  Newsreel Films
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  Goatskins
  Goatskins
  New Industries, Cornwall
  New Industries, Cornwall
  U.S.S.R. (Trade Agreement)
  U.S.S.R. (Trade Agreement)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Defence Budget (Per Capita Cost)
  Defence Budget (Per Capita Cost)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  White Fish Authority (Loans)
  White Fish Authority (Loans)
HOSPITALS
  Tuberculosis Hospitals
  Tuberculosis Hospitals
  Waiting Lists, South Eastern Metropolitan Region
  Waiting Lists, South Eastern Metropolitan Region

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro

SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING PARTIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many societies have been registered under the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, and what is the total of the whole proceeds of lotteries conducted by such societies during the year 1958.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I regret that this information is not available to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Is it really true that it is not available, or is the Answer that the Government do not choose to collect it?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this information is not available for the reason that there are more than 1,000 local authorities whose duty it is to register and record this information in their own areas. The view is taken that if the collection and collation of all this information were undertaken, the useful result it would achieve would certainly not be worth the labour and expense involved.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are taken to verify that lotteries or small gaming parties purporting to be conducted under the provisions of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, do in fact comply
88
with the conditions imposed by that Act, and particularly what steps are taken to ensure that no private profit is derived from such lotteries or gaming parties.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the effect of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, is to exempt small lotteries and small gaming parties which comply with specified conditions laid down in the Act from the laws under which lotteries and the keeping of common gaming houses respectively are in general unlawful. If these conditions are not complied with, then the lottery or small gaming party, as the case may be, is unlawful, and it is the responsibility of the local enforcement authorities to institute proceeding in the courts in those cases where evidence is available to justify this course.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is able to answer the second part of my Question?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that I have already answered it.
LORD LAWSON: Do I understand from the noble Lord that the law is not being carried out in the case of either of the Questions that have been put to-day?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords.
LORD LAWSON: It does not look as if it is.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Does that mean that the Minister does not really know: that he gets no returns from the local authorities, either upon the registrations or upon any steps they take to deal with defaulters?
LORD CHESHAM: Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I have already spoken about the returns of registrations and turnover. Certainly up till now there has been no evidence that there is any widespread abuse of this law. I merely tried to answer the noble Lord's Question by saying that it is thought that the provisions under the Act are sufficient to provide an answer to his Question.
LORD SILKIN: This is an exceedingly difficult but very important matter. It affects a very large number of people, who make what are possibly small contributions, but they are entitled to be

89
satisfied that their contributions are being properly used; and for the Government to say, "We have no information, and it is not worth while collecting it", is really not satisfactory. Would not the noble Lord make representations by which it would be possible to give a more satisfactory answer to this sort of question?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it may be as well if I briefly remind your Lordships just what the law is on this question. A society which, for one of the purposes of the Act, wishes to conduct a lottery, has first of all to register itself with the local authority. When it conducts such a lottery, it then has to render a return, which includes the whole proceeds of the lottery and the principal purpose, or purposes, to which those proceeds have been applied. The local authority then has to keep those returns for at least one year, during the whole of which time they must be available for inspection, free of charge, by any member of the public who wishes to inspect them. Then, in the normal way, if anyone has any complaint, he has only to go to the local police with the matter and it will be dealt with.
LORD HENDERSON: Can the noble Lord say in how many cases proceedings have been necessary because of violations of the Act? The noble Lord did say that when there were violations it was for the law enforcement authorities to proceed. Can he say in how many cases they have had to proceed?
LORD CHESHAM: I cannot give the noble Lord that information because I have not got it. I can only repeat that I have certainly heard nothing to indicate that there is any widespread abuse.
LORD LATHAM: Can the noble Lord say who is the enforcement authority? Is it the local authority? And, if not, what authority is it?
LORD CHESHAM: It would be difficult, perhaps, to enforce this law without doing it through the local authority who, if they had reason to believe that things were not right, would themselves institute a prosecution. It is also for the local police to enforce the law in this respect,
90
but it is open to any individual member of the public who thinks that things are going wrong to lodge an information.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could not the noble Lord say whether local authorities themselves can initiate the prosecution, or have they to wait until some subscriber to a lottery asks that a prosecution be commenced? Secondly, could the noble Lord say whether the accounts submitted to the local authority are subjected to any kind of check or audit and, if so, by whom, and how?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that this is perhaps going a little far. I should have thought that there would be little object in rendering returns to the local authority if they could do nothing with them. They are the authority in this matter, to see that the law is complied with, and I have no doubt that if things go wrong, they will take suitable action.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I doubt whether it is right that the noble Lord should assume that to be the case. Is he not aware, as most of us are, that under the earlier charities control Acts the local authorities had to receive the accounts but had no power to examine them or to take any steps in relation to any defects which the accounts might show? Later, the law was altered and reinforced in that respect. I judge that it is about the same with this.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I understand the matter, if the local authority found any irregularity, they would put the matter in the hands of the police.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1959. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MENTAL HEALTH BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Definition and classification of mental disorder.
(4) In this Act "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder of personality (whether or not accompanied by subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the patient, and requires or is susceptible to medical treatment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved to leave out subsection (4) and to insert instead:
"(4) In this Act 'psychopathic disorder' means a mental abnormality (whether or not accompanied by subnormality of intelligence) which results in dangerously and persistently aggressive or persistently irresponsible conduct and is susceptible to medical treatment"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment, I would like to make it clear that my noble friends and I are well aware that a great deal of thought has been given, both by the Royal Commission and by another place, to the definition of "psychopath" as it now stands in the Bill. At the same time, I would remind your Lordships that this is an important and novel departure in our legislation. The nearest parallel, I think, is the category of moral defective previously statutorily recognised under the mental deficiency legislation. But in the case of the moral defective it was never expressly laid down, and I think that it was never entirely clear, that a quality of intellectual subnormality was not also necessary for certification, and in fact very few persons have been certified as moral defectives under existing legislation.
The Amendment which I propose makes one or two apparently small changes in this subsection, and I would say at the outset that their purpose is the same; it is to define a little more precisely, and possibly to circumscribe
92
a little more narrowly, the category of persons who can be dealt with under this new term of "psychopath". The first change that we propose is that where the Bill states that a psychopathic disorder means "persistent disorder of personality" it should say a "mental abnormality". The reason for this proposal is that a disorder of personality is often understood to mean something which manifests itself only in behaviour. In choosing the words "a mental abnormality", we have in mind the language of the Homicide Act, which requires that if diminished responsibility is to be established and the charge of murder therefore reduced to one of manslaughter, it must be shown that this diminished responsibility is due to an abnormality of mind. We are particularly anxious that persons who are going to be labelled as "psychopaths" should manifest some abnormality of mind other than their persistently anti-social behaviour. Your Lordships will see that we have restored the persistence at a later stage in the clause.
I would emphasise that the purpose of our proposal is that unless we make it clear that mental abnormality must be established independently of antisocial conduct, the clause lays it wide open for any person within the specified age limits whose conduct is persistently anti-social to be certified as a psychopath. In fact it makes it possible for the great majority of persons within these specified age limits who are at present dealt with through the courts or through the remonstrances of their own family and friends, to be dealt with without judicial procedure as being psychopaths and cases for medical treatment. That is why we attach great importance to some phrase which will make it clear that mental abnormality must be present and manifested by symptoms other than purely anti-social behaviour.
Secondly, we propose to substitute the term "dangerously and persistently aggressive or persistently irresponsible conduct" for the present words of the Bill, which do not include the term "dangerously". Your Lordships will see that we have restored the element of persistence there; and I think my noble friend Lord Taylor may have something to say about the significance of the word "dangerously". I will only say at this

93
stage that we want to leave room for abnormally aggressive conduct of which we might approve. We do not want to find the Statute prescribing all occasions of abnormal aggressive conduct as being instances of mental abnormality.
Thirdly, your Lordships will see that we have omitted the words "requires or". We have done that because persons of this category are persons who have failed to respond to the ordinary treatment of reward or punishment either in their own homes or, on some occasions, through the courts: they are people for whom all other treatment has proved ineffectual. If we leave in the words "requires or is susceptible to medical treatment" we are allowing any person to be dealt with as a psychopath for whom other treatment has failed, but who apparently requires medical treatment, whether or no medical treatment is likely to be effective. In the Amendment I am now moving we want to confine this category to persons who will really benefit from medical treatment; people who are susceptible to medical treatment and whom the medical profession feel able to help. Otherwise, again we are opening the door to allowing all kinds of anti-social persons, whether or not they have been dealt with through the courts, to be treated as being cases of psychopathic abnormality.
Those, I think, are the main points of the Amendment. I should like to say, in conclusion, that I am particularly glad that my noble friend Lord Taylor is associated with me in moving this Amendment. We probably both feel that in the course of time the sphere of medical treatment of anti-social behaviour is likely to expand, and I think we shall both welcome that expansion, but we feel that, so long as the field of medical treatment is restricted by the present imperfect state of medical knowledge, it is undesirable to pretend that we can do more than we can. Therefore we ought to confine medical treatment to cases which are clearly susceptible to improvement under medical guidance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
LORD TAYLOR: In supporting my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger I appreciate the great difficulty which the Government find in attempting to define a psychopath. It is an extremely difficult task and any definition is bound to have certain defects. I wish to address myself primarily to two words in the Amendment. The first is the word "dangerously", which the Amendment substitutes for the word "abnormally" in describing the degree of aggressiveness which a psychopath must show in order to come under the ambit of this definition. I spent some time last week discussing the definition of a psychopath in this Bill with one of our greatest authorities on the matter, who spends his whole life treating them, and I noticed that every time he quoted the definition he spontaneously substituted the word "dangerously" for "abnormally". I think he was right to do that; in my view, it is the correct word to use in this sense. It depends on the meaning which we give to the word "aggressive". Before the war we were brought up in a world where aggression was always regarded as something offensive and objectionable; we associated it with an unprovoked attack. But I think the meaning of the word "aggressive" is changing. When one was in Canada one found it was a routine in selecting anybody for any job to look for "a good, aggressive person". It is, in fact, a most desirable quality in the modern world in which we live, and there should be an enormous number of people full of good aggression. I think the meaning of the word is changing in this country, and if we want to be safe for the future it would be much better to substitute the word "dangerously" aggressive for "abnormally" aggressive.
The second point I wish to direct your Lordships' attention to is the question of medical treatment. Here I do not wish to suggest that there is any important alteration in this Amendment, but one would like to sound a word of warning about the treatment of the young psychopath and how comparatively little medicine can do. At the moment, the treatment of young psychopaths is really a social matter; indeed, the place where they are best treated is Borstal. The other way in which young psychopaths are sometimes dramatically influenced is by religious conversion. When I was

95
thinking about this I could not help remembering some of the remarkable psychopathic conversions which have occurred, where people who have started as psychopaths have had some vivid religious experience and have turned into saints: for example, St. Ignatius de Loyola. That is not a medical process. The amount which the doctor can do for the young psychopath is small. It is a disciplinary process, a training process and an educative process, and I think it would be wrong for medicine to claim what it cannot yet do. We all hope, as my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger said, that one day we shall be able to do much more for these unfortunate people; but at present it is matter far more of discipline and training than of pure medicine.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should like to address myself to the first part of the Amendment. Your Lordships will see that the Amendment deletes the words "means a persistent disorder of personality" and substitutes "means a mental abnormality". As has already been pointed out, those engaged in this field know the great difficulty of finding a satisfactory definition for psychopaths, but, as I understand it, the words that are in the clause do something that almost any other selection of words fails to do, inasmuch as they are interpretable by both the legal profession and the medical profession. So often one finds that there is a confusion of interpretation by either the lawyers or the doctors. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who we all know is a expert sociologist and jurist, may be looking at this Amendment from the point of view of the law. I should like to emphasise that these words are agreed by the great majority of the medical profession.
Perhaps I might be permitted to quote what was said on this subject at the conference of the National Association on Mental Health last year by Dr. Jackson, who was the legal member of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Behaviour. He said this:
"What the legislation has got to do, I think, is to use language that will enable the doctors to say with reasonably certainty whether they think that a particular person's condition does or does not come within the words that are used."
96
He went on:
"We were right in saying that what matters is whether words are used that doctors will understand so that they can say whether a particular person does go into a particular category or not."
I quote one further statement:
"In the end if there are legal proceedings the decision whether a person comes within a particular term would rest on medical evidence just as it does when the allegation is about tuberculosis or any other illness or injury. …First of all it does put a lot on the doctors—that seems to me inevitable; but if you cannot trust the doctors in that sort of thing I do not believe that any legal safeguards would be worth anything whatever anyway."
I think that has a substantial bearing, because it falls from the legal member of the Royal Commission. It is for that reason that I hope your Lordships will resist the noble Lady's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the terms in which she moved this Amendment, which certainly appreciate the difficulty of the problem of definition which is in front of us. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for throwing what is to me a new light on the life of St. Ignatius, but I appreciate his point. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Feversham for his support.
This is a very serious part of the Bill and, of course, the noble Baroness is right in saying that we have had great difficulty and given great thought to finding the definition. I should like your Lordships to consider the arguments on the main changes which this Amendment would make. The first change is that it would transfer the adjective "persistent" from the underlying mental disorder to the aggressive or irresponsible conduct which is the result of the disorder. I do not think that that would be a good change, for these reasons. The word "persistent" is used to ensure that patients are not classified as psychopathic for the purpose of compulsory detention under the Bill until the personality disorder—I repeat, "until the personality disorder"—can be shown to have existed for a considerable period or time. It may be possible to deduce this from symptoms occurring over such a period, but not all these symptoms necessarily amount to abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct. That is a point which was

97
made on Second Reading by several noble Lords, including, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. There may be a pattern of abnormal behaviour culminating in a seriously aggressive act, such as sexual assault. The earlier signs might have been less serious but quite sufficient to show the doctor that the underlying disorder of personality had been there persistently. That should be sufficient to allow the diagnosis to be made without waiting for serious aggression to be repeated several times before the patient can be sent for treatment.
Moreover, although psychopaths are commonly referred to as either aggressive psychopaths or inadequate psychopaths, there is no clear-cut distinction between the two. The pattern of behaviour often combines both inadequate and aggressive characteristics. The wording of the Amendment on this point would apparently require a persistent pattern of aggressive behaviour or, alternatively, a persistent pattern of irresponsible behaviour. According to my information and experience, that is not consistent with the facts about psychopathic patients.
The second point on which we have heard some discussion is that the Amendment substitutes the adverb "dangerously" in place of "abnormally" to qualify the aggressive conduct which may result from the disorder of personality. Despite the most interesting account which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, gave of his view of the development of the meaning of the word "aggressive", I do not think, with all respect to him, that in this country it has gained great adherence up to now. I should have thought that the adjective "aggressive" is itself implies that the conduct involves some degree of danger, so that idea is already present in the words used in the clause. Frankly, we do not want to take out the word "abnormally", as it emphasises that this is not what one might call ordinary aggression, in the sense which Lord Taylor mentioned in his most interesting speech on Second Reading. There is something peculiar about it: it is a symptom of mental disorder.
The third characteristic of the Amendment is that it deletes the adverb "seriously" which in the clause qualifies the phrase "irresponsible conduct" It
98
replaces this by the word "persistently", with which I have already dealt and given my view. To take out the word "seriously" very much waters down the description of the conduct which must be established before the definition applies. I think everyone would agree that "irresponsible" is a very wide term. "Dangerously irresponsible", which was suggested in another place, is, in my view, too narrow. "Seriously irresponsible" strikes what we consider the right balance
The last line of the definition in the Amendment provides that the disorder must be "susceptible to medical treatment", whereas the definition in the clause says "requires or is susceptible to medical treatment". The Amendment would thus require the doctor in all cases in which a patient is to be dealt with as psychopathic under Parts IV or V of the Bill to say in effect that he expects—I repeat "expects" because I think this is a finely balanced point which is very important—the patient's condition to respond to treatment. If the words "requires or" are there, action can be taken in a case where the doctor hopes that the patient will respond to treatment. On the other hand, we are all hoping that medical treatment will have an improving effect, and that is what we had in mind. I think I did almost a metaphysical analysis of the effect of the alternatives in the absence of one of them. I do not intend to inflict it on your Lordships; but if the noble Baroness is interested I shall be pleased to let her know.
I have tried to keep my answer on broad lines; and for the particular point that has been stated, in the present state of knowledge about psychopathic disorder and methods of treatment, we must provide for cases where improvement is hoped for, as opposed to cases where improvement can be definitely predicated as being expected. I believe that that is right, and that there are few cases in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, it can be predicted with certainty. I think we all agree with that, and that is the reason why, after considerable thought, I prefer the clause in its present form. This is a difficult point. I shall be pleased to consider, in the interval between the stages of the Bill, everything that has been said. I have tried to-day, in view of the weight of

99
the opinions of those who have spoken, to give a considered answer, which I am sure they, in turn, will consider. Therefore, I hope that on this occasion the Amendment will not be pressed.
3.12 p.m.
LORD SILKINThe Committee may remember that in the Second Reading debate, following the noble and learned Viscount, I was critical of the definition in the Bill of "psychopathic disorder." We are, for the first time, taking power to confine this class of person compulsorily, and I think we ought to be extremely careful to make certain not only that our definition is such that nobody who ought to be compulsorily detained can escape but, perhaps even more important, that nobody who ought not to be compulsorily detained may be detained. My criticism of the definition in the Bill was that there were people whom we could all recognise, whom we meet socially or in other ways, who by no stretch of the imagination ought to be compulsorily detained, and yet could be brought within this definition, or by slightly stretching it. I do not think my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger would claim infallibility for her definition, but I feel quite certain that the definition in the Bill is not really satisfactory. It may be the best that can be devised at the moment, and I think my noble friends who have spoken gave sufficient reasons for questioning the complete suitability of the existing definition.
For those reasons I would stress the great importance of the Government's giving much further consideration to this definition. I am quite certain that my noble friends would not wish to press the Committee this afternoon to accept the definition they have put forward as an alternative to the Government one, but the Committee will admit that they have rendered a great service in applying their minds to putting forward an alternative. If the noble and learned Viscount will give us an assurance that between now and the next stage this matter will be considered again to make quite certain that, so far as we can foresee, it will not be possible for anybody to be detained compulsorily who ought not to be detained—and we are not dealing merely with eccentric people or people who turn
100
out to be geniuses and may manifest it by being aggressive—then I think we may have served a valuable purpose.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly give that undertaking. It is a very important point. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would get universal support for his fear of too much action. There is a very strong school of thought which says that one of the dangers is that action will not be taken. It just shows the difference of views on this matter; but, whichever view is right on that, obviously there is great weight in what the noble Lord said.
LORD SILKIN: I simply meant to imply that it may be the wrong people who will be detained.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a point of view which, of course, I shall be very pleased to consider. As I have said, we have given a great deal of thought to it, but it is an important subject and I am perfectly prepared to give it more thought.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I invite the noble and learned Viscount, when he is giving consideration to this extremely important definition, to consider also this point? He has in his reply to the Amendment stressed the point that we are dealing here with a disorder which requires or is susceptible to medical treatment, and that clearly implies that we are dealing with a mental illness. But in the first subsection of this clause the definition of mental disorder says,
"mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder",
and that appears to imply that psychopathic disorder is not mental illness. If it is not mental illness, how does it happen that it becomes susceptible to medical treatment? There seems to be a contradiction in this set of definitions.
I should also like the noble and learned Viscount to consider whether the phrase "disorder of personality" has any definite meaning whatsoever. What is personality? If it means merely mind, this is saying mental disorder, and just that. If that is what it means, why does it not say so? Personality I have always understood to mean the whole of a person's mind and body together. Therefore,

101
there appears to be some degree of ambiguity about it. I know that one noble Lord said that really it does not matter if nobody else understands this definition, and particularly it does not matter whether lawyers understand it or not, so long as doctors do; but the general public are concerned with this and want to be able to understand.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:We are extremely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the care which he has taken in considering this Amendment, and for his assurance that this definition will not go on the Statute Book until it has been looked at upside down, and round and round, and in every possible light. I would say that we do not attach any great importance to the position of the word "persistently" so long as it is there, and we do not attach importance to omitting the word "seriously" though we felt that the word "dangerously" might be an adequate substitute. We do feel very strongly, I think, that some element of danger to the public perhaps ought to be present before a person is certified as psychopathic.
The two points on which we should like the noble and learned Viscount to have still further meditations are these. First, in the common parlance of the medical world, a person is often diagnosed as a psychopath merely because of his persistently anti-social behaviour; and distinctions are drawn which the layman is not always very well able to follow between a thug and a psychopath, the psychopath being the subject for medical treatment and the thug being the subject for penal treatment. We are very anxious that if persons are to be diagnosed and made liable for compulsory treatment as psychopaths, it should be clear that they have some symptoms other than their persistently anti-social behaviour. That was why we put forward the words "mental abnormality" in place of "persistent disorder of personality". I do not think that the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, need concern us here, because the words which we have used are almost exactly those which appear in the Homicide Act, which says "abnormality of mind" and which have to be interpreted both by the law and by the medical profession in that context.
102
The other point is the metaphysical one. The metaphysics on this occasion surely have potentially great practical importance. We are a little disturbed about the prospect that a person may be subjected, on medical certification (if I may use the old word) alone, to indefinite detention in circumstances in which the doctor does not expect that he will benefit from medical treatment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I intervene to say that the noble Baroness has raised a most interesting point. I should like her if she would be so good, to consider it between the two stages. In my analysis I drew a great distinction between benefit and cure. I only want to put that point into her mind. The noble Baroness has probably thought of it already. But I think that in this problem it is something that has to be borne in mind. I am sorry to interrupt her, but I thought the point might interest her.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and I am sure that he will have in mind the necessity that there should be a real prospect of amelioration, if I may put it so, before a person is subjected possibly to prolonged compulsory detention on medical grounds alone. In view of the assurances the noble and learned Viscount has given, and the care with which he has considered the points that we have raised, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Functions of local health authorities
6.—(1) In relation to persons who are or have been suffering from mental disorder, section twenty-eight of the National Health Service Act, 1946 (which relates to functions of local health authorities with respect to the prevention of illness and the care and aftercare of patients) shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) The purposes for which arrangements are authorised or may be required to be made by a local health authority under subsection (1) of the said section twenty-eight for the care or after-care of such persons as aforesaid shall include the following, that is to say:—

(a) the provision, equipment and maintenance of residential accommodation, and the care of persons for the time being resident in accommodation so provided;

103

(b) the provision of centres or other facilities for training or occupation, and the equipment and maintenance of such centres;

(c) the appointment of officers to act as mental welfare officers under the following provisions of this Act;

3.26 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved in subsection (2) to leave out "or may" and insert "and shall" [be required to be made]. The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will allow me to dwell on this Amendment for a few moments, on the strict understanding that my later interventions will be carefully rationed. In the view of most of us it is vital that this Amendment should be inserted if the excellent intentions of Clause 6 are to be realised. As the Committee are aware, Clause 6 is quite fundamental to the Bill and seeks to give effect to one of the two main purposes of the Bill—namely, to lay emphasis on community care. Your Lordships will see that Clause 6 is concerned with the provision, equipment and maintenance of residential accommodation, the provision of centres for training or occupation, the appointment of officers to act as welfare officers, and other related purposes. If Clause 6 fails, surely it is obvious that the whole Bill will fail. We who support this Amendment fear that without some Amendment on these lines Clause 6 is quite likely to fail. There is quite likely, not to-day or to-morrow but in the years ahead, to be a tragedy of disappointment, and people will say that the whole Bill, in those respects at least, was just a matter of "eyewash".
The Committee will recall that when the Bill was first published the one big criticism, amidst a great deal of sincere praise, was that the powers under this clause were only permissive and were not to be mandatory. In view of the directives—on the whole, they seem to be very sensible directives—that the Minister is issuing, it can be argued, and I dare say will be argued by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, that the powers conferred on local authorities by Clause 6 will in fact be mandatory even though the clause is permissive n form. Neither I nor any of us who support this Amendment wish to haggle over words, and I will say,
104
therefore, that our object in putting forward this Amendment is to see that the powers conferred on local authorities under this clause will be effectively binding on them and in practice will be fully used by them. We believe that this will be achieved under our Amendment. But without it we consider that no Minister in the world in this Year of Grace, 1959, however sound or unsound his Party politics may be, and quite irrespective of Party politics, and however greatly we respect such a Minister, can possibly say what will happen in the distant future. In that way no Minister can remove our great anxieties.
Clause 6 (2), as the Minister said last week, is primarily an expansion and amplification of Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, 1946. The powers to which it refers, and which I am talking about, already exist there to a large extent in a permissive form; and in one case, at least, they exist in a mandatory form. But whether these powers we are now conferring on local authorities have been hitherto mandatory or permissive, or non-existent, or whether it is not quite clear what their status was, they have up till now been used on a scale which in no way matches up to what we all insist on in future as a necessity. We are, in fact, calling on local authorities to expand their services to a degree which virtually constitutes a new service.
According to the Minister, the total expenditure by local authorities for this purpose in 1958–59 was £4,100,000. When we remember that one child in every 100 is mentally handicapped, and that one in every 20 of us, I believe (this does not apply to Members of your Lordships' House because it is not a representative sample of the population) spend some time in a mental hospital; when we reflect that half, or nearly half—about 40 per cent.—of the patients in hospital are in mental hospitals; and when we remember (I am not complaining that the figure is too big) that the total cost of the National Health Service is close on £500 million a year, this figure of £4 million for community care hitherto spent by local authorities, can be described only as "chicken-feed".
Some Members of the House may not be aware of the great disparities between the quantity and quality of the services

105
rendered by the different authorities. That was a point made by various speakers on Second Reading. I am glad to think that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is supporting this Amendment: he made such a remarkable speech on that occasion. But as was pointed out in another place, in regard to the services which are responsible for over 90 per cent. of the expenditure, Cambridgeshire, which is top of the list, pays 2s. 4d. per head of the population towards this work, while Rutland pays 3d. We have a graduation all the way between 2s. 4d. per head and 3d. per head which goes towards this work. Among the county boroughs, Oldham pays 4s. 5d. per head, which is three times the national average; and we go all the way down to Barrow-in-Furness with 8d. One finds these tremendous variations between towns and areas, as the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, is so well aware.
Perhaps I could put these calculations into more concrete form. If your Lordships would look at the figures of the number of places in occupation centres for subnormal children per 100,000 of the population you will see that London, Middlesex (referred to last time by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell) and Northampton provided 30 to 39 places per 100,000. Bedfordshire, Berkshire and Durham provided only 10 to 19 per 100,000. So there are these colossal, staggering discrepancies. In view of their very mixed and chequered record in the past, there seems no reason to assume that local authorities as a whole—apart altogether from some very good ones—will do what is necessary in future unless three requirements are satisfied by Her Majesty's Government. First, there must be an inspiring lead—and here let me pay tribute to the personal intentions of the right honourable gentleman the Minister, which I believe have won the appreciation of all concerned with this work. Secondly, very stern pressure is required from the centre on the weak and the slack; and thirdly, an adequate supply of money.
In our proposed Amendment we make these powers statutory. We put them in the Bill. It will be said, as it was said on Second Reading, and no doubt will be said again, that the Minister intends to achieve the same results by means of various directives. It is perhaps just
106
worth asking—though I do not want to dwell on this aspect, as others may raise it—why, if the duty is to be mandatory, that should not be made clear beyond all doubt. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will supply the answer to that question. I am bound to say that it does not seem to me to be by any means the most important of all the points involved. I can think of an argument why he would prefer to do it in that way—the argument of flexibility. That, too, arose on Second Reading.
If one looks further there is the fundamental financial aspect. Whatever may be the theory of it, we are all aware that local authorities will never, in practice, provide these much-desired services unless adequate resources are set aside by the central Government to assist them. The right honourable gentleman the Minister has said that his grant to local authorities is to be increased in 1959–60 by nearly £1 million, to about £6 million a year. I believe those figures are about right. I am afraid that, in view of the magnitude of the problem and the fact that the Minister's total budget for his Ministry is about £1,200 million a year, including, of course, housing and other items, I must regard this £6 million a year for this wonderful new service to which we are all looking as still belonging to the "chicken-feed" variety.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor may point out that until local schemes are ready, and staff are available and ready, adequate expenditure cannot be embarked upon. I do not want to set that aside as an unimportant point, for I accept that there is a great deal in it; but up to the moment there is no visible sign that the necessary resources are ever going to be set aside for adequate development work. In other words, surely what will really matter will be the scale of assistance provided, not just to-day or to-morrow but a little later; and so far we have bean given nothing which will give us a real clue. There is no kind of guarantee.
I must emphasise the obvious point that the directive, even a directive by an excellent Minister, can be modified under conditions of financial stringency. We have seen that often enough. We saw what happened to the Youth Service, and we have seen economy campaigns under various Governments in

107
past years. But a statutory duty will remain, come fair weather come foul, and in the long run, therefore, that is the only way of achieving continued progress until the goal is reached. Putting it in another way, I would say that a statutory duty would seem to make it a moral obligation on the part of the Minister and the Government of the day, whatever their complexion, to provide the necessary funds. It would certainly make it far more inescapable than an order which the Government of the day were free to vary as they thought necessary according to the economic climate. For all these reasons we are certain that we shall never see adequate provision, whatever we may hope now, unless it is clear for the world to see, from the beginning, that it is and will remain the duty of the Minister and local authorities to combine in providing them as rapidly as possible, and that whoever fails to play his part in that operation will be certainly frustrating the whole intention of Parliament and, in the case of a local authority, will be actually breaking the law of the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("or may") and insert ("and shall").—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD GRENFELL: Since I put my name to this Amendment I have found myself in rather a quandary about it. I want that word "shall" very badly, because I realise fully that something must be done, and that while some councils are doing a great deal others are doing very little. But I see in this Bill a completely new vista in the treatment of mental health, and I have been veering about in my mind as to whether it would not be better to see how the Minister is going to bring about his regulations and whether we should tie down some of the smaller councils to-day in enforcing the requirement with that forceful word "shall". Although I should particularly like to see that word in, I have in the back of my mind a feeling that we might be moving a little too fast. This may sound rather cowardly in a way, but personally, after very careful thought, I rather veer towards the view that we should wait to see what these regulations are going to produce. For that reason—and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that I have thought this over
108
very carefully—I must tell him that, should he take the Amendment to a Division, I should find myself forced to abstain, because although I should like this provision I have some slight doubts as to what would be the effect.
3.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who moved this Amendment, on the extraordinarily valuable facts he has brought to his support of the argument on the "Cinderella" treatment of this service in our National Health Service in this country. On the Second Reading of this Bill I said that I should like to see a statutory provision made and imposed on local authorities, and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has elaborated some of the arguments that I then brought to bear on the great necessity of getting local authorities—and particularly those more backward and recalcitrant authorities—into operation at the earliest possible date.
Since the Second Reading of this Bill I have had an opportunity of closely analysing both the circulars sent by my right honourable friend the Minister to the Regional Hospital Boards and to local authorities; and I have also seen and followed the statement he made about direction as an alternative to imposing a statutory obligation on local authorities. As I understand it, the Minister said that as soon as this Bill is passed he will issue a formal direction, under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, making it the duty of local authorities to provide mental health services. As I interpret it. Section 28 is a permissive section; and, incidentally, I do not quite see how the noble Lord's Amendment imposing a duty upon local authorities can apply to the governing section of another Act which is permissive. But I will leave that aspect to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, because I feel that he will understand that legal question much better than I do. But then what does the Minister do? He will make it a duty, under Section 20 of the National Health Service Act, in the light of the former section, Section 28, for local authorities to submit schemes saying how they propose to carry out these duties. So far, so good, in that we may expect to have from all local

109
authorities a fully-planned scheme submitted to the Ministry of Health showing what is planned under the broad heading of community services.
In those cases where the local authority fail to carry out the duty of providing the service, this Bill, by Clause 141, together with Section 57 of the National Health Service Act, empowers the Minister to declare the authority in default. These default powers would permit the Minister, after the appropriate and necessary inquiries, to take over the Mental Health Service from the authority. This default power is, of course, very stringent, and I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether these powers under Section 57 have ever been used in the case of local authorities' failure to make provision for any specific physical illness. So far as I am aware, the default power of the National Health Service Act, 1946, except possibly in one case, has not been brought to bear by the Minister on a local authority, due to the fact that by its very nature it is stringent and is the sort of thing we object to in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred to the money spent on mental health by local authorities. Six and a half per cent. of the total, which the noble Lord quoted, is spent on preventive and after-care services and 93½ per cent. on the services laid down by previous Statutes, namely, the Mental Deficiency Act, the National Assistance Act, and the National Health Service Act. As the noble Lord pointed out, we are anxious not only that there should be greater provision by the local authority for the staffing and provision of centres to house mental defectives who require training which they are not at the moment receiving, but that the officers of the local authority should be concerned with preventive and aftercare treatment of those patients who have been discharged from hospital but need care in their own homes.
So far as I can see, it is going to be a very long time until there is sufficient personnel trained and acquired by the local authorities, even on the assumption that local authorities will provide £900,000 in increased allocations next year and £1¾ million the following year to this subject, because I think the devotion of their allocations will largely go
110
to existing services. Therefore there is great content in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham; indeed it is a most serious consideration. But I should like to know from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether the same eventuality will succeed under the plan devised by Her Majesty's Government and the undertaking of my right honourable friend the Minister as under that of the noble Lord. Lord Pakenham.
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I at once deal with the legal aspect that my noble friend Lord Feversham has raised? I think he has made an important point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will not for a moment think I have not got his wider points in mind, but I believe it will be convenient to show that difficulty first, because I consider that my noble friend is right in his doubts. The intention of the Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, is to ensure that the services listed in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Clause 6 (2) are provided by local health authorities as a duty. It does not, in my view, succeed in this purpose for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Feversham foreshadowed. The arrangements for services to which the duty would apply are arrangements made under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, and the clause as proposed to be amended would presuppose that there is an existing duty to make arrangements under that section. In fact, as my noble friend Lord Feversham pointed out, the arrangements under that section are permissive unless they are converted into a duty by ministerial direction. I think that that was the difficulty my noble friend saw; and that is a difficulty that exists.
There is another point on the drafting of the Amendment. I do not think that it is really necessary, because my right honourable friend has undertaken to issue a direction shortly after the Bill becomes law to convent these permissive functions under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act into a duty in respect of the mentally disordered, That course has this advantage: that when the duty becomes operative in accordance with revised proposals to be made by local health authorities under Section 20 of

111
the Act, to which, again, my noble friend referred, the arrangement will include the services listed in Clause 6 (2) paragraphs (a) to (e) as well as other necessary services, and the Minister's directions will therefore have the effect of going beyond the intentions of the Amendment by embracing all necessary services.
May I come—I think this is the most convenient order—to the point that (if I may put it this way) was crystallised by my noble friend Lord Feversham as to the effect of Clause 141 of the Bill, which empowers the Minister to declare a local health authority to be in default for failing to carry out functions under the Bill. As we heard, similar powers exist under Section 57 of the National Health Service Act in relation to functions under that Act. Therefore it is absolutely correct that in the last resort the Minister may secure the provision of services by transferring them to himself and recovering the cost from the authority concerned. But that is not the method by which my right honourable friend intends to secure that authorities carry out effectively the duties which will be imposed on them by his direction. These duties will be carried out in accordance with proposals which authorities will be required to make to the Minister under Section 20 of the Act. The proposals in turn will be based on advice previously issued by the Minister and may be approved or amended by him: and he can also direct at any later time that the proposals be amended or, in default of this, himself make proposals which then become operative. In this way the arrangements which an individual local health authority will be required to make will be spelt out in some detail, while at the same time leaving ample scope for local development and local initiative. These statutory provisions will no doubt be supplemented by advice from the Minister, such as that contained in his recent circular to local health authorities about development of their services, and by visits by his officers to the authorities. I think that that is a better method than using default powers to meet the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, which was that there should be continual pressure. I am sure the noble Lord did not mean, by "pressure" simply prodding. What he wanted was drive, coupled with constructive help in
112
the work, and that is the mainspring of the system which I have described.
Now, in fairness to the authorities, having taken up and proceeding from Lord Pakenham's point, I want to say that we have no reason to suppose that authorities, generally or individually, will wish to shirk their responsibilities or will be found wanting in the fulfilment of their duties, so long as it is accepted that the development of their services will naturally be spread over a period of time and will depend on the availability of physical resources and of staff, which we are going to discuss in a short time. I am afraid I have wearied your Lordships in many contexts with my theory and belief that, between the central Government and local government, there must be, if the work is going to be well and healthily done, a real partnership; and it is with that in mind that my right honourable friend would prefer to take the course which I have mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Feversham was doubtful, and wanted to know, whether the Minister's default powers had ever in fact been used. In the eleven years during which the National Health Service has been operating—that is, under both the Administration of the noble Lords opposite and our own—this has not been found necessary; but the Minister has used (and I think this is important and is what is really in the minds of both Lord Pakenham and Lord Feversham) the method already described of the approval of schemes under Section 20 of the 1946 Act. It is that method on which he will mainly rely in future, with the application of the methods and encouragements which I have mentioned, in guiding the development of the community mental health services.
Now I come to the question of finance. My noble friend Lord Feversham, going on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked about the division at present as to 6½ per cent. for prevention and after-care and 93½ per cent. for the services which are a statutory duty—such as occupation centres and the mental deficiency supervision service. There is one point—I was not quite sure if my noble friend Lord Feversham had it in mind, and I ought to explain it—namely, that the services which local authorities provide as a duty and which account, as I have said, for something like 93 per

113
cent. of their mental health expenditure, are not confined to services for mental defectives. This expenditure also includes the salaries of duly authorised officers performing their duties under the Lunacy Acts for the admission of mentally ill patients to hospital. The same officers undertake a substantial proportion of the work of home visiting which local authorities at present do for mentally ill patients living at home, and that is included in the 93 per cent.
The 6½ per cent. includes various smaller items, such as the running of social clubs, the provision of milk for children, training centres, and the salaries of staff undertaking home visits who are not also performing statutory functions for mentally ill and defective patients. Having said that, I want to make it clear that we do not dispute that the local authorities' community services for mental defectives are at present more extensive than services for the mentally ill. This is, in one way, only to be expected, because the mental deficiency services have always included a great deal of work for defectives living at home; but until comparatively recently services for the mentally ill were provided almost entirely in and from the hospitals. Home visiting and other social work for mentally ill patients living at home, including after-care for those discharged from hospital, is a comparatively recent development.
When my right honourable friend has issued his promised direction under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, services for all types of mental patients will be a duty, and we naturally expect that those parts of the services which are at present least developed will, in the course of time, expand to account for a greater proportion of the expenditure. I think that: that was one point that Lord Pakenharn had in mind—namely, that we should see not to the end of the present tunnel but an expanding course of action down the vista of the future. In the circular which my right honourable friend sent to local health authorities last month, he reviewed the scope of the services which would be needed and the developments expected. He indicated that he did not wish to lay down any precise order of priority in which the various needs were to be met but that he thought it right to seek to meet, at an early stage, the
114
needs of the children by providing training for all who are suitable; and expenditure on this part of the service is therefore bound to continue at a substantial level.
We have no reason to think that the authorities will unfairly or improperly favour one part of their mental health services. In the field of prevention, however, I think everyone who has studied the problem would agree that there is, unfortunately, no easy course to be adopted, and the preventive services, measured in terms of expenditure, may well continue to be less than the services for training and occupation centres and residential homes, all of which require expensive buildings and staff. But I should like to assure your Lordships that they are very much in our mind, and that the effort will be continued along that path.
I fully understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham—which, indeed, I think is the desire of all of us—that we should produce not merely a lengthy piece of legislation but something which has an active effect in the country. I believe that, apart from the technical difficulties that I have mentioned, the method which my right honourable friend wishes to adopt is the better method. On the general point, I suggest—I am not dictating to your Lordships; it would be no use if I did, and I hope that your Lordships will not take it amiss—that there are so many important points that noble Lords may like to consider again the facts that I have put; and if you feel, after consideration, that they are inadequate, you will have your remedy on Report stage. But I do not press that at all. It is often necessary in politics, for very good reasons, to make a gesture, and if noble Lords feel that they must make a gesture I should be the last to be affronted by it. I put forward this suggestion only because the problems on this Bill are difficult and I should be glad to consider again what has been said on important points on every one of these Amendments.
LORD PAKENHAM: None of us on this side, and I am sure it is true elsewhere, will ever take anything amiss which comes from the noble and learned Viscount; he is far too highly esteemed. If ever I came near to taking anything amiss, it would be the suggestion, even

115
if meant in a jocular sense, that any Amendment moved from this side must be only a gesture.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry. What I meant to say (I was wrapping up my words in the usual way) was that if the noble Lord felt that he ought to make a gesture on this subject and push the matter to a Division, I should not take it amiss. I did not mean the Amendment—far from thinking that the Amendment is a gesture, I think that it is a most interesting contribution to the subject.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his courtesy. The noble and learned Viscount informed us—and I take it from him as a statement before which I must bow—that legally this Amendment was not quite correct. But the noble and learned Viscount is so fair and such a good lawyer that I can afford not to lay too much stress on that legal point, because I am sure that if this Amendment were carried, it would be perfectly possible to put it in a form which would pass the scrutiny of the noble and learned
Viscount. Our intention is perfectly plain, and as I opened at some length I hope that the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Lords, Lord Feversham and Lord Grenfell, will not think me discourteous if I do not seek in any sense to reply to their points. I have set up my side and the other side has now been set up. We consider that unless there is very strong pressure on local authorities—I realise that any Minister must express high hopes about the intentions of local authorities, but I am afraid that the record is there—they simply will not do their duty. I feel sure, for the reasons I have pointed out, that the only effective form of pressure is the kind indicated in this Amendment. Therefore, I know that the noble and learned Viscount will not take it amiss, and will not even take it as a gesture in a light-minded sense, if I say that we believe that we must push this matter to a Division.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hall, V.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Amwell, L.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Chorley, L.

Lawson, L.

Stansgate, V.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Darwen, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Taylor, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mathers, L.

Williams, L.

Faringdon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Baroness

Granville-West, L.

Pakenham, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Gosford, E.

Polwarth, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hampton, L.

Raglan, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Hawke, L.

Rank, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hereford, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Bathurst, E.

Home, E.

Robins, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

JesseL, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Saltoun, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Simonds, V.

Denham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sinha, L.

Dovercourt, L.

Margesson, V.

Soulbury, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stair, E.

Fortescue, E.

Meston, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Milverton, L.

Swinton, E.

Freyberg, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Twining, L.

Furness, V.

Morley, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Glyn, L.

Newall, L.

Waleran, L.

Goschen, V.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.13 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "centres" to insert:
"and the provision of adequate numbers of suitably trained and remunerated staff".
The noble Lord said: I do not want to detain the Committee so long this time, not because this is not an important question, but because the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will speak about this matter a good deal better than I can. We are all concerned in this Amendment with the strengthening of Clause 6 (2) (b), which refers to
"the provision of centres or other facilities for training or occupation, and the equipment and maintenance of such centres".
Here we are concerned with the provision of adequately remunerated staff in sufficient numbers. I am sure we all agree that we shall not get anywhere under this clause without sufficient, adequately paid and adequately trained staff. There is general agreement among the medical and psychological experts who work in this field that much more can be done to develop the subnormal child within the limits of his capacity than has been done hitherto, and that this type of work requires a similar kind of training to that given to nursery school and primary school teachers. At the present time we find an extraordinary disparity between the remuneration received by a teacher who chooses to operate in an occupation centre and that of a similar kind of teacher who operates in an educationally subnormal school.
To take one obvious comparison, the occupation centre teacher's maximum expectation under the Whitley scale is £535 a year, while the E.S.N. teacher's maximum expectation under the Burnham scale is £796 a year. I feel that there is obviously something wrong there, and the result is what one might expect: that it is difficult at present to recruit into occupation centre work people with the educational qualifications required, which in this case we regard as every bit as essential as those required for the nursery school teacher in an ordinary school. I beg to move this Amendment, and I know that those with greater first-hand experience—though I have recently come into this field rather intensely—wish to support it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, after ("centres") insert the said words.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD GRENFELL: Whilst I had some doubts about the last Amendment, I have no doubt whatever about this one. I think it is an important Amendment, and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it. Again I speak rather from the point of view of the children, because that is what I know most about. The training in these centres is very exacting and specialised. There are all sorts of ways of moving those small minds so that they work in one direction and get an advance. At the moment, some of the councils set up their own training courses and, of course, provide trainees for training in the centres. I know that my noble friend Lord Feversham will be speaking about the part that his society takes in this matter. I am certain that those who volunteer for this work are longing to learn, but it is obvious that at the moment the facilities for training are insufficient. I have talked to a number of these trainees, and they all agreed that they would not ask for more remuneration until they felt they were qualified to a certain standard to teach these children. But then they feel that the remuneration paid to them is not conducive to encouraging a great many people to take up this invaluable work. We must remember, as I said on Second Reading that, owing to medical science, many more of these children will be growing up into adults than was the case before. Hence we shall need new teachers who, with the greater responsibilities, will need more specialised training. I think the words "adequate numbers of suitably trained and remunerated staff" are the right ones, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I, too, strongly support this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who I am glad to hear also supports the Amendment, has said that facilities for training the kind of staff we need in these training establishments for backward children is inadequate; but in my view they do not exist at all. We are not talking here about psychiatric social workers but about people who, to my mind, really must be born to the job. Last

119
Friday I officially opened the first purpose-built centre in the County of Devon for mentally handicapped children. It is the first of its kind in the county, and I think there are only six such centres in the whole of the country. This centre accommodates some thirty children. I learned there how it started. It started because some years before the war a schoolteacher found that young children were coming to her school during lunch periods and intervals, and they proved always to be backward children. The headmistress did not understand the reason, and spoke to the teacher about this, and asked why it was.
The reason was that that particular teacher understood the children; and the children, with what little understanding they had, knew that they could obtain from her understanding, sympathy and teaching. So, as a voluntary effort, assisted by charitably minded people, a small house was taken and a school was set up. It was out of that school that this centre, now officially opened by the Devon County Council, grew.
There are no training facilities for people of that kind anywhere in the country. The only way they can be trained is by being put in contact with people such as the teacher I have described, who has not merely an aptitude but the charactistics, heart, knowledge and monumental patience which this particularly rewarding kind of work requires. We want men and women who combine craft and teaching qualifications with that particular kind of patience which is necessary for dealing with the mentally retarded. It is no good talking about large-scale training schemes of the kind of which we think for ordinary educative purposes. A totally different kind of teaching is required, and there are no training courses of that kind presently available. I hope that in considering this Amendment the noble and learned Viscount will realise that fact.
We hope that, instead of these children going into mental deficiency hospitals, they will live at home and go to centres of this kind for their education and training. That is the ideal embodied in this Bill. But for the moment there are literally no centres; and secondly there are not the teachers to man them. The
120
National Society for the Mentally Handicapped has just started a scheme at Slough, estimated to cost £50,000, for fifty children. There are 500,000 men-mentally handicapped children in this country—five times as many as the blind. That is a five-to-one ratio, and it gives some idea of the size of this particular task.
The Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Pakenham mentions adequate pay for the people who do this work. Let me say at once that these people are not in this work for the pay they receive. But it is not right that we should continue to impose upon these people and pay them less, in many cases considerably less, than we pay to factory workers. Therefore, it is necessary, first of all, for the Government to decide upon appropriate salary scales, and then to set the machinery of training in motion. I suggest that we must begin to recruit from male and female nurses in mental deficiency hospitals; and we must seek advice on training, and on the syllabus, from the Guild of Teachers of Backward Children who have been making tremendous progress in recent years, and whose advice in this respect will be invaluable. I believe that it is only in that way that we shall get the nucleus of people we need at the beginning to train others—the people who are born for the job. In the beginning, it is not necessary for them to have advanced academic qualifications.
I remember, a few years ago, going into one of the mental deficiency hospitals for which I was responsible, and there were in the room 30 to 40 young men from the age of 18 to 25. Not one of them could speak because their mental age was too low. They were in the charge of a male nurse who was one of those inspired people, and he has actually taught those very young children (if I may use that expression) behaviour, handicrafts and to understand each other, and has shown them how to be happier—a truly marvellous work which could not be learnt from books, but which, somehow, such a man could impart to others. Those are the people we must seek out to take charge of these centres, when we have them, to train the necessary staffs and then build up a syllabus to encourage others. Unless the Government take the lead with the local authorities in requiring the inclusion of such plans in the centres

121
which they will eventually have to submit, and unless they take the necessary steps to ensure that there will be adequate rewards, then this section of the Act will remain a dead letter; it will be no more than the ink and paper upon which it is printed. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be taken very seriously, because it is an extremely important matter and will go a long way towards solving one of the great remaining social problems of our time.
4.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said that there are no training facilities for supervisors and teachers of the mentally handicapped. I should like to assure the noble Lord that in this respect he is entirely wrong. The Association of which I am Chairman, the National Association for Mental Health, is the training body at present recognised by the Ministry of Health for the training of staffs. And I may say that this organisation is the only recognised organisation which provides training with a diploma attached. There may be other training facilities undertaken by local authorities, but there is no diploma attached.
I should like to detain the Committee for a few moments, in supporting this Amendment, to speak of the more important aspects of it. We started training in 1945 with 17 students. In 1956, we had 108 students, and so far we have trained over 600. That 600 does not take into account certificates awarded to experienced students who come for refresher courses. In 1948, there were 77 occupational centres; today there are 293. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that there were 16,500 patients in centres, but we know that there are another 8,500 who still need training, and that three-quarters of them are persons over 16 years of age. The emphasis up to date has, I think, properly been given to the training of the young and those under 16 years of age; but now the vital requirement, after meeting the demand for all those under 16, is to meet the demand for adults.
We are at present discussing with the Ministry of Health a revised form of training for supervisors working in these centres. My Association is also closely
122
concerned with the Association of Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped, a body which lays down the conditions of service for these staffs. We have done our best to see that their status and remuneration is improved, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has instanced to your Lordships, our endeavours have not been as successful as we should have hoped. In these training schemes not all local authorities pay the full fees for students to receive our course. I do not fully know the reasons, the variety of reasons, why local authorities will not pay the full fee for the course, but we endeavour to make up whatever grant is made by that particular local authority, out of the block grant that we receive as a voluntary association from the Ministry of Health.
It may well be that the intent of this Amendment is already covered by the power that the Minister has, but I should like an assurance from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it is agreed by the Ministry that this training is of vital interest and vital moment for the mentally handicapped, and I would support the Amendment because undoubtedly it underlines a need which deserves to be recognised by all local authorities and others.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: First of all may I say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we are in full sympathy with the intention of this Amendment and fully recognise the last remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Feversham. Adequate staff will be necessary for the proper functioning of all the local authority mental health services; that is, for example, the residential accommodation specified in Clause 6 (2) (a), and for the after-care services for mentally disordered persons at home which are not specifically mentioned in Clause 6 at all. The provision of a service implies, of course, the employment of a sufficient staff, and therefore it is thought not necessary to single out a particular branch of the service and say that it shall be adequately staffed. It is true that in Clause 6 (2) (c) the appointment of mental welfare officers is mentioned, but this is to bring into Clause 6, and thus into Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, the appointment of mental welfare officers to perform the numerous functions which are specified in later parts of the Bill.

123
We agree that staff at training centres certainly need to be skilled at their job, whether employed at a centre which trains children or whether employed at one which trains adults. The National Association for Mental Health, of which the noble Earl is Chairman, at present provides two courses of three terms in London and Manchester for supervisors in training centres, and these lead, as the noble Lord said, to a diploma which is accepted as a suitable qualification by local authorities and by the Ministry. The Association, I understand, also runs from time to time in various centres a longer in-service training course. It also provides an annual residential refresher course. The Association, I also understand, is currently considering whether to provide a course specifically for supervisors in adult centres and is in touch with local authorities on this proposal. The Ministry of Health encourages this training by including in its annual grant to the Association an amount for bursaries to be awarded to students at the Association's courses. So far as the Ministry knows, there is no shortage of staff for training centres, but it may well be that as standards of training rise and the number of centres continues to expand a shortage of suitably trained staff will develop and the training arrangements will need to be expanded, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment suggested.
It would not be helpful to provide in the Bill that staff should be suitably trained since this would require some definition and interpretation. At present a requirement that the qualification should be the possession of the diploma of the National Association for Mental Health would be unduly restrictive. The Minister can, however, at any time make regulations under Section 66 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, to prescribe qualifications of officers employed by a local health authority, and this could include staff at training centres. The Minister will certainly bear in mind whether at some future date the making of regulations would be helpful.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, I would ask him how he substantiates the statement that it would be unduly restrictive to require students to receive the diploma. It seems to me that it would be necessary
124
to make all those entering centres as supervisors or teachers able to receive the diploma, and that would enable the local authority to go to the right source of training facilities in order to obtain that diploma. As it is, untrained personnel can be employed by the local authority, and that is the thing that the movers of this Amendment deplore.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps the noble Earl misunderstood. I think the Minister has in mind to wait a little while to see whether there are other sources which would also have some form of diploma, rather than to tie it down as the noble Earl suggested.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation, but I hope his right honourable friend the Minister will not wait too long.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think I can assure the noble Earl that my right honourable friend has it very much in mind.
On the question of remuneration, it is really unnecessary to provide in the Bill that a particular group of officers should be suitably remunerated. The remuneration of staff at training centres is a matter for negotiation by the recognised machinery for the settlement of salaries and conditions of service of local authority staff.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again. I would point out that the revision of salaries and the training and appointment of local authority social workers has now been exhaustively reviewed by the Younghusband Committee, whose Report was recently published, and this category of teachers in centres for the mentally handicapped is excluded from the terms of reference of the Young-husband Committee. Therefore I think it needs special, particular and specific consideration by the Minister.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, I quite agree with the noble Earl; but it would still have to go through the recognised machinery. I would end my reply to this Amendment by saying that the Government wholly sympathise with the intentions behind the Amendment, but, for the various reasons I have given, I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD PAKENHAM: I know the noble Earl will not think me discourteous if I say I am disappointed with his answer. It was kind of him to refer to our intentions and I appreciate his courtesy. I know that those who have been working in this field for many years (I have recently joined in), some of whom have spoken to-day, will be as disappointed as, and perhaps more disappointed than, I am. I find it difficult to know what is the appropriate Parliamentary practice. It would be impossible to express oneself satisfied, to lie down under this answer. Equally, it seems to me it would be unwise this afternoon to flare up and demand a verdict, "Yes" or "No". I think the wisest thing—particularly in view of something very pertinent which the noble Lord said about the fact that other categories ought to be mentioned—would be to withdraw this Amendment now and reserve the right to return to it, as I expect we shall do, at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (2) (c), after the first "of" to insert "qualified".
The noble Earl said: I can assure your Lordships that on the ensuing clauses of this Bill I do not intend to speak at the length that I have already done. I have put down this Amendment because I consider it to be a most important and far-reaching one. Training for mental welfare officers has been asked for ever since the Report of the Mackintosh Committee was published in 1951. Their training has been put off time and again.
The matter was considered by Lord Percy's Royal Commission on Health Visitors and subsequently by the Young-husband Committee, and the reason always given has been that because the Reports of those bodies were in preparation no long-term action could be taken. We now have a recommendation from the Younghusband Committee that mental welfare workers should be trained for two years, along with certain other social workers in the local authority service. Of course this proposal requires consultations, and I hope that at a subsequent date your Lordships may have an opportunity of debating the far-reaching recommendations of the Younghusband Committee. But I would
126
point out that this service has suffered for nearly ten years through having no training for new entrants. The duties and powers which this Bill places upon mental welfare officers require them to have qualifications and experience in mental health work. As the Committee will know, there is at present no recognised qualification for welfare officers. Since 1948, appointments have generally been made in the light of the individual's knowledge and experience, especially as a relieving officer; and appointments have been made in the knowledge of his general aptitude for the work. In addition to administrative work, about 97 per cent. of mental welfare officers have visiting duties, and they are mainly concerned with the responsibilities under the Mental Deficiency Acts.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the designation "mental welfare officer" throughout the country differs greatly. In the Younghusband Report various grades of local authority officers carry out this work to which I have referred. It is a most confusing subject. I do not want to go into it at any length, but it is interesting to see from that Report that 349 welfare officers do not act as mental welfare officers but 428 welfare officers do act also as mental welfare officers, while 625 mental welfare officers do not act as welfare officers. Therefore it will be seen that there is great variation of appointment in this sphere. I should like to refer your Lordships to tables in the Younghusband Report, at pages 85 and 86, showing the numbers in local authorities who act as mental welfare officers and those who do not. Even more significant in this Report is the table which gives the ages of mental welfare officers; it shows that nearly half the men, and over one-third of the women, are due to retire within 15 years. That is a most significant and important aspect if the whole principle of the Bill, the development of community service, is to fall upon one of the key workers, the mental welfare officer. Because of a lack of status of social workers in the eyes of local authorities, because there is no training, and because there is no qualification, there are very few new entrants.
Mental welfare officers themselves have sought for a long time to have a recognised course of training and to be

127
able to receive a recognised qualification. I submit that a sufficient number of the right people will never be collected in sufficient numbers to do this kind of work unless there is this qualification status. The reorientation of mental health work means that we have to get away from the extraordinary fascination of buildings and concentrate on services. I have for many years been a member of a local authority, and I think those of your Lordships who have served in that capacity will share with me the sense of great accomplishment felt when one sees an institution or bricks and mortar going up; whereas the assessment of what is done by community service is very much more difficult to arrive at. I would say that if the consequences of this Bill are to be sensible we must get away from the domination of buildings, and must provide services for patients in the community.
What is the good of providing excellent treatment within our hospitals, and in out-patients' departments, if there is no form of after-care or community care when the patient is discharged? I cannot emphasise too strongly that, if this Bill is to be translated into effective action, it needs the combined skills of administrative and clinical departments of the medical officers of health and of the specialist psychiatric service. I think this is the whole crux of the problem underlying this Bill. We have to bring together the respective technical skills of the psychiatric and public health specialist. The mental welfare officer is, in fact, the key worker in this team. Why? Because he has four duties to fulfil. First, he has the duty of visiting patients in their homes, and he will be one of the main participants in preventive work. Secondly, he is the officer responsible for obeying the regulations for the compulsory admission of patients. Thirdly, he will be responsible for maintaining contact between the patients in hospital and their families or employers. Fourthly, he will have work to do on behalf of patients outside the hospital in after care in the community.
I would say, in underlining the necessity to get this service properly established at the earliest possible date, that the purpose of the Bill is not based upon the claims of individual authorities, but upon the need to provide clinical con-
128
tinuity in the treatment of individual patients; and the mental welfare officer obviously has a very big claim to make for adequate training if he is to fulfil, and if he is expected to fulfil, his part in this comprehensive service. I have already referred, and reference has been made on a previous Amendment, to the large amount of money available under the existing service. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was good enough to give me a full reply in respect of those services which are not in existence at the moment. This is one of the services which, in many respects, virtually is not in existence at the moment, and which will require a far greater figure than the £900,000 increase, making a total of £4 million, and, the year after, a total of £6 million, which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, mentioned, if we are to be effective in this treatment.
I have raised this point and spoken at some length on it, because my right honourable friend the Minister said, in another place, in respect of this subject, that
"We shall be able, by the time this Bill goes to another place, to see whether we can proceed more appropriately and quickly by regulation or by introducing something in another place."
As my right honourable friend made this observation in commenting upon the need for appointing qualified mental welfare officers, it seems quite reasonable to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether any action has been decided upon by Her Majesty's Government on the steps they propose to take. I would also ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he would give me an assurance that emergency training will be provided for selected officers and that some emergency arrangements will be made for new entrants. Such an important interim provision seems very necessary in order to fill the gap until the Report of the Young-husband Committee is considered and possibly implemented. As I said in commencing my remarks on this Amendment, the gap is already too wide and ought to be closed at the earliest possible date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, after ("of") insert ("qualified").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Clause 6 (2) (c) of this Bill makes it clear that under

129
Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, local authorities' functions include the appointment of officers to act as mental welfare officers under the Bill. The Amendment would provide for appointment of "qualified" officers. It is doubtful whether the insertion of "qualified" at this point of the Bill would achieve anything without further amendment to indicate what "qualified" actually meant. The object, however, is clearly similar to that discussed at both Committee and Report stage in another place [Commons Committee E, cols. 125–135, and OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 605 (No. 107), cols. 247–257) when stress was laid on the importance of ensuring that mental welfare officers have training and qualifications appropriate to their important duties under the Bill.
The objections to the Amendment are, first, that in so far as it achieves anything at: all, it would differentiate between mental welfare officers with functions under the Bill and those doing general home visiting and welfare work for mentally disordered people under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act. The second objection is that it is unnecessary to make special provision in the Bill because the Minister already has power under Section 66 of the National Health Service Act to make regulations with respect to the qualifications of any officer appointed by local health authorities if it seems necessary to do so. The general policy of the Minister is to relax Government controls over local authorities and we should not make such regulations without full justification.
Thirdly, as the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, has said, Her Majesty's Government must have regard to the recent recommendations of the Younghusband Working Party which was set up by the Minister and Secretary of State for Scotland to inquire into the proper field of work and the recruitment and training of social workers at all levels in the local authorities' health and welfare services. The Report is a very long document which will require careful study. No comments can yet be made on the recommendations, but the Minister has already sought the views of the local authority associations and I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships, on his behalf, that he will be happy to have any comments from the many inter-
130
ested professional or other organisations concerned. He will lose no time in considering what action is called for, but clearly cannot reach any decisions until all the necessary consultations have taken place. These are now in progress but naturally must take some time.
The noble Earl, Lord Feversham quoted the statement by the right honourable gentleman, the Minister, on the Report stage of this Bill in another place, and I can tell him that the consultations with local authorities are now in progress, and that it is clear that the most appropriate course is to rely on the Minister's power to make recommendations under Section 66 of the National Health Service Act, for use if necessary, I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for the reply he has given, although I cannot pretend that I am in the least satisfied with it. It seems a particularly unresponsive and ungenerous reply to have received, in view of the fact that this matter has been well ventilated by all those interested in the status and welfare of mental welfare officers for a great number of years. I had hoped that I should receive from the representative of Her Majesty's Government at this stage in the progress of the Bill a statement to the effect that some provisional interim training would be allowed for mental welfare workers.
I am not satisfied with the statement made by the noble Earl telling me that the Minister is in consultation with local authorities where necessary. Nor am I at all satisfied with the answer given by the noble Earl that it is impossible to establish specific and well-defined qualifications for mental welfare workers because they would be in a separate designation from other welfare workers employed by the same local authority. If that is the only answer we can receive, it seems that there ought to be an inquiry to look further into the recommendations already made on this subject by the Younghusband Committee.
If I may be permitted to say so, it seems that possibly through the exigencies of this Bill those who have advised my noble friend, Lord Onslow, have not had time to appreciate the full implications of the recommendations contained in the

131
Report of the Younghusband Committee, because it is there clearly stated that one of the duties of qualified trained social workers employed by the local authority, and one of the most important aspects of their social work, is the underlying permissive powers contained in this Mental Health Bill. Therefore, while I do not mean to press this matter to a Division, I hope that at a subsequent stage of the Bill the noble and learned Viscount will be able to give a little more satisfaction in regard to this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that my noble friend has been dissatisfied, because there are really three points which I hoped we should have as common ground. I do not think he appreciates that the difficulty felt by my noble friend, Lord Onslow, was that the Amendment would differentiate between mental welfare officers with functions under the Bill and mental welfare officers who are doing general home visiting and welfare work for mentally disordered people under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act. I believe that there is the difference on that point. If we are going to differentiate between two sections of mental welfare officers, it seems to me that we are running into difficulties. That was what my noble friend Lord Onslow and I felt.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: May I intervene to say that surely in the Amendment which we have already discussed we have had the assurance of my right honourable friend the Minister that Section 28, which gives permissive duties to local authorities, is now to be made mandatory by his direction on those local authorities, and therefore the mental welfare officers will not have, as hitherto, specific duties under previous Acts and permissive duties which were never applied. When this Bill is passed, the mental welfare officer will be on the same ground, whatever his duties may be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take the noble Earl's point that he thinks that the effect of the Bill, applied to Section 28, would be to remove the differentiation between these categories. I must say, to be quite frank, that it had not occurred to me in that way. I thought that there was the difficulty that the noble Earl's Amendment would mean
132
a special position attaching to welfare officers who did work which was specifically mentioned in the Bill. That is certainly what my noble friend Lord Onslow and I thought was the effect of the Amendment, but may I have another look at that, in case there has been a misunderstanding?
On the second point, I want to make clear, with regard to the Younghusband Report, that my noble friend Lord Onslow and I had in mind the recommendation of the Younghusband Report for the provision of emergency one-year courses for a strictly limited period to give suitable training to officers such as mental welfare officers, which is what I think my noble friend had in mind. That is one of the matters that my right honourable friend the Minister is discussing with the local authorities at the moment. With respect to my noble friend Lord Feversham, I think he will appreciate that it is a long and important Report and that one must therefore allow a certain time for discussion. That does not mean that we do not consider the matter important. My right honourable friend in fact had in mind in the passage which my noble friend Lord Feversham quoted, that there were two possible courses: to deal with it in the Bill, or alternatively, to deal with it by regulation. The position is that the discussions are still going on and he will deal with it if necessary by regulation.
I should like to repeat what my noble friend Lord Onslow began by saying: that the Government do not for one moment dissent from the need that mental welfare officers should be appropriately trained for their vital work in the local authority mental health service. We realise that the main task will fall on them in providing care and after-care services in the homes, as my noble friend Lord Feversham pointed out, as well as the more formal functions laid down by the Bill. We appreciate—my noble friend will remember I stressed this point in the debate he initiated some eighteen months ago—that most of the present staff have, from long experience, achieved great skill at their work. They all bring to their work, as I said before and I am very glad to say again, the sympathy and understanding which is so necessary, and they accept that further improvement would come from training; and it is certainly the Government's wish that this

133
should be provided as soon as possible. I hope that my noble friend Lord Feversham will not himself think, or that any of those whom in a broad sense he represents will not think, that my right honourable friend is treating the Younghusband Report as an escape. He is not. The discussion of that Report is the method by which we hope to get the best results.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am deeply indebted to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for having amplified the earlier reply and for having gone so fully into the question. I think the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate that my concern was that, as the recommendations of the Younghusband Committee's Report were so far reaching and in many ways radical, it would perhaps be possible, rather than waiting a further period—the period of waiting has already been ten years—for my right honourable friend the Minister to allow the appropriate body, whether it is my Association or another, to have an interim scheme whereby new entrants can be attracted to the service and the existing members of that service can have some opportunity of higher qualification. But I am greatly indebted to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the full answer he has given and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conduct of premises of local health authorites]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.6 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: Clause 7 is called "Conduct of premises of local health authorities", and here we come up against a question which has arisen in another context already this afternoon: the question of permissive or mandatory power. It is obviously impossible to put down in detail in mandatory form how these premises should be conducted, but I raised on Second Reading one particular aspect of hospital management and that is the chaplaincy services to be provided. I pointed out that the very old Acts are being repealed, and that parts of them have already been
134
repealed (including a part I quoted, although I did not realise it at the time), and that all the specific detailed provisions contained in them are being done away with. I feel now, not that we need to put into this Bill specific provisions on these matters but that we need to have an assurance that the chaplaincy services will be as adequate in the future as they have been in the past. I understand that the appointment of officers for mental hospitals, as well as in all types of hospitals, has for many years now been at the discretion of hospital boards and committees. There is, of course, nothing at all wrong with that principle and I have no doubt that the system works perfectly adequately. But what is essential is that mental patients, and, indeed, all other patients, should be guaranteed the right of access of their chaplains.
The matter is largely dealt with by circular, and I understand that a circular on the subject ensures that the parish priest or minister of each patient shall have the right to visit him. I am not certain what is the statutory status of these circulars. I take it that if the Minister makes a regulation under a Bill of this nature, that regulation has statutory force. Presumably a circular does not have such force, but no doubt if the Minister found, on any important point, that a circular was not being complied with he could give it statutory force by regulation. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can clear my mind on that point. The sum total of the matter of this question is whether the Minister, in making regulations for the conduct of these hospitals, will make some regulations that will guarantee to every patient the right of access of a minister of religion of his own particular denomination. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, if he is able to answer that point, will confirm also that it will apply, as it surely ought to apply, equally, if not a fortiori, to special hospitals referred to in Part VII of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have an apology to make to my noble friend Lord Craigmyle. He raised this point on Second Reading and owing to some failure of my conjuring capacities with the various papers I had to deal with in making a reply to many speeches, I lost the note containing his point. I hope that he will not be angry with me for that human failure. No responsible person

135
could dissent from what my noble friend said about the importance of ensuring that every patient in hospital should have the services of a minister of religion of his own persuasion. To put the matter at its lowest, the visits of a chaplain are clearly an indispensable part of the cure of many patients. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, rather foreshadowed that in what he said on the first Amendment. The only question with which I think I need deal to-day is the method by which the provision of these services should be ensured.
It is generally thought inappropriate in modern Bills to make elaborate provision for such matters as the appointment of officers of a hospital, if they can be dealt with satisfactorily by administrative arrangements and where the rigidity of a statutory provision is out of place: but I do want to assure my noble friend that this does not mean that the matter in question is considered to be unimportant. My noble friend had in mind that the Lunacy Act, 1890, after the fashion of its time, dealt expressly with officers of asylums; but, as he mentioned in his speech to-day, Section 276 of that Act was repealed by the National Health Service Act, and since 1948 the appointment of officers for mental hospitals, as well as for all types of hospitals, has been at the discretion of the hospital boards and committees set up under the Act.
The current practice is that chaplains of any of the denominations concerned are appointed, full-time or part-time, according to the needs of the patients in the hospital. Again, as my noble friend had in mind, circulars issued by the Ministry of Health also require that any patient shall have the right to be visited by his own parish priest or minister, if he so wishes. I do not think that my noble friend would particularly want that the only special provision remaining of the 1890 Act—namely, Section 277—should be re-enacted in its present form, because I think it would be repugnant to modern ideas to re-enact a provision that discriminates in favour of the Established Church at the expense of the others in so far as the medical superintendent now has statutory power to regulate the conditions under which ministers of any other persuasion may visit patients. We feel that this is a matter which can be
136
dealt with administratively, and that by that means we can deal with the situation as it exists, or as it may change.
I feel that this is a matter in which the general public control of administration is so tender and responsible and strong that it is something which can safely be left to flexible administrative procedures. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, that we do not underestimate the importance of his point; and I shall, of course, convey to my right honourable friend what he has said to-day. But, so far as I have examined the matter since his Second Reading speech, I am satisfied that he need not worry about anyone being deprived of the great benefits which religion may give.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 13 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 13 to insert the following new clause:
Regional Hospital Boards
".—(1)Nothing in Part II of this Act shall be construed as removing from regional hospital boards or hospital management committees any of the functions exercised by them under the National Health Service Act, 1943 in respect of the treatment of patients outside hospital.
(2)Local health authorities shall consult with regional hospital boards and hospital management committees in making arrangements for the care and after-care of patients suffering from mental disorder.
(3)Joint schemes between local health authorities and regional hospital boards and hospital management committees for the care and after-care of patients suffering from mental disorder may be made, and the cost of such joint schemes may be divided between the authorities in any manner agreed between them, subject to the approval of the Minister.
(4)Local health authorities may secure provision for the care and after-care of patients suffering from mental disorder by means of agency arrangements with regional hospital boards and hospital management committees.
(5)If the service for the care and aftercare of patients suffering from mental disorder provided by any local health authority is, in the opinion of the Minister, inadequate to meet the needs of the patients in the area, the regional hospital boards and hospital management committees may make such provision as they deem to be necessary."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the insertion of the new clause standing in my name and that of my noble friends. May I say that I was thinking of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor when he spoke of his conjuring capacity. So far, he has made four Amendments disappear up his sleeve. I hope he will not make all of this Amendment also disappear in his capacious and very skilled manner. My noble friend Lord Stonham and I have both keen chairmen of mental health committees of Regional Hospital Boards, and my noble friend Lord Lucan is himself a member of a hospital management committee. I think we all feel that the substance of this Amendment will, in fact, have to operate whether or not the Amendment is written into the law. Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, to which a reference has already been made, has given local authorities power to take care of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness, and to provide the after-care of such persons, without making it mandatory; and under that section a great deal has been done for mental defectives—not so much as we want to be done for the mentally subnormal, but a substantial amount.
On the other hand, I think everybody agrees that in the case of mental illness very little has so far been done by the local health authorities. In every case where there has been developed a good service for the after-care of the mentally ill, it has been a joint effort between the local health authority and a hospital management committee. Strangely enough, I think that in every case except one it has been a county borough. I suspect that the reason for this is that in a county borough the medical officer of health is usually in close personal contact with the medical superintendent of the local mental hospital, and they have been able to work together. In the case of a county, there may be four or five medical superintendents concerned, often with overlapping catchment areas, and similar difficulties; so that very little has developed, and what has been done has sprung from the Regional Hospital Boards.
Our concern is to make sure that the Regional Hospital Boards are not inhibited in the good work they are already doing. Take, for example, the home-visiting of discharged patients.
138
This is normally done by psychiatric social workers, or social workers from the hospital working under the psychiatrist who has looked after the patient in a hospital—and this is really essential, There must be a continuity between hospital care and home care; and the danger of this present Bill arises at the point where the Regional Board service meets the local health authority.
One of the best of these local health authority services is in the City of York, and in 1953 the Medical Officer of Health for York and the Superintendent of the York Mental Hospitals prepared a memorandum showing how such a joint scheme could be worked out. These words are so striking that I propose, if your Lordships will forgive me, to quote them. This is what the memorandum said:
"Unless steps are taken to overcome the administrative fissure between the responsibilities of the hospital authorities on the one hand and the local authority on the other, it is not possible for either of them effectively to discharge their duties to the public as far as psychiatric help is concerned.
"Moreover, unless there is close clinical and administrative liaison between the two authorities, not only is the mental health of the public not effectively treated, but there is also a waste of public money. Thus, if a family has one member a defective, another a maladjusted child, and a third a patient in Naburn or Bootham Park Hospital, then no fewer than three social workers of one sort or another may visit the house for mental welfare purposes.
"It is essential to create a comprehensive mental health service, and this entails combining the specialist services of the hospital with the local authority service, under a joint user arrangement"
The Report goes on—
"This idea is one which has been most effectively put into practice elsewhere and earlier. Portsmouth in this country evolved such a practice in about 1926, under Dr. Thomas Beaton"
In York, where they have established an organisation on these lines, a joint committee of the hospital management committee and the York City Council has been set up, and this joint committee has been responsible for running the mental health after-care service. This joint committee includes three representatives of the City Council and three of the hospital management committee, together with the officers of both—that is to say, the medical superintendent and the medical officer of health. They have found

139
in practice, as inevitably would occur, that they have had to work out ways of splitting the cash costs. The hospital management committee bear 25 per cent., of clerical staff salaries, and the corporation pay the remainder. Five per cent. of the cost of the mental welfare officer is paid by the hospital management committee, and they split the rent of the joint premises used and the salary of an assistant psychiatrist, of which six-elevenths is paid by the management committee and five-elevenths by the local authority. I feel that that is inevitably what happens where such a scheme is set up. It is the only way to work it.
I am hoping that the Government will say that this is the way matters will be worked under the Bill. If they say that, of course, there is no need whatever for us to insist on this clause. The phrasing of the clause is in no sense sacrosanct. We are amateur draftsmen, and doubtless we have made errors in our clause. If, for example, the noble and learned Viscount were to throw out subsections (4) and (5), saying they are absolute nonsense—in fact, they are attempts to make sure that the local authority do their job—there would be no ill-feeling. We should still feel that we had achieved the essential thing—which is, that this service, to provide a continuum for the mentally ill patient, shall be provided by the hospital management committee and the local health authority. Unless that is done the idea will not work. That is all there is to it.
I hope that the Government will be able to say that this is how they intend it to work, that the hospital management committees and local authorities will consult together and that, as inevitably will be necessary, there will be a sharing of officers. For example, with the great shortage of psychiatrists, it will be essential to use the hospital board's psychiatric staff, and to split costs. That seems to us the only practical working basis on which they can be used. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
5.25 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Taylor. The noble and
140
learned Viscount will probably recall that it embodies suggestions I made on Second Reading, particularly about the need for joint schemes between local authorities and hospital boards. Before I proceed with my brief remarks, I hope that I shall be allowed to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, and to the National Association for the Mentally Handicapped, for my remarks on a previous Amendment, and for not merely underestimating but totally ignoring the considerable work that the Association does in teaching, and training teachers of, the mentally handicapped. I sincerely hope that any misunderstanding I may have created will not hurt anybody's feelings and will do no harm.
In support of what my noble friend said, may I put to the noble and learned Viscount the position of one hospital group, one of many for which I was formally responsible in the South West? I will not mention the group, but it was in South Somerset, and was responsible for a population of some 260,000 in South Somerset and North Devon. It consisted of a central mental hospital with some 950 patients and about 150 other patients in long-stay annexes—something like 1,100 all told. In January of this year—six months ahead of this Bill—the management committee sat down and considered what their responsibilities would be under this Bill and how they should meet them. The first thing they decided to do was to get in touch with the local authority. So long ago as January, the management committee of that hospital laid down:
"Our responsibility is primarily to fit patients for living responsibly in the community; secondarily, to bring maximum fulfilment to those unfortunate patients who are unable to live in the community by their own efforts"
In order to devote themselves to that primary object, they must link up with the local authority. They reviewed their staff, which consists of nine psychiatrists, four of whom are junior hospital medical officers and three of whom are consultants. Of the 950 patients in the main hospital only 561 receive active treatment at least once a week and the other 419 do not. In other words, sixty-two patients per doctor receive one or more active treatments per week. The three consultants run four out-patient clinics in general hospitals with a total of 150 patients, and see every patient

141
on an average four times a week, in the general hospitals thirty or forty miles away, as they serve a wide area. This means that they keep those 150 patients from coming into the mental hospital in nearly every case. If we do not continue this service, the mental hospital is likely to be swamped.
I make this point to underline what my noble friend says in his Amendment about the need for the continuation of the services exercised by the hospital management committees under the Health Service Act in respect of the treatment of patients outside hospital. It is essential to continue those services to avoid a complete breakdown. I do not want to condemn or appear to over-criticise the local authorities, but I would quote this comment of the hospital management committee to which I have referred.
"Whilst the management committee feel that there should be greater liaison with the local authority, until the county council are able to give a positive reply to the management committee's letter inviting them to discuss this proposal it would be apparent that some patients will be kept in hospital needlessly; and the committee would like to arrange for more suitable care to be provided immediately."
That is one of the major difficulties in this matter. We are going to place heavy additional responsibilities on the local authorities for which they have not yet immediate access to trained staff. Therefore it is most essential that everything possible should be done to ensure that these services continue, and that the mental hospitals and regional hospital boards are in no way discouraged, because in the beginning, as I see it, the initiative for co-operation must come from them. In my view, it is only in the mental hospitals and mental deficiency hospitals that we have the necessary reservoir of trained psychiatrists and staffs who are going to assist in this co-operative effort that is so badly needed. I feel that the objectives that we have in mind cannot be realised without full co-operation between the local authorities and the hospitals. The special efforts which have to be made to keep potential hospital patients at home will not be successful unless the hospitals are allowed to play a full part as equal partners. It must not be a case of schemes being imposed on
142
them; they must be encouraged to use their initiative, to play a full part and to be partners with the local authorities.
My noble friend said a few moments ago that we want to put in the Bill what is actually happening or what is going to happen. How right he is! Only last week I had the same kind of discussion with a county medical officer of health and psychiatrist. They are already starting. But there is every reason for putting these provisions, or something like them, in the Bill, so that we can ensure that there is uniformity and that not only the good ones but those not quite so good also will do it. Therefore there is need for the last subsection in the Amendment; that is to say, if the local authorities do not get on with it, then the Regional Hospital Boards should have power remaining unto them to carry on with the services and to do what is necessary. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will give careful consideration to this particular proposal. If he cannot accept it in its present form, perhaps he will give an assurance that he will think about it between now and the Report stage, when something of a comparable nature can be brought forward.
5.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to make a suggestion to the two noble Lords which would, I think, leave the position entirely unprejudiced. The Government are entirely in favour of co-operation between the hospital boards and the local authorities. The noble Lords will remember from their study of this matter that the Royal Commission, in recommending a general shift in emphasis from hospital care to community care, went on to declare against too rigid a classification of functions; and they realised that the movement would have to be gradual in many areas. Therefore we have felt that this was not a matter for inclusion in the Bill, but rather for administrative encouragement. But I should like to read carefully and to consider with my advisers from the Ministry what both noble Lords have said. I hope they will not misunderstand me. My noble friend and I are fully prepared to deploy the arguments at any time, but as both noble Lords have made considered speeches in the matter, I should still want to hold myself free to

143
give full consideration to those speeches. So, while I cannot make any promise in the matter, I should like to consider those speeches. It might therefore be convenient for the Amendment now to be withdrawn and I will consider it. If we find that we cannot do anything about it, I will let noble Lords know, so that they can, if they wish, put it down again on Report.
LORD TAYLOR: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for that helpful suggestion; it is indeed what we should like the Government to do. We are only desirous that this thing should work, and we feel sure it is essential, if it is to work, that these provisions should be made. Whether it is done through the Act or administratively is of secondary importance. We hope it will be in the Bill so that there may be no inhibitions on the part of the Regional Boards in doing their duty. We willingly accede to the Lord Chancellor's suggestion, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Special provisions as to registration of nursing homes]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, after ("home") insert ("(excluding persons carrying on or employed in the home and their families)").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Special provisions as to registration of residential homes]:
THE EARL OF 'ONSLOW: This is consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 4, after ("home") insert ("(excluding persons carrying on or employed in the home and their families)").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Powers of entry and inspection of other premises]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. This clause gives a mental welfare officer (as defined in Clause 146) power to enter and inspect premises (other than hospitals) in which he has reason to believe a mentally disordered person is not under proper care. Subsection (2) excludes mental nursing homes and residential homes and was inserted to avoid duplication with the powers of inspection in, respectively, Clause 17 of the Bill and Section 40 of the National Assistance Act. The following Amendment proposes to delete subsection (2) because (a) there is not likely to be any clash in practice between the powers given in this clause to mental welfare officers and the powers given in the other provisions mentioned to other persons, all of whom act on behalf of the same local authorities; and (b) the subsection as it stands might have had the effect of excluding any power of entry and inspection under the clause in cases where, for example, there was reason to believe that a member of the staff of such a home who was mentally subnormal was not being properly treated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("a").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This Amendment is consequential on the last. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Admission for observation
.—(1) A patient may be admitted to a hospital, and there detained for the period allowed by this section, in pursuance of an application (in this Act referred to as an application for admission for observation) made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
5.40 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "admission" and insert "detention". The noble Lord said: In moving this

145
Amendment I will, if I may have your Lordships' permission, deal also with the subsequent Amendment in my name which is directed to precisely the same point. If these Amendments should be carried they will, of course, entail a large number of consequential verbal Amendments. I had, indeed, originally placed them upon the Order Paper, but I was advised that for the sake of simplicity it would be better to put down only these two.
We are dealing in this Part of the Bill with the compulsory detention of mental patients in hospitals, and there is laid clown a procedure by which people may be so detained. They can be detained for either of two purposes—either under Clause 25, for observation, or under Clause 26, for treatment. The procedure in either case is that a document called an application should be completed which is founded on the written recommendation of two medical practitioners. This is referred to under the provision in brackets in subsection (1) of Clause 25, and similarly in subsection (1) of Clause 26 as "an application for admission." This language is distinctly misleading. In fact, the patient may be already in hospital, and the essence of this procedure is the compulsory detention and not the admission to hospital, because patients can be admitted as voluntary patients without being compulsorily detained.
If noble Lords will look at Clause 31 they will see that the application for admission has the consequence of enabling the managers of a hospital not only to admit the patient, if he is not already there, but to detain him; or, under subsection (2) of Clause 31, if he is already in the hospital to detain him there. This is a serious step to be taken. We are dealing here with the taking away of the liberty of the subject and keeping him compulsorily in hospital, and I think it is very wrong that this should be described in words which are misleading.
I do not know the details of what is going to happen, but I presume that there will be prepared—and there are possibly already in draft—a series of official forms to be used under Clauses 25 or 26, and that they will be headed, in accordance with his wording, as "an application for admission for observation" or as "an application for admission for treatment."
146
That will probably be in large letters across the top of the form, and the relative of the patient who has to be a party to this application—unless the patient is under the guardianship of somebody else—has to sign this application. I do not know why it has been chosen to describe this in such misleading terms, when in fact the really important operative part of this is the compulsory detention. It may be that it is under the theory that it will hurt the feelings of the patient. But the patient ought to know what is happening to him, if he is capable of understanding it at all, especially as he is given in this Part of the Bill the opportunity of applying to a tribunal for a review of this so-called application which is, in effect, an order for his detention. His relatives, also, ought to be perfectly clear what is happening. They should not be presented with forms which are liable in any way to mislead them. I think that as the Bill stands it is quite misleading.
Of course I acquit the noble and learned Viscount who is in charge of this Bill of any intention to mislead anybody, because I know, and everybody who knows him will agree, that that is the last thing that would ever enter his mind. But it is nevertheless a somewhat deceptive description; and I submit, in all seriousness and sincerity, that it ought to be described in words which make it quite clear what is being done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, leave out ("admission") and insert ("detention").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, will not press this Amendment. I sympathise with the general approach to life that it is in most cases better to call a spade a spade than "an adjectival agricultural implement". But I think we have to consider this matter a little more deeply than on that general principle. First of all, it will be observed, as the noble Lord pointed out, that this substitution is to apply whether for observation under Clause 25 or treatment under Clause 26. The application is, in fact, both for admission and detention. I should have thought that either term could be used, and that in the circumstances, "application for admission" is preferable.

147
One of the main objects of the Bill, as every speaker pointed out in the Second Reading debate, is to treat compulsory patients, so far as possible, in the same way as informal patients and to discourage the attitude which regards them as quite different from other patients. We hope that increasingly an initial period of compulsory treatment will be followed by another period of informal treatment. The term "application for admission" is commonly used in relation to patients other than mental patients, and it places the emphasis where it should be, on admission for treatment or observation, rather than on the fact of detention. One cannot ignore the fact of detention, but I cannot see why it is necessary to force it on the attention of patients, their relatives or the general public.
If there were any question of deception or confusion that would be another matter, but the Bill makes it quite clear that the application for admission provides authority for detention; that is quite clear in Clause 31. And it makes special provision for the patient who is already in hospital when the application is made; that is under Clause 30. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, that there is a parallel in the words "reception order" in the present Lunacy Act, which provides authority for reception and detention and does not lead to confusion. In those circumstances, I see no reason for not using the term which is, I think, more consistent with our general approach, so long as there is not confusion. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I confess that I am a little disappointed with the reply which the noble and learned Viscount has made. I do not attach very much importance to the point so far as Clause 25 is concerned, because observation under the provisions of the Bill is of itself necessarily of a temporary character. But admission for treatment under Clause 26 is of a different nature; it may continue for a long time. It is true that it requires renewal from time to time, but it may nevertheless continue for a very long period of time.
148
I am fully aware of, and very sympathetic to, the view that, so far as circumstances permit, there should be no differentiation between patients who suffer from mental illness and those who suffer from other illnesses; but this is arguing, I should have thought, a long past battle. The time has surely gone by when mental illness carried with it some special stigma, as happened years ago, and was regarded as something of an extremely disgraceful character. I am sure that it would not make the slightest difference to the way in which mental patients are regarded if this Amendment were to be carried, and I reject completely that part of the noble and learned Viscount's argument. I do not believe that it is true that calling a spade a spade is going to interfere with the treatment of the patient, or with his happiness or the happiness of his friends and relations. But I do think it most important that they should be made clearly to understand what is happening, and that this very serious step should not be glossed over. However, I am not going to press the matter, at this moment, at any rate, and I shall therefore ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment. Before I do so, I want to correct one point that the noble and learned Viscount made. With all respect, admission is not the important thing in this series of clauses. Indeed, I should think that in the majority of cases which will be dealt with the patient will have already been admitted to hospital before this step is taken which enables him to be detained. That, in my experience, is the position, and I should think it will still continue to be so in the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships would allow me to intervene, may I say that we said that we would adjourn the Committee stage at some time between half-past five and six o'clock, and it is now nearing the second of those times. Perhaps, if noble Lords find it convenient, this would be a convenient moment for the adjournment. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

POST OFFICE WORKS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments (privilege): the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
5.59 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Second Schedule [Acquisition of houses as being unfit for human habitation]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in paragraph 3 (2), after "Subject to" to insert:
"paragraph 1 (1) of this Schedule and to".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 77 on the Marshalled List. Your Lordships may be relieved to know that so far as we on this side of the House are concerned these three Amendments are the only Amendments to which we attach importance, regarding the rest as being mainly of the order of drafting, and when the House has disposed of these I do not think we need take up a great deal of your Lordships' time on the remainder of the Amendments.
I attach a great deal of importance to these Amendments which relate to the compensation to be paid to an owner occupier of slum property. If anyone had told me ten years ago that I should be standing up in this House and claiming more compensation for an owner of slum property, I should have thought that he was a fit subject for the measure that we have just been discussing. But times have changed. In those days the owner of slum property was a perfectly well-known character who bought up large numbers of dwellings in order to
150
let them at the highest possible price; who did no repairs; who exploited the tenants to the fullest possible extent; who, while the going was good, made large profits and who deserved, and generally received, no sympathy from anybody. It was perfectly right at that time, when there were the two classes of persons, the owner of slum property and the tenant, that the slum owner should be dealt with strictly and severely, and there was no difference of opinion that the compensation payable should he merely the value of the site and nothing more—that he should receive nothing as compensation for the dwelling itself.
But times have changed. There has been a complete change in the type of ownership of this class of property. Whereas in the period that I am speaking of it was unheard of for a person to be living in and owning a slum house, to-day, I regret to say, it is a fairly common thing. To an increasing extent people have been forced or persuaded into buying this type of property in order to live in it. There are a variety of reasons which I would mention briefly. There is the fact that people have rather more money in their pockets to-day than they had, say, before the war. That, I suppose, is the result of the rise in the standard of living. There is also a much greater shortage of accommodation and a greater pressure for accommodation; and the rise in standards means that people who were formerly satisfied to live in overcrowded conditions to-day want more accommodation.
There is the fact that it is easier to raised money to-day on mortgage for this class of property than it was years ago; and there is the effect of the recent Rent Act which, without being controversial—this is not the occasion—has resulted in the rents of decontrolled properties being substantially increased and tenants of those properties sometimes finding themselves unable or unwilling to pay the increased rents and thinking that they would do better by buying a house of their own. There is a good deal of persuasion, too, sometimes unscrupulous, on the part of estate agents, sometimes even by members of my own profession, who have not given prospective purchasers the advice which they should give—that they should have these houses surveyed and should take all precautions possible to ensure that the house that they are

151
purchasing will not become a slum house. These are the factors which have created a substantial change in the position.
To say to a person who is owning property and is making as much money as he can out of it that his house is worth nothing, it is a slum, and that therefore he will be paid nothing for it, is one thing. To say to an owner who is living in the house, who very often has invested the whole of his savings in it, who has also undertaken the responsibility of a mortgage which he may be paying off over a number of years, that his house is a slum property and that he will get nothing for it except the value of his site or the annual value of the property, is inflicting, in most cases, a grave hardship.
I will not weary your Lordships by giving a large number of examples of what has happened, but I should like to mention one or two concrete cases. There is the case of a person who, in 1957, bought a house in Birmingham. He bought it for £500; he paid £300 deposit, and £200 was left on mortgage. He spent a little money on improving the house. Within a few months of his having bought the house it was included in a compulsory purchase order by the local authority. The compensation offered was £10. Under this Bill that is the compensation to which he would be entitled, or something of that kind—either the site value or the annual value, which ever is the greater. In these cases the annual value is very small and in most cases the site value is not very valuable. If that has been the position, the owner would have parted with his £300 and he would still find himself liable to pay off his mortgage of £200 over a period of years. Admittedly, he would be provided with accommodation by the local authority but he would have lost £500 which, to him, must be a serious matter. I could quote many other cases; there are many similar cases of that kind and the sums involved are even larger. Admittedly, the Amendment that I have moved would not greatly improve the position; it would give such an owner three times the amount of the gross annual value as against once the annual charge. But since we are dealing with quite small values. £10 or £15, at best it could make a difference of £30 to an owner-occupier of slum property.
My purpose in raising the matter is not to press the Amendment—I should not feel that it was worth while pressing it in that form. Frankly, I put the Amendment down in order to raise the matter, I hope seriously. But since the date upon which I put the Amendment down, my attention has been drawn to the provisions of, I think, the Second Schedule of the Housing Act, 1957. The noble and learned Viscount is no doubt familiar with that. A provision of a temporary nature was made for the payment of compensation in Part II of the Second Schedule of the Housing Act, 1957, which in fact is a consolidation measure, but the actual provision that I am referring to was passed in 1955.
At that time it was recognised that a number of people had bought houses in this way for occupation after the outbreak of war and that if their houses were condemned as slums they would suffer great hardship; and, broadly, provision was made that they should be paid the actual value of the house—that is, its value on the assumption that the house was not subject to a compulsory purchase order. Unfortunately, that provision applied only to houses which had been bought before December 30, 1955, the date of coming into operation of the Housing Act, 1956, and therefore it does not affect similar persons who have bought their houses since 1955. I would submit that a great many, an increasing number, of people have bought and occupied these houses since that time, and I would submit therefore, that those people are equally deserving of the sympathetic consideration which was given to those who had bought their houses up to December 30, 1955.
I do not think I need enlarge upon the case. I hope I have established that we are dealing not with the slum owner as such but with the unfortunate person who, for one reason or another, has found himself compelled to buy such a house, very often investing the whole of his savings and, in addition, burdening himself with a mortgage, and who now finds himself expropriated at compensation which in most cases is derisory. I am sure that there is no desire on the part of anybody, however enthusiastic one may be in the cause of slum clearance, to want to clear slums at the expense of this kind of sufferer. Under

153
this Bill as it stands the compensation, even the increased compensation is derisory. I do not ask the noble and learned Viscount to accept my Amendment but I hope that even at this late stage of the Bill it will be possible to improve the position of these unfortunate persons of whom there are a very large number.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 48, after ("to") insert ("paragraph 1 (1) of this Schedule and to").—(Lord Silkin.)
6.13 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I wish to support this Amendment, and I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does not intend to press it to a Division. I thought we were all here in shining armour to "go the whole hog", but I appear to have been under a misapprehension. There is one point on which I wish to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; that is in regard to the owners of slum property who are not occupying a house in that property. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, speak about these gentlemen before, and he always seems to regard them as disciples of Satan—I do not know why. In fact that is a rather unfair view to take of these individuals. In consequence of the introduction of the Rent Restriction Act, 1915, over a period of forty-four years a large number of properties have deteriorated, year by year, for the simple reason that the landlords, whoever they were, were not in a position to charge an economic rent or anything approaching an economic rent: and therefore there are quite a number of owners of slum property who are by no means had men.
So far as this Amendment is concerned I feel that it is a great improvement on the existing provision in the Bill. I understand that under the Bill as it stands to-day the amount of compensation which the owner of slum property can hope to obtain for his premises is the gross value of the dwelling; and that, of course, is not a very generous gesture, because in a majority of cases the gross value of such property would be in the region of £10 or £15. To multiply that by three, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is undoubtedly an improvement, and in all fairness to these unfortunate people sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Gov-
154
ernment will give this Amendment further consideration. As to the position of certain people who have bought properties since 1955, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put the matter so clearly and fairly that there is nothing I can say on that particular branch of the subject. I strongly support this Amendment, and I am only sorry that we are not "going the whole hog".
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should like to put one point in connection with the submission of my noble friend Lord Silkin. If Her Majesty's Government feel moved to make any adjustment on the lines of his Amendment, or otherwise, I hope that they will also bear in mind the fact that the obligation to pay the extra compensation will fall upon local authorities who are already carrying a pretty heavy liability in regard to slum clearance. Even though the person in question may lose the remainder of the money he has put up to acquire this particular property, under the clearance proposals and the obligation to re-house he will nevertheless, in most cases, be re-housed on the basis of a subsidy running from £1 to 25s., or even, in some cases, in congested areas, up to 30s. per week. If Her Majesty's Government feel able to do something in the direction suggested by my noble friend Lord Silkin I think there is a case for adjusting the State subsidy, which is now the only subsidy given for housing, so that the burden of this increased cost of acquisition does not fall wholly upon the local authority.
6.19 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has moved this Amendment in a most attractive and restrained manner, and I feel very hard-hearted at having to point out the difficulties that arise. But the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has pointed out some of them, and we have discussed them in the previous stages of the Bill. The real difficulty is that this particular method of compensation goes beyond what is appropriate in the Bill, and (although this does not apply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin) I believe that a number of noble Lords who have been attracted by the suggestion have not fully understood the cases of hardship under the present law.

155
The first point I want to make, because I think it is a real difficulty, is that it is no part of the intention of this Bill, despite its progressive enlargment, of which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, reminded me yesterday, to re-write other legislative codes. The legislation governing slum clearance, and particularly the basic principle that a house unfit for human habitation has no value beyond that of its site, is well established, and successive Governments have reaffirmed it. It would be wrong to seek, as it were by a side wind, to depart from that basic principle in a Bill the primary purpose of which is something much different.
Of course, there is a major difference between the Government's "floor" of once the gross value and the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to treble that amount. A "floor" of once the gross value is intended as a compassionate payment to ensure that an owner with a stake in his property, however small, should, even though the site on which his house stands is worthless or heavily cumbered with other liabilities, at least receive something more than a purely nominal payment when his house comes to be demolished. It is for this reason that the definition of "owner-occupier" is drawn as widely as possible to include anyone with more than a year's interest in the house he occupies; and, secondly, the payment is made personal to the owner-occupier so that he will receive it, even though there is, as I mentioned in earlier stages, an annual ground rent on the land which would absorb any other compensation payment. When one gets to three times the gross value it is too high to be regarded as purely compassionate, and yet it has no element of logic which would make it a reasonable substitute for the principle of site value. Therefore, it does not fit in.
I should like to elaborate a little on the question of the people who are involved, because I think there has been some misunderstanding about the hardship which arises. There are three categories of owner-occupiers. First, there are those who bought their houses before 1939 at a purchase price related to pre-war values and who have had the use of the house for at least twenty years. That is a period in which a house already ageing before the war may well
156
have become unfit; and accepting that site value should remain the basic principle of slum clearance it cannot be said that an owner in these circumstances is suffering from grave hardship. This is particularly so if he has looked after the house and, in consequence, receives a payment in recognition of the fact that it has been well maintained, because in these circumstances such a payment now amounts to nine times the annual rateable value and is therefore an appreciable sum.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned, there are those who between September 1, 1939, and December 13, 1955, at a time when houses were scarce and prices high, bought worn-out houses for their own accommodation, not realising that they would soon be threatened by the resumption of slum clearance. These were exceptional conditions and an exception was accordingly made in the Slum Clearance Compensation Act, 1956, to provide such owner-occupiers with the full market value of the house.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, there is a third category: those who have bought houses since December 13, 1955. That there are cases where there is hardship, I do not deny. But since 1955 widespread publicity has been given to the slum-clearance campaign, and local authorities were asked both to publicise their own proposals and to give information about individual properties to prospective purchasers; and in all but a handful of cases these measures have been adequate. Very few complaints of this character have reached the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, whereas other longstanding owners of slum houses frequently complain that they are unable to effect advantageous sales of their houses because prospective purchasers have been warned by local councils that these houses are to be represented as unfit. Admittedly, one cannot always protect the unwise purchaser, but we have done our best, and the Government are prepared to consider what further steps can be taken.
I hate rejecting the sursum corda appeal by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. He has asked me to consider it again. I will do that. I will see my right honourable friend about it. But I wanted your Lordships to know that this is not

157
just meanness on my part; it is a difficulty that arises with regard to the problem of slum clearance. Therefore I am glad the noble Lord has said that he will not press the Amendment. But I shall look at it and, of course, when I look at it I shall also bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said. I think, if one can put it quite bluntly, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, does not object to this if the Government pay for it in one way or another. That is not an unnatural or uncommon point of view, and I shall bear it in mind.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I was not concerned with the division of the cost between the local authority and the Government; I was concerned with a simple act of mixed justice and charity. I do not think anyone wants to carry out slum clearance by the imposition of grave hardship on a section of the community which is least able to look after itself. The fact is that, although warnings have been given—and I do not dispute it for a moment—large numbers of people have bought their houses on the sort of basis I have referred to. They did so to a large extent through ignorance, but I would submit it was due also to desperation. When you have a family and are desperate for accommodation you hope against hope that it will be all right. And while we who are, I hope, comfortably housed can look on this matter dispassionately, to the person who puts his life savings into a house it is a very, grave matter.
There are difficulties. I know, but I am sure that there would be no difficulty in including a suitable provision in this Bill, because already a change has been made in the nature of compensation. Even this paltry one of providing the gross annual value makes a change in the compensation position; and all that I was suggesting was that the change should be more generous. It may be that a Town and Country Planning Bill is not the best place to do it, and that it should be done in a housing measure. If the Government chose to put through a one-clause Bill, even at this late stage in the Session, I am sure that there would be no objection on the part of anybody. Especially with forthcoming events foreshadowed, I cannot imagine anyone, in any section of the
158
community, wanting to be so mean as to be antagonistic to this improvement.
I hope that it may be possible, and that something will be done. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to bear in mind that something was done in the 1956 Housing Act. It was done then, and I see no inherent difficulty in doing the same thing again; because, in spite of the warnings, the fact remains that a large number of people did buy their houses, and I should hope that they will get the same generous treatment as those who bought their houses before the end of 1955. Having said that, and having also in mind what the noble and learned Viscount has promised, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 80 to 86 are all drafting Amendments, including consequential drafting after changes in the Bill, with the exception of Amendment No. 81, which is a "carry-over" provision in a perfectly straightforward way. Therefore, with your Lordships' approval, I shall put these Amendments together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 85, line 3, after ("of") insert ("this Part of")
Page 85, line 17, at end insert—
(". () Where a local authority have before the commencement of this Act made and submitted to the Minister an order under paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944 (which contains provisions similar to those of paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule), but the Minister has not confirmed that order before the commencement of this Act, sub-paragraphs (2), (4) and (5) of paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule shall apply in relation to that order as if—

(a) the order had been made under paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule, and

(b) the reference in sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule to persons on which notices are required to be served were a reference to persons on whom notices are required to be served under subparagraph (2) of the said paragraph 9.

() Any reference in paragraph 1, paragraph 3 or paragraph 5 of this Part of this Schedule to an order made and confirmed under paragraph 2 of this Schedule shall be construed as including a reference to an order—

(a) made and confirmed under the said paragraph 9, or

159

(b) made under the said paragraph 9 and confirmed under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule applied by the preceding sub-paragraph.

() In this paragraph any reference to the said paragraph 9 includes a reference to the provisions of that paragraph as extended or applied by or under any other enactment.")
Page 85, line 36, leave out from ("acquisition") to ("being") in line 37.
Page 85, line 41, leave out ("section thirty-seven or section thirty-eight") and insert ("Part IV")
Page 86, line 21, leave out ("provision of that Act") and insert ("enactment")
Page 86, line 23, leave out ("section thirty-seven or section thirty-eight") and insert ("Part IV")
Page 86, line 35, leave out ("or in that Schedule").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment, No. 87, is the one which, as your Lordships will see if you look at page 89, line 8, deals with the Scottish point. I think, again, it is merely a necessary adaptation of procedures that have been introduced in the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 8, at end insert—
("() Where a local authority have before the commencement of this Act made and submitted to the Minister an order under paragraph 8 of the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945 (which contains provisions similar to those of paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule), but the Minister has not confirmed that order before the commencement of this Act, sub-paragraphs (2), (4) and (5) of paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule shall apply in relation to that order as if—

(a) the order had been made under paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule, and

(b) the reference in sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule to persons on whom notices are required to be served were a reference to persons on whom notices are required to be served under subparagraph (2) of the said paragraph 8.

() Any reference in paragraph 2 or paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule to an order made and confirmed under paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule shall be construed as including a reference to an order—

(a) made and confirmed under the said paragraph 8, or

(b) made under the said paragraph 8 and confirmed under the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule applied by the preceding sub-paragraph.

() In this paragraph any reference to the said paragraph 8 includes a reference to the provisions of that paragraph as extended or
160
applied by or under any other enactment.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Application of section eighteen to special cases]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is the Scottish application of certain Amendments which I moved in Committee dealing with the position of mortgages and settled land, and introduces them into the Schedule. Your Lordships may remember that I then intimated that the Scottish applications would be put down at this stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 32, at end insert—
Application to Scotland
("12. In the application of the foregoing provisions of this Schedule to Scotland—

(a) for any reference to a mortgage there shall be substituted a reference to a heritable security, and for any reference, in relation to such a security to the mortgagee there shall be substituted a reference to the heritable creditor;

(b) any reference to a settlement shall, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Schedule, be construed as a reference to a trust within the meaning of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921; and

(c) any reference to settled land shall be construed as a reference to land subject to such a trust.

13.—(1) Where in a case falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (9) of section eighteen of this Act, or that paragraph as extended by subsection (1) of section twenty-one of this Act, the consideration under section one hundred and eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act. 1845 (as read with section sixty-two of the Scottish Act of 1954) was paid to the trustees of a trust within the meaning of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, any reference in the said paragraph (c) or on subsection (7) of section nineteen of this Act to the person who has received the consideration shall be construed as a reference to the trustees for the time being of the trust.
(2) Where the preceding sub-parargaph applies, paragraph (d) of subsection (9) of section eighteen of this Act shall not apply.
(3) Any additional consideration paid to the trustees of a trust by virtue of section eighteen of this Act, or by virtue of the provisions of that section as extended by section twenty-one of this Act, in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement, shall be applicable by the trustees as if it were consideration received by them under section one hundred and eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, as read with section sixty-two of the Scottish Act of 1954.
(4) This paragraph shall apply to Scotland only.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will see that Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are to leave out the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. Amendment No. 91 introduces the new Schedule, which is the interpretation of what is now Part IV of the Act. I put the contents of that Schedule before your Lordships yesterday, and I am sure your Lordships will not want me to repeat it to-day. I beg to move that Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Leave out the Fifth Schedule.
Leave out the Sixth Schedule.
Leave out the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, and insert the following new Schedule—

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PURCHASE OF OWNER-OCCUPIER'S INTEREST
  Interpretation of Part IV of Act
  1.—(1) If any question arises—

  (a) whether the appropriate authority in relation to any land for the purposes of Part IV of this Act is the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation or a local highway authority, or

  (b) which of two or more local highway authorities is the appropriate authority in relation to any land for those purposes, that question shall be referred to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, whose decision shall be final.

  (2) Subject to the preceding sub-paragraph, if any question arises as to which of two or more local authorities is the appropriate authority in relation to any land for the purposes of Part IV of this Act, that question shall be referred to the Minister, whose decision shall be final.
  2.—(1) The definition of 'the appropriate enactment' in Part IV of this Act shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In relation to land falling within the description contained in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, an enactment shall, for the purposes of that definition, be taken to be an enactment which provides for the compulsory acquisition of land as being land falling within that description if—

  (a) the enactment provides for the compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of the functions which are indicated in the development plan as being the functions for the purposes of which the land is allocated or is proposed to be developed, or

  (b) where no particular functions are so indicated in the development plan, the enactment provides for the compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of any of the functions of the government department local authority or other body for the purposes of whose functions the land is allocated or is defined as the site of proposed development.

  (3) Where, in accordance with the circumstances by virtue of which any land falls within any of the specified descriptions, it is indicated that the land is proposed to be acquired for highway purposes, any enactment under which a highway authority are or (subject to the fulfilment of the relevant conditions) could be authorised to acquire that land compulsorily for highway purposes shall, for the purposes of the said definition, be taken to be an enactment providing for the compulsory acquisition of that land as being land falling within the description in question.
  (4) In the last preceding sub-paragraph the reference to the fulfilment of the relevant conditions is a reference to such one or more of the following as are applicable to the circumstances in question, that is to say,—

  (a) the coming into operation of any requisite order under the provisions of Part II of the Highways Act, 1959, relating to trunk roads;

  (b) the coming into operation of any requisite scheme or order under the provisions of the said Part II relating to special roads;

  (c) the making or approval of any requisite plans.

  (5) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more enactments would be the appropriate enactment in relation to any land for the purposes of Part IV of this Act, the appropriate enactment for those purposes shall be taken to be that one of those enactments under which, in the circumstances in question, it is most likely that (apart from the provisions of Part IV of this Act) the land would have been acquired by the appropriate authority.
  (6) If any question arises as to which enactment is the appropriate enactment in relation to any land for the purposes of Part IV of this Act, that question shall be referred—

  (a) where the appropriate authority are a government department, to the Minister or Board in charge of that department;

  (b) where the appropriate authority are a local highway authority, to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation;

  (c) where the appropriate authority are statutory undertakers, to the appropriate Minister; and

  (d) in any other case, to the Minister,

  and the decision of the Minister or Board to whom a question is referred under this sub-paragraph shall be final.
  3.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to the definition of 'hereditament' in Part IV of this Act.
  (2) Where any land is on the boundary between two or more rating areas, and accordingly—

  (a) different parts of that land form the subject of single entries in the valuation lists for the time being in force for those areas respectively, but

  (b) if the whole of that land had been in one of those areas, it would have formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for that area,

  163
  the whole of that land shall be treated, for the purposes of that definition, as if it formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for a rating area.
  (3) Land which forms the subject of an entry in the valuation list by reason only that it is land over which any shooting, fishing or other sporting rights are exercisable, or that it is land over which a right of exhibiting advertisements is let out or reserved, shall not be taken to be a hereditament within the said definition.
  4. Where, in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, land whereof different parts form the subject of single entries in the valuation lists for the time being in force for two or more rating areas is treated as if it formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for a rating area, the definition of 'annual value' in Part IV of this Act shall apply as if any reference therein to a value shown in the valuation list were a reference to the aggregate of the values shown (as rateable values or as net annual values, as the case may be) in those valuation lists in relation to the different parts of that land.
  5.—(1) For the purposes of the application of Part IV of this Act to a hereditament or agricultural unit occupied for the purposes of a partnership firm—

  (a) occupation for the purposes of the firm shall be treated as occupation by the firm, and not as occupation by any one or more of the partners individually, and the definitions of 'owner-occupier' in Part IV of this Act shall apply in relation to the firm accordingly; and

  (b) if, after the service by the firm of a notice under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, any change occurs (whether by death or otherwise) in the constitution of the firm, any proceedings, rights or obligations consequential upon that notice may be carried on or exercised by or against, or (as the case may be) shall be incumbent upon, the partners for the time being constituting the firm.

  (2) Nothing in Part IV of this Act or in this paragraph shall be construed as indicating an intention to exclude the operation of section nineteen of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (whereby, unless the contrary intention appears, 'person' includes any body of persons corporate or unincorporate) in relation to any of the provisions of Part IV of this Act or this Schedule.
  (3) Sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not affect the definition of ' resident owner-occupier' in Part IV of this Act.
  Compensation for compulsory acquisition in pursuance of notice under Part IV of Act.
  6. The compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition in pursuance of a notice served under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act in respect of a hereditament—

  (a) shall not include any amount attributable to damage sustained by reason that the hereditament is severed from other land held therewith, and

  (b) shall not include any amount attributable to disturbance:

  164
  Provided that sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph shall not apply to an amount attributable to damage sustained by reason that the hereditament is severed from agricultural land held therewith.
  7. The compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition in pursuance of a notice served under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act in respect of an agricultural unit shall not include any amount attributable to disturbance.
  Withdrawal of notice under Part IV of Act
  8. Subject to the next following paragraph, the person by whom a notice has been served under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act may withdraw the notice at any time before the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition in pursuance of the notice has been determined by the Lands Tribunal, or at any time before the end of the period of six weeks beginning with the date on which the compensation is so determined; and, where such a notice is withdrawn by virtue of this paragraph, any notice to treat deemed to have been served in consequence thereof shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
  9. A person shall not be entitled by virtue of the last preceding paragraph to withdraw a notice after the appropriate authority have exercised a right of entering upon and taking possession of land in pursuance of a notice to treat deemed to have been served in consequence of that notice.
  10. No compensation shall be payable in respect of the withdrawal of a notice to treat which is deemed to have been withdrawn by virtue of paragraph 8 of this Schedule.
  Effect on powers of compulsory acquisition of counter-notice disclaiming intention to acquire
  11.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where the grounds of objection specified in a counter-notice served under section (Objection to notice requiring purchase of claimant's interest) of this Act consist of or include the grounds mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section, and either—

  (a) the objection on the grounds mentioned in that paragraph is referred to and upheld by the Lands Tribunal, or

  (b) the time for referring that objection to the Lands Tribunal expires without its having been so referred.

  (2) If a compulsory purchase order has been made under the appropriate enactment in respect of land which consists of or includes the whole or part of the hereditament or agricultural unit to which the counter-notice relates, or if the land in question falls within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, any power conferred by that order, or by the special enactment, as the case may be, for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the claimant in the hereditament or agricultural unit or any part thereof shall cease to have effect.
  (3) If the land in question falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, then (without prejudice to the effect of any subsequent designation) the development plan shall have effect as if no part of the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) no part of the affected area, were designated therein as land subject to compulsory acquisition.
  12.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where the grounds of objection specified in a counter-notice under section (Objection to notice requiring purchase of claimant's interest) of this Act consist of or include the grounds mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of that section, and either—

  (a) the objection on the grounds mentioned in that paragraph is referred to and upheld by the Lands Tribunal, or

  (b) the time for referring that objection to the Lands Tribunal expires without its having been so referred.

  In the following provisions of this paragraph any reference to 'the part of the affected area not required' is a reference to the whole of that area except the part specified in the counter-notice as being the part which the appropriate authority propose to acquire as therein mentioned.
  (2) If a compulsory purchase order has been made under the appropriate enactment in respect of land which consists of or includes any of the part of the affected area not required, or if the land in question falls within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, any power conferred by that order, or by the special enactment, as the case may be, for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the claimant in any land comprised in the part of the affected area not required shall cease to have effect.
  (3) If the land in question falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, then (without prejudice to the effect of any subsequent designation) the development plan shall have effect as if no land comprised in the part of the affected area not required were designated therein as land subject to compulsory acquisition.
  Supplementary and general provisions
  13.—(1) In relation to any time after the death of a person who has served a notice under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, subsection (1) of section (Objection to notice requiring purchase of claimants interest), subsection (1) of section (Reference of objection to Lands Tribunal) and subsection (3) of section (Effect of valid notice requiring purchase of claimant's interest) of this Act shall apply subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In the application of those subsections to England and Wales, any reference to the claimant shall be construed as a reference to the claimant's personal representatives.
  (3) In the application of those subsections to Scotland, any reference to the claimant shall be construed as a reference to the person
  166
  who, on the claimant's death, has succeeded to his interest in the hereditament or agricultural unit in question.
  14. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 8 of this Schedule, the power conferred by subsection (2) of section five of the Act of 1919 to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is deemed to have been served by virtue of Part IV of this Act.
  15. Expressions used in this Schedule and in Part IV of this Act have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Part of this Act.
  16. Where by any provision of this Schedule power is conferred to determine any question for the purposes of Part IV of this Act, any exercise of that power shall have effect for the purposes of this Schedule as well as for the purposes of that Part of this Act.
  17. In the application of this Schedule to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation there shall be substituted a reference to the Minister; for any reference to a highway (except in the expression 'highway authority') there shall be substituted a reference to a road; for any reference to a rating area there shall be substituted a reference to a valuation area, and, in relation to a valuation area, for any reference to the valuation list there shall be substituted a reference to the valuation roll; and for references to the provisions of Part II of the Highways Act, 1959, relating to trunk roads and special roads there shall be substituted references respectively to the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, and the Special Roads Act, 1949.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Eighth Schedule [Enactments amended]:
  6.35 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 92, which should be taken with Amendment No. 93, deals with the provisions of subsection (7) (b) of Section 58 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, which has regard to the sale, letting and appropriation of smallholdings. These Amendments extend those amended provisions to exchanges also. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 106, line 25, after ("sold") insert ("exchanged")
  Page 106, line 28, after ("sale") insert ("exchange")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments, No. 94 to No. 104 inclusive, are all either purely drafting Amendments or are consequential on changes already made. I do not think that there is any point of any substance, and I would ask your Lordships

  167
  again to allow me to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 106, line 31, at end insert—
  ("In section eighteen, after subsection (5), there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  '(6) Where permission to develop land is granted by a development order subect to limitations, nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as requiring permission to be obtained thereunder for the use of that land which (apart from its use in accordance with that permission) is the normal use of that land, unless the last-mentioned use was begun in contravention of the provisions of this Part of this Act or was begun before the appointed day in contravention of previous planning control within the meaning of section seventy-five of this Act'")
  Page 106, line 37, at end insert ("for the words 'the foregoing subsection' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (1) of this section'")
  Page 106, line 44, after ("earlier") insert ("and for the words 'last foregoing subsection' there shall be substituted the words 'proviso to subsection (2) of this section'")
  Page 107, line 6, at end insert—
  ("In section twenty-three, in subsections (1), (2) and (4), after the word 'conditions', in each place where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or limitations', and in subsection (1), after the words 'noncompliance with a condition', there shall be inserted the words 'or limitation'.
  In section twenty-four, in subsection (3), after the word 'conditions' there shall be inserted the words 'or limitations'").
  Page 107, line 6, at end insert—
  ("In section twenty-seven, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), for the words 'the foregoing subsection' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (1) of this section'")
  Page 107, line 22, at end insert—
  ("In section sixteen, after subsection (5), there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  '(6) Where permission to develop land is granted by a development order subject to limitations, nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as requiring permission to be obtained thereunder for the use of that land which (apart from its use in accordance with that permission) is the normal use of that land, unless the last-mentioned use was begun in contravention of the provisions of this Part of this Act or was begun before the appointed day in contravention of previous planning control within the meaning of section seventy-two of this Act'")
  Page 107, line 29, after ("reasons") insert ("for the words 'the foregoing subsection' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (1) of this section'")
  Page 107, line 40, leave out ("(d)") and insert ("(c)")
  Page 107, line 50, at end insert—
  ("In section twenty-one, in subsections (1), (2) and (4), after the word 'conditions', in each place where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or limitations'.
  In section twenty-two, in subsection (3), after the word 'conditions' there shall be inserted the words 'or limitations'").
  Page 107, line 50, at end insert—
  ("In section twenty-five, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), for the words 'the foregoing subsection' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (1) of this section'")
  Page 109, line 19, at end insert—
  ("In the Second Schedule, in the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2, for the words 'the difference between' there shall be substituted the words 'the amount (if any) by which' and for the word 'and', where it occurs immediately before the words 'the site value', there shall be substituted the word exceeds'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Ninth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment completes the repeal of paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which is replaced by paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to this Bill. Amendment No. 106 is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 110, line 16, column 3, at end insert—
  ("The Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, as reprinted in the Eleventh Schedule")
  Page 110, line 41, at end insert—
  ("The Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, as reprinted in the Eleventh Schedule").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after the Ninth Schedule to insert the following new Schedule:

  SECTION NINETEEN OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1947, AS AMENDED
  [In this Schedule words inserted by the Bill are printed in heavy type]
  Obligation to purchase land on refusal of permission in certain cases
  19.—(1) Where permission to develop any land is refused, whether by the local planning authority or by the Minister, on an application in that behalf made under this Part of this Act, or is granted by that authority or by the Minister subject to conditions, then if any owner of the land claims—

  (a) that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state; and

  169

  (b) in a case where permission to develop the land was granted as aforesaid subject to conditions, that the land cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of the permitted development in accordance with those conditions;

  (c) in any case, that the land cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any other development for which permission has been or is deemed to be granted under this Part of this Act, or for which the local planning authority or the Minister have undertaken to grant such permission,

  he may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations made under this Act, serve on the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated a notice (hereinafter referred to as a "purchase notice") requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of this section.
  (1A) The council on whom a purchase notice is served under this section shall, before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of service of that notice, serve on the owner by whom the purchase notice was served a notice stating either—

  (a) that the council are willing to comply with the purchase notice; or

  (b) that another local authority or statutory undertakers specified in the notice under this subsection have agreed to comply with it in their place; or

  (c) that, for reasons specified in the notice under this subsection, the council are not willing to comply with the purchase notice, and have not found any other local authority or statutory undertakers who will agree to comply with it in their place, and that they have transmitted a copy of the purchase notice to the Minister, on a date specified in the notice under this subsection, together with a statement of the reasons so specified.

  (1B) Where the council upon whom a purchase notice is served under this section have served on the owner by whom the purchase notice was served a notice in accordance with paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, the council, or the other local authority or statutory undertakers specified in the notice, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on the date of service of the notice under the last foregoing subsection.
  (2) Where a purchase notice is served on any council under this section and that council propose to serve on the owner a notice in accordance with paragraph (c) of subsection (1A) of this section, they shall transmit a copy of the purchase notice to the Minister, together with a statement of their reasons: and subject to the following provisions of this section the Minister shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled,
  170
  confirm the notice, and thereupon the council shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on such date as the Minister may direct:
  Provided that—

  (a) if it appears to the Minister to be expedient so to do, he may, in lieu of confirming the purchase notice, grant permission for the development in respect of which the application was made or, where permission for that development was granted subject to conditions, revoke or amend those conditions so far as appears to him to be required in order to enable the land to be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of that development;

  (b) if it appears to the Minister that the land, or any part of the land, could be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use within a reasonable time by the carrying out of any other development for which permission ought to be granted, he may, in lieu of confirming the notice, or in lieu of confirming it so far as it relates to that part of the land, as the case may be, direct that such permission shall be so granted in the event of an application being made in that behalf;

  (c) if it appears to the Minister, having regard to the probable ultimate use of the land, that it is expedient so to do, he may if he confirms the notice, modify it, either in relation to the whole or in relation to any part of the land to which it relates, by substituting any other local authority or statutory undertakers for the council on whom the notice is served, and in any such case the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall have effect accordingly.

  (2A) Where, for the purpose of determining whether the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled in relation to any land, any question arises as to what is or would in any particular circumstances be a reasonably beneficial use of that land, then, in determining that question for that purpose, no account shall be taken of any prospective use of that land which would involve the carrying out of development of any class not specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
  (3) If within the period of six months from the end of the period specified in subsection (1A) of this section, or the date on which a copy of the purchase notice is transmitted to the Minister, whichever is the earlier, the Minister has neither confirmed the notice nor taken any such other action as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section, nor notified the owner by whom the notice was served that he does not propose to confirm the notice, the notice shall be deemed to be confirmed at the expiration of that period, and the council on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act, and to have served notice to treat in respect thereof at the expiration of the said period.
  (4) The power conferred by subsection (2) of section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is deemed to have been served by virtue of this section.
  (5) Before confirming a purchase notice, or taking any other action in lieu thereof, under this section, the Minister shall give notice of his proposed action—

  (a) to the person by whom the notice was served;

  (b) to the council on whom the notice was served;

  (c) to the local planning authority for the area in which the land is situated; and

  (d) to any other local authority or statutory undertakers whom the Minister proposes, under the foregoing provisions of this section, to substitute for the said council;

  and if within the period prescribed by the notice under this subsection (not being less than twenty-eight days from the service thereof) any person, authority or statutory undertakers on whom that notice is served so requires, the Minister shall, before confirming the purchase notice or taking any such other action as aforesaid, afford to those persons, authorities and undertakers an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
  (6) In the last foregoing subsection, any reference to the taking of action in lieu of confirming a purchase notice includes a reference to the taking of a decision not to confirm the notice on the grounds that any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of this section are not fulfilled.
  (7) Where the Minister has given notice under subsection (5) of this section of his proposed action, and any of the persons, authorities and statutory undertakers concerned have appeared before and been heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and it then appears to the Minister to be expedient to take action under this section otherwise than in accordance with the notice given by him, the Minister may take that action accordingly.")
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Schedule on which we had some discussion yesterday, and in which, for convenience, Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as amended, is reprinted. The Amendments, as I tried to explain yesterday, though I do not think I was very clear, are those which are made in consequence of this Bill. It was thought convenient to have the whole section together with the Amendments made. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After the Ninth Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have one small point. It is very convenient to see that the alterations that are made to Section 19 of the 1947 Act are printed in bold type. Now this is going to be a new Schedule—probably the Ninth Schedule of the present Bill. I wonder whether this can be reprinted in bold type in the Act itself. It would be a great convenience for practitioners and others who have occasion to study these matters, to see the alterations to Section 19. I do not ask the noble and learned Viscount to give a reply here and now; but I think that that would be of great convenience, and if he would consider it and, if he thinks it worth it, make the necessary representations, I would be obliged.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be glad to consider that. I should like to consult my colleagues on the Statute Law Revision Committee, because we consider there the printing of Statutes. However, I will take steps to do that quickly, so that, if it can be done, it will be done before the Act is finally printed.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.40 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the new Schedule which gives the new effect of Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, as it is amended, and the same procedure has been followed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Insert the following new Schedule—

  SECTION NINETEEN OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1947, AS AMENDED

    SECTION SEVENTEEN OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1947, AS AMENDED
    [In this Schedule words inserted by the Bill are printed in heavy type]
    Obligation to purchase land on refusal of planning permission in certain cases
    17—(1) Where planning permission is refused, whether by the local planning authority or by the Secretary of State, or is granted by that authority or by the Secretary of State subject to conditions, then if any owner or lessee of the land concerned claims—

    (a) that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state; and

    (b) in a case where planning permission was granted as aforesaid subject to conditions, that the land cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of the permitted development in accordance with those conditions;

    173

    (c) in any case, that the land cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any other development for which planning permission has been or is deemed to be granted or for which the local planning authority or the Secretary of State have undertaken to grant such permission,

    he may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations made under this Act, serve on the local planning authority in whose district the land is situated a notice (hereinafter referred to as a "purchase notice") requiring that authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of this section.
    (1A) The local planning authority on whom a purchase notice is served under this section shall, before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of service of that notice, serve on the owner by whom the purchase notice was served a notice stating either—

    (a) that the local planning authority are willing to comply with the purchase notice; or

    (b) that another local authority or statutory undertakers specified in the notice under this subsection have agreed to comply with it in their place; or

    (c) that, for reasons specified in the notice under this subsection, the local planning authority are not willing to comply with the purchase notice and have not found any other local authority or statutory undertakers who will agree to comply with it in their place, and that they have transmitted a cop y of the purchase notice to the Minister, on a date specified in the notice under this subsection, together with a statement of the reasons so specified.

    (1B) Where the local planning authority upon whom a purchase notice is served under thus section have served on the owner by whom the purchase notice was served a notice in accordance with paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, the local planning authority, or the other local authority or statutory undertakers specified in the notice, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part III of this Act, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on the date of service of the notice under the last foregoing subsection.
    (2) Where a purchase notice is served on any local planning authority under this section and that authority propose to serve on the owner a notice in accordance with paragraph (c) of subsection (1A) of this section, they shall transmit a copy of the purchase notice to the Secretary of State, together with a statement of their reasons; and subject to the following provisions of this section the Secretary of State shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions specified in subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled, confirm the notice, and thereupon the authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of that person compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part III of this Act, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof
    174
    on such date as the Secretary of State may direct:
    Provided that—

    (a) if it appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient so to do, he may, in lieu of confirming the purchase notice, grant planning permission for the development in respect of which the application was made or, where planning permission for that development was granted subject to conditions, revoke or amend those conditions so far as appears to him to be required in order to enable the land to be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of that development;

    (b) if it appears to the Secretary of State that the land, or any part of the land, could be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use within a reasonable time by the carrying out of any other development for which permission ought to be granted, he may, in lieu of confirming the notice, or in lieu of confirming it so far as it relates to that part of the land, as the case may be, direct that such permission shall be so granted in the event of an application being made in that behalf;

    (c) if it appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient that another local authority or statutory undertakers should acquire the interest for the purpose of any of their functions, he may, if he confirms the notice, modify it either in relation to the whole or in relation to any part of the land to which it relates by substituting that other authority or, as the case may be, those statutory undertakers for the local planning authority on whom the notice is served, and in any such case the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall have effect accordingly.

    (3) If within the period of six months from the end of the period specified in subsection (1A) of this section, or the date on which a copy of the purchase notice is transmitted to the Secretary of State, whichever is the earlier the Secretary of State has neither confirmed the notice nor taken any such other action as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the proviso to the last foregoing subsection, nor notified the owner or lessee, as the case may be, by whom the notice was served that he does not propose to confirm the notice, the notice shall be deemed to be confirmed at the expiration of that period, and the authority on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner or lessee compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part III of this Act, and to have served notice to treat in respect thereof at the expiration of the said period.
    (4) The power conferred by subsection (2) of section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercise- able in the case of a notice to treat which is deemed to have been served by virtue of this section.
    (5) Before confirming a purchase notice, or taking any other action in lieu thereof, under this section, the Secretary of State shall give notice of his proposed action—

    (a) to the person by whom the notice was served;

    175

    (b) to the local planning authority on which the notice was served; and

    (c) to any other local authority or statutory undertakers whom the Secretary of State proposes, under subsection (2) of this section, to substitute for the said local planning authority;

    and if within the period prescribed by the notice under this subsection (not being less than twenty-eight days from the service thereof) any person authority or statutory undertakers on whom that notice is served so requires, the Secretary of State shall, before confirming the purchase notice or taking any such other action as aforesaid, afford to those persons authorities and undertakers an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose.
    (6) In the last foregoing subsection, any reference to the taking of action in lieu of confirming a purchase notice includes a reference to the taking of a decision not to confirm the notice on the grounds that any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of this section are not fulfilled.
    (7) Where the Secretary of State has given notice under subsection (5) of this section of his proposed action, and any of the persons, authorities and Statutory undertakers concerned have appeared before and been heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and it then appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient to take action under this section otherwise than in accordance with the notice given by him, the Secretary of State may take that action accordingly.'")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendments Nos. 109 to 111 make the consequential Amendments in the Title. I beg to move.
    Amendments moved—
    In the Title
    Line 8, leave out ("and")
    Line 10, after ("Acts") insert ("and as to enforcement notices thereunder")
    Line 14, leave out ("roads") and insert ("highways").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

DOG LICENCES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before seven o'clock.