Sitting of 3 February 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BALA TO TRAWSFYNYDD HIGHWAYS (LIVERPOOL CORPORATION CONTRIBUTION) BILL (By Order)
    BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENTS BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

      CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL (By Order)
      CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
      DEVON WATER BILL (By Order)
      HASTINGS PIER BILL (By Order)
      HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
      Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRANSPORT

    40 miles-per-hour Speed Limit
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement about the extension of the 40 miles-per-hour speed limit outside the London traffic area.
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Minister of Transport when, in view of the urgency of the matter, he expects to be able to present the Road Safety Committee's Report to Parliament.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I have received a report from the Departmental Committee on Road Safety on the results of the experiment with a 40 miles-per-hour speed limit which has been in progress in the London Traffic Area since March, 1958. I am satisfied that the experiment has been a success and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees with me that the powers to impose 40 miles-per-hour speed limits should now become available throughout the country. I propose, therefore, to make the report available to both Houses of Parliament and in the near future to make a commencement order which will be subject to affirmative Resolution and which will bring into force the relevant parts of Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956.
    Sir C. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. May I ask whether, when he makes the order, he will use his power with discretion and will not impose a speed limit of 40 miles-per-hour all over the country but only where it has been proved to be necessary?
    Mr. Marples: Certainly.

    Driving Licences
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport if he will insert into the list of questions for reply by applicants for driving licences, one asking whether the applicant has driven a motor vehicle during the past twelve months; and if he will ensure that if an applicant has not so driven he shall only be permitted to buy a provisional licence with all the resulting legal obligations.
    Mr. Marples: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on 2nd December about the grant of driving licences.
    Mr. Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman not had an opportunity since then of examining this point? Is it not important that a person who may have held a licence for thirty years but had never driven in the course of that period should not still be in a position to drive a car which is an instrument which may do damage and endanger the public? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that something ought to be done about that?
    Mr. Marples: There are many amendments and refinements which could be made to the present procedure. At present the driving test system is under great stress and strain. I think we ought to get that straight before we add to the difficulties.

    Driving Tests (Lee Green)
    Mr. Turnerasked the Minister of Transport the establishment for driving test inspectors at the Lee Green Test Centre; and the present strength.
    The Joint Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The complement of the Lee Green test centre is six examiners, and all are in post. We hope to open an additional centre in the same area if suitable premises can be found.
    Mr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply; but, in view of the considerable waiting period at this centre at the moment, will he take urgent steps to bring the new centre into being? Will he also bear in mind the considerable inconvenience of the four months' delay in taking a further driving test if a person should be unfortunate enough to fail? This is very inconvenient to people who can take instruction only from professional driving schools.
    Mr. Hay: As the House knows, this is a difficult problem. But if we can find suitable premises in this area—and we are doing all we can to find them— we will open a new centre, with a complement of an additional four examiners

    Traffic (Right-hand Turns)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to freeing traffic congestion, he will consider progressively eliminating traffic making right-hand turns by one-way streets and other means.
    Mr. Marples: There are limits to the extent to which these solutions can be successfully applied in the irregular London street pattern, but I agree in principle that right-hand turns should be eliminated wherever possible, and will apply this measure as widely as I can.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give a great deal of satisfaction, since the right-hand turn is undoubtedly one of the worst factors in traffic congestion?

    Minister of Transport (Overseas Visits)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the matters he studied during his recent visit to the Continent and the United States of America;
    (2) what progress he has made in his study of bridge-building methods; and whether he will make a further statement on the methods to be employed on future road development.
    Mr. Marples: My visit to the Continent was primarily to see for myself the methods being adopted in Europe to utilise the latest techniques of bridge design and construction. The visit satisfied me that British design and construction match work being done elsewhere. It may not therefore be necessary to make radical changes in present arrangements but, to ensure that full advantage is taken of the latest ideas and techniques, I am continuing to study whether it is desirable to try out new arrangements experimentally. I intend in any case that the partnership between my Ministry, bridge designers and bridge builders should be made as close as possible.
    In the United States I examined in several cities the methods being adopted to improve traffic flow and road safety. I received many new ideas which are now being examined.
    Mr. Grimond: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he hold out any hope of making economies in road or bridge building? Secondly, has he studied the system of toll charges which operates in America?
    Mr. Marples: On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, it is difficult to compare costs in foreign countries with those in this country, because of the many variables, such as the rate of exchange, but we may be able to make slight economies. More than anything else, we might be able to add to the amenities. As for the second part of the supplementary question, toll roads in America are now being abandoned. They were successful largely because they were long roads in congested areas, with limited points of

    973
    access. Since this country is so much smaller there are more points of access. At places like bridges and tunnels tolls seem to be suitable all the world over, but opinion in America is against the provision of further main toll roads.
    Mr. Grimond: Can we take it that toll roads are out?
    Mr. Marples: No. I was giving the American experience.
    Colonel Beamish: Did my right hon. Friend observe the excellent lane discipline that exists in the United States, and contrast it with the lack of discipline in this country? Has he any legislation in mind, or any alterations to the law, which might improve lane discipline in this country?
    Mr. Marples: Lane discipline in America is better than it is here, but that is largely because American roads are marked accordingly. In the early days of the M.1 it was an appalling spectacle to see drivers going all over the road, but the latest reports show that lane discipline is being gradually assimilated by the drivers, and that they are beginning to observe the lane rules.
    Mr. Burden: Can the Minister state whether his investigations into road and bridge building in America will expedite the building of a bridge over the River Medway?
    Mr. Marples: I did not look at road and bridge building in America, but I did in Germany and France. The bridge over the Medway will be a splendid one, and will be built fairly soon.
    Mr. Popplewell: In view of the Minister's experience of American trunk roads, can he assure the House that there will be no question of building toll roads in this country, and no further consideration of the question of the imposition of tolls even at tunnels? The suggestion has been made that there should be the imposition of a compulsory toll for the Tyne tunnel. Will the Minister have another look at this matter in the light of the experience he gained from his travels abroad?
    Mr. Marples: There is no definite commitment. I gave particulars of my experience in America, about which I was asked by the hon. Member for
    974
    Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). There is another Question on the Order Paper about the Tyne tunnel.

    London Traffic
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for London traffic.
    Mr. Marples: I hope to announce my plans in the near future.
    Mr. Grimond: Since the Minister's return, he will have noted that the condition of London traffic is no better. Can he tell the House as soon as possible whether he intends to extend the Pink Zone scheme, and what are his reflections on it now?
    Mr. Marples: I will certainly make an announcement as soon as possible. Legislation is needed, and administrative and financial problems arise, but the announcement will not be too long delayed.

    Road and Rail Transport (Co-ordination)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport if he will, as a matter of urgency, consult with industrial and other organisations concerned, with a view to making plans for greater coordination of road and rail transport so that traffic could be diverted from the most dangerous roads.
    Mr. Marples: Trade and industry already know well the services offered by rail and road. Moreover, the British Transport Commission has also closely consulted them about the railway modernisation plan. The best way to help with the problem which I think the hon. Member has in mind is to improve both road and rail facilities, and this is what is being done.
    Mr. Boyden: Would not the Minister agree that if he is ultimately to solve this problem, he will have to consider very seriously a national plan for the coordination of transport; that, as a first step towards relieving the accident problem, he might very well consider the origination of heavy loads in the great conurbations and try to avoid some congestion; and that, if he showed more determination, he might eliminate some of the accidents?
    Mr. Marples: I do not wish to be controversial—it is not in my nature to be so—but the party opposite had a chance of co-ordinating transport, and we saw the results in 1947 and 1948.
    Mr. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of employing train lorry ferries, comparable to the car ferries now used at certain periods of the year? Will he give serious consideration to this, as it might help to take some of the heavy lorry traffic off the roads?
    Mr. Marples: The British Transport Commission is looking into this. It has adequate facilities for doing it, but is looking into it to see what it can do to get heavy goods off the roads and back on the railways.
    Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that the whole question of co-ordination is no longer a political football? We cannot kick it around any longer. Something must be done on a national basis. Is he aware that in the last four years, even traffic on the River Thames has been one-third less than it was, because of traffic going on to the roads? Does not he agree that something must be done to put the traffic back both on the river and the railways?
    Mr. Marples: This is a phenomenon which is happening all over the world. It is exactly the same all over the United States, where, even in Denver, the Denver-Chicago Trucking Company can take goods by road from Chicago to Los Angeles, which is an enormous distance, more cheaply than they can go by rail. They are taking goods away from the railways. The real point is that this is a convenient way of taking goods from door to door, which is the attraction, rather than a question of the cost

    Scottish Deputations
    Mr. Mellishasked the Minister of Transport the policy of his Ministry regarding the reception of deputations from Scotland.
    Mr. Marples: I am always ready—
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. Would the Minister answer Question No. 57 with this Question, which I think he would normally ask permission to do?
    Mr. Marples: That Question has been phrased rather differently. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's reason for being concerned to have it answered with this one, but I am afraid I cannot answer it unless we reach it today.
    I would say that I am always ready to receive deputations from Scotland and elsewhere, where this would be helpful.
    Mr. MacMillan: I do not want to harry the Minister, because I think the incident was rather out of character. Nevertheless, there is strong feeling about it in Scotland. May I ask why, in the first place, a deputation of responsible people was encouraged by him to travel 1,200 miles to meet him in the House of Commons to discuss the closure of branch railway lines in Scotland, after which the Minister proceeded to drive out two Members of the House who were accredited members of the deputation, furthermore to insult the deputation by saying that, whatever they said, it was useless to come here and say it and that he had nothing to do with it, and finally—to quote words attributed to him by the members of that deputation—to threaten that he would "never again receive a deputation of bloody Scots"?
    Mr. Marples: If I may answer the final part of the supplementary question first, I did not use that phrase and I am sure that some hon. Members have evidence that I did not. In any case, I would not dare do it, because I have to attend an annual reunion of the London Scots in my kilt. They tend to be very boisterous, although rather agreeable, affairs and if reprisals were to set in I might lose my dignity.
    In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, these people came at their own request. I tried to discourage them for this reason: they wanted to discuss the actual merits of closing down a branch line, but the legislation passed by Parliament gives me no power to do anything in the matter. Therefore, whatever they said to me I could not do anything but listen. I could not make a decision because it was not within my power so to do. But if by any chance they feel aggrieved, all I can say is that I am sorry about it.
    Mr. Mellish: Whilst hoping that the first-class supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western

    977
    Isles Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) will be credited to me, may I ask whether, on the occasion when he wears his kilt, he will reveal the famous "Marples Master Plan"?
    Mr. Marples: I think that would be unwise in view of police regulations.

    Pink Zone (Taxi-cabs)
    Dr. A. Glynasked the Minister of Transport what protests he has received from owner-drivers of taxis in the London area that their earnings have been reduced as a result of his ban on U-turning in the Pink Zone; what reply he has made to these protests: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Transport what protests he has received against his prohibition of U-turns by London taxi-cabs in the Pink Zone.
    Mr. Hay: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I received on 23rd December a deputation representing taxi-cab owners and drivers, and further written representations about the experimental ban on U-turns in the Pink Zone area have since been made to me. I have replied that a sufficient period must be allowed before any reasonable judgment on the results of the experiment as a whole can be reached, and that all representations will then be taken fully into account. No protests have been received regarding loss of earnings resulting from the ban.
    Dr. Glyn: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be perfectly possible, without any disruption of traffic, to exempt taxi drivers, since their vehicles are equipped with a special steering device which enables them to manœuvre?
    Mr. Hay: We thought of that, but we wanted to see how this experiment would work, and to separate categories of vehicles such as taxis would present many problems and blur the whole picture. I think we had better see how this works and then decide if any special exemptions are needed.
    Mr. Lipton: Why did the Minister impose this autocratic twenty-four hour ban without any prior consultations with the unions concerned, making it more difficult for taxi drivers to pick up and put down passengers and causing pedestrians—sometimes old and crippled—to
    978
    cross the road in order to get a taxi? Why is it necessary to stop a taxi turning round in the middle of the road in Piccadilly, sometimes at three o'clock in the morning?
    Mr. Hay: I want to emphasise that this ban is placed on all vehicles, not only taxis. It is important to remember that because some people seem to think that my right hon. Friend has it in mind to persecute the taxi driver, and that is not in fact true.

  ROADS

    Programme
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that the civil engineering industries can handle a road programme double or treble the size of the present one, and, in view of the road-building plant and labour which is available but not being used, if he will take steps to minimise this wastage by expanding the size of the present road programme.
    Mr. Bennasked the Minister of Transport when he is likely to announce his plans for comprehensive road improvements.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 4th November, to which I have nothing to add at present.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman making any progress at all in these matters? Does he realise that the material and the opportunity are there for a much bigger programme than the one he has in mind? Ought he not to take advantage of the fact that these things are available so as to be able to extend the programme?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman does not know the programme that I have in mind. He therefore cannot say that the material available is in excess of it. The whole programme is being reviewed.
    Mr. Benn: The Government pledged an increased road programme and we have heard so many hints about the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. Can

    979
    not he take the House into his confidence to the extent of saying when he intends to make a statement?
    Mr. Marples: I would rather wait until it was final and it was no longer a hint but a confirmed fact.

    Road Schemes (Cost)
    Mr. Pargiterasked the Minister of Transport the total cost of road schemes authorised in the five years 1955–56 to 1959–60 for Bradford, Bristol, Cardiff, Coventry, Hull, Liverpool, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, and Stoke-on-Trent, respectively.
    Mr. Hay: As the Answer is in the form of a table, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table:

    City

    Cost of Schemes 1st April, 1955 to 22nd January, 1960

    £

    Bradford

    …

    55,000

    Bristol

    …

    776,000

    Cardiff

    …

    97,000

    Coventry

    …

    1,218,000

    Kingston upon Hull

    …

    1,244,000

    Liverpool

    …

    408,000

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    …

    199,000

    Sheffield

    …

    586,000

    Stoke-on-Trent

    …

    588,000

    Note: The figures represent only schemes in which Government expenditure is involved.

    Underground Car Parks (Cavendish Square and Hyde Park)
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Transport the reasons for the delays in proceeding with underground car parks at Cavendish Square and the north-east corner of Hyde Park, in view of the fact that satisfactory plans have been ready for many months.
    Mr. Marples: Private developers are interested in these projects, but so far as I know final plans have not been prepared. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works about the legal and amenity considerations we have to take into account in the case of the Hyde Park site. Development at either site would require legislation.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will the Minister give an undertaking that this matter will be pressed on with the utmost speed, in view of the fact that there is an urgent need for such car parks when temporary car parks are not available? Even at this moment the car park on Horse Guards Parade is full. It shows that there is an urgent need to press on with the provision of these vital facilities.
    Mr. Marples: I quite agree about the need for off-street car parks, but if my hon. Friend will have a look at the Lex Garage at Selfridge's, in Oxford Street, he will find that usually it is not full. It depends on what is physically possible. We have to watch the entrances and exits for underground car parks, and we must also keep in mind amenity interests. We must further remember that all this requires legislation.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the reasons why Selfridge's Garage is usually half-empty might be the fact that it costs 4s. to park one's car there for five minutes?
    Mr. Marples: I believe it costs 4s. for a few hours, too.

    Lower Regent Street
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider extending Lower Regent Street into St. James's Park with a view to relieving the serious traffic congestion by St. James's Palace.
    Mr. Marples: This is a matter for the London County Council and the Westminster City Council to consider in the first place, but I cannot hold out any hope that Her Majesty's Government could look with favour at proposals which would involve substantial alterations to Waterloo Place, Carlton House Terrace and the Duke of York's Steps.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the fact that substantial alterations may be needed any reason why a scheme which will obviously be of very great advantage, in avoiding congestion in Central London, should not be thoroughly examined?
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend will find that in regard to this problem many people have ideas which are different from his. I do not think that there is

    981
    any point in tearing the heart and soul out of a city by putting up slabs of concrete in the parks, which have been amenities for many years.

    Bailey Bridges
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider, as a temporary expedient, the immediate use of Bailey bridges to hasten the flow of traffic; and, in particular, if he will cause to be erected such a bridge across the Edgware Road to carry the ring road traffic from Marylebone Road to Sussex Gardens.
    Mr. Marples: I am prepared to consider the use of Bailey bridges wherever they prove suitable. In London such matters are the responsibility in the first place of the London County Council and the metropolitan borough concerned.
    A Bailey bridge would not be practicable at the junction of Marylebone Road and Sussex Gardens because the carriageway is not wide enough to permit a full installation.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that the carriageway could be widened, if necessary? Is it not a good thing to have some of these Bailey bridges put up for experimental purposes, so that statistics can be obtained and opportunities provided for research and development on the use of these bridges before any permanent structures are put up anywhere?
    Mr. Marples: I have gone very carefully into the question whether there should be temporary arrangements, with Bailey bridges, or permanent arrangements, and I have come down in favour of permanent arrangements being made. It was a very difficult decision. We looked at sites such as Lambeth Palace Road, Kennington Triangle, Temple Mills Bridge, Bow Bridge, Roehampton Vale, and the Toby Jug junction on the Kingston By-Pass. I can assure the House that on balance it is better to concentrate on permanent improvements, but if there are any sites where a Bailey bridge could help out temporarily I will certainly consider them, if hon. Members will give me particulars.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not the cheapest way of dealing with the traffic congestion in Central London to keep private cars out of Central London?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think this Government would ever suggest that the private motorist should not be allowed to come into the capital city.

    Multi-Storey Car Parks
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the great traffic congestion in major cities, he will consider making special grants in aid to local authorities which propose to build multi-storey car parks.
    Mr. Marples: As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on 16th December last, it is the Government's policy that the provision of off-street car parks is a matter for local authorities and private enterprise.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that the parking difficulties in London and our great cities will never be solved until some multi-storey garages are erected in the centres of those cities? Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that the economic cost of such garages works out at about 12s. 6d. per day per motor car and that on that basis they will never become popular? Therefore, it is thought that these multi-storey garages should rank for grant in the same way as roads.
    Mr. Marples: I cannot accept the principle that off-street parking for motor cars should be subsidised.

    Stanway By-Pass
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made in the preparatory work, so that a start can be made on the proposed Stanway bypass on the London—Colchester—northeast Essex road.
    Mr. Hay: A draft Order to vary the established line of the by-pass at the eastern end was advertised last September, and objections are being considered. A further Order dealing with the treatment of side roads is in preparation.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one of the worst bottlenecks on the road between London and north-east Essex and the East Coast, and will he do all he can to speed up this work as much as possible?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir.

    Eastern Avenue
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport what further rules he proposes to enforce to get a speedier flow of traffic along Eastern Avenue, and the approaches from the East Coast.
    Mr. Hay: Apart from the new waiting restrictions on Eastern Avenue itself, we are considering a clearway experiment on lengths of the approach to it from Southend, which will total over 16 miles.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Eastern Avenue we have an excellent dual carriageway, and could he see whether it is possible to cut out a number of roundabouts, side turnings and interceptions to enable much better use to be made of the existing facilities?
    Mr. Hay: That is a pretty tall order. I think we ought to consider our clearway experiment first and see how we get on.
    Mr. McAdden: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind—with due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale)—that this Question is wrongly phrased? We do not want my right hon. Friend to enforce more rules: we want him to relax some of those which already exist. Is my hon. Friend aware that before improvements were carried out on Eastern Avenue it was a derestricted area and that since the road has been improved the speed limit has been reduced to 40 m.p.h.? Will my hon. Friend look into this?

    London-Colchester Road
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the Government's intention to increase the road building programme, he will speed up and extend the new road works on the London-Colchester road, beyond authorising £3 million of new work in the next few years.
    Mr. Hay: Comprehensive improvement of this road already has high priority in our programme, and we would prefer to wait until we have made progress with the schemes already in preparation before promising further extensions.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that what we want in East Anglia
    984
    is a proper motorway? Will he ensure that more use is made of existing facilities in addition to the improvements that he has announced?
    Mr. Hay: The programme of improvements already in prospect or completed amounts to £4·6 million. Much of this is for dualling, and I think that we should get through that programme first.

    London-Yorkshire Motorway
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport what was the cost per mile of that section of the London to Yorkshire motorway now in use; what will be the cost per mile of the completed motorway; and what will be the total mileage and the total cost.
    Mr. Hay: The first 73 miles of the London-Yorkshire motorway have cost about £395,000 per mile. Until the detailed design of the northern section of the motorway is completed, it is not possible to give an accurate estimate of its cost, but preliminary investigations suggest that the cost is likely to be of the order of £425,000 per mile so that the cost per mile of the completed motorway would be about £418,000 per mile. The total length will be about 160 miles and the total cost about £66 million.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this enormous figure—getting on for £½million a mile—represents a huge subsidy to road transport, to the passenger-carrying and freight-carrying interests concerned, some of which are already running scheduled services from London to Birmingham in direct competition with the railways and many of which are carrying goods and passenger traffic which, if the national interest were the criterion, could and should be carried by British Railways?
    Mr. Hay: I should not be prepared to accept that this was an enormous subsidy—
    Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from it.
    Mr. Hay: —for the simple reason that the taxation yield on vehicles of all kinds in this country is £560 million a year. I do not think this can be regarded as a subsidy to the roads.
    Mr. J. Hynd: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the total income from

    985
    motor taxation, is he referring to the day-to-day upkeep of present roads, or the extension of roads, or comparing it with the railways where the capital costs of all roads being used by the vehicles must be borne by the railway authorities?
    Mr. Hay: No, sir. I am talking of the total yield of motor taxation of all kinds.

    Tyne Tunnel (Approach Roads)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the number unemployed in Jarrow and Hebburn, he will give permission for the work upon the approach roads to the proposed Tyne tunnel to commence immediately.
    Mr. Hay: We are informed by the highway authorities concerned that work on the tunnel approach roads cannot be started until they have obtained fresh Parliamentary powers for the construction of the tunnel and the approach roads in accordance with their new plans. As the House will know, the councils have now deposited the necessary Bill.

    Motorways
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport whether, in deciding the route for new motorways, it is his policy not to consult local land owners before the publication of plans; and to what extent account is taken of existing farm boundaries when drawing up these plans.
    Mr. Marples: There are consultations through the Ministry of Agriculture, with national representatives of the Country Landowners Association, and the National Farmers' Union, before draft schemes are published.
    Farm boundaries are plotted and taken into account in drawing up a draft scheme, but there would be little advantage in detailed discussions with individual interests at this early planning stage. Individual land-owners have the opportunity to propose modifications before a decision is taken whether to make or modify a draft scheme.

    London-Exeter Road
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport how many miles of the road to the South-West, London to
    986
    Exeter, still have only two lanes and therefore no overtaking lane; how many miles have dual carriageways; and how the present position compares with November, 1958.
    Mr. Hay: On the trunk road from London to Exeter (A.4, A.30 and A.303) there are 130 miles with a single two-lane carriageway; 22 miles with a passing lane; and 9 miles with dual carriageways. 2½ miles of this 9 miles have been completed since November, 1958
    Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that this rather disappointing progress is having an effect on the South-West and particularly on the tourist industry? Will he do all he can to speed things up?
    Mr. Hay: I am certainly aware of that. That is why our future plans provide for very significant increases in the length of dual carriageways to be finished on this road. The first to be finished will be 1¾ miles between Moorhill and Hatch in Hampshire and 2½ miles of the Staines by-pass to be completed at the end of 1961. There will be more sections of dual carriageway as we go ahead.

    Roads, London-Bournemouth
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the importance of adequate communications between London and the conurbation of Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch, what major improvements he intends to carry out in 1960 on the roads between them.
    Mr. Hay: Apart from the Staines Bypass which is now under construction, we are planning to spend £100,000 in 1960 on the construction of l¾ miles of dual carriageway on A.30 in Hampshire, and £24,000 on the improvement of the junction of A.30 with A.325. Considerable lengths of carriageway in Surrey will be widened from 30 ft. to 33 ft. in the course of resurfacing.
    Captain Pilkington: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, which is satisfactory as far as it goes, may I ask him to remember that congestion on these roads is very bad? Will he consider concentrating not so much on widening roads as on duplicating them with dual carriageways?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, we certainly have that in mind.
    Mr. Eden: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, particularly in the Bournemouth-Poole-Christchurch area, where the population is increasing, what might be all right to satisfy demand at present certainly will not be all right to satisfy demand when the present programme has been completed? Therefore, will he be still further adventurous?
    Mr. Hay: The trouble is that the car population is increasing throughout the country. Everyone wants more cars and new roads as quickly as they can get them and we have to fit what we can do into our programme.

  RAILWAYS

    Redundant Workers (Tenancy of Houses)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to allow railwaymen dismissed through redundancy to continue their tenancies of railway houses.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. This is a matter of management for which the British Transport Commission is responsible, but I understand the Commission makes every effort to avoid hardship in cases of this kind.
    Mr. Boyden: Does the Minister agree that it is relatively easy for the Commission to retain these tenancies but that it is a matter of great hardship for the individual who is dispossessed? Will the Minister try to bring some influence to bear an the Commission?
    Mr. Hay: I do not think that any influence needs to be brought in this case. The Commission is well aware of the difficulties, as a recent case makes clear, but I will see that the hon. Member's remarks are brought to the chairman's notice.

    Main-Line Trains (Late Arrivals)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to publish periodically statistics concerning late arrivals of main-line trains between
    988
    London and the principal stations in the provinces, together with the causes of such late arrivals, in order to establish a better understanding between the British Transport Commission and the travelling public.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. This is a matter of management for which the British Transport Commission is responsible.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the British public are well aware of the fact that repairs have to be carried out, what annoys them is that the timetables issued by British Railways bear absolutely no relation to what happens? Is he aware, for instance, that trains from the north of England due to arrive in London at about 10.30 p.m. are very often two or three hours late [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—when there are no taxis and no porters? Is it not an absolute scandal that there is no personal representative to help the unfortunate people who on these occasions are left stranded?
    Mr. Marples: This is obviously a matter for the day-to-day management of the British Transport Commission, but it is not only repairs but also modernisation which is causing the inconvenience. Ultimately, the modernisation will make the journeys quicker. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me details of the occasion when he was two or three hours late, I will certainly go into it. My own constituency is in Cheshire on the other side of the Mersey—the more exclusive side of the Mersey, if I may say so—and I frequently come down on the train from Lime Street to Euston. I certainly can say quite honestly that I have never been as much as three hours late.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the reason why he does not suffer as we do is that he gets V.I.P. treatment?
    Mr. Marples: My career has been full of vicissitudes, and I have spent many a year on the back benches. I still say I have never been three hours late.
    Mrs. Slater: Does the right hon. Gentleman also know that very often I travel on the same train as his hon.

    989
    and gallant Friend, and that there are numerous occasions when it is on time?
    Mr. Marples: I only hope that the hon. Lady can arrange to share the same compartment with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Accidents
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that there have been over 1,000 accidents in each of the years since nationalisation, what conclusions have been drawn by his inspectors as to the main causes of railway accidents; and what action his Department has taken with regard to those conclusions.
    Mr. Marples: An analysis of all train accidents by causes is given in the Annual Reports of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, which are available in the Library.
    Regarding the second part of the Question, the inspecting officers of railways are in constant touch with the British Transport Commission, and are always available for consultation on measures to maintain and improve the high standard of safety on railways.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that accidents are now so frequent on British Railways that people have become increasingly anxious about travelling in the front or rear part of the trains? Would my right hon. Friend consider issuing danger tickets or tickets at reduced rates for those who are prepared to risk it in the front or rear coaches?
    Mr. Marples: I cannot agree with the assumptions of my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. Manuel: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform his most misinformed hon. and gallant Friend that British Railways are still the safest in the world, and that, because of the safety precautions by the men who are driving the trains, which are very often delayed by fog and signal instructions, trains could be late in trying to run safely?
    Mr. Marples: There is one point which I ought to add. The modernisation plan will not only modernise and electrify the railways, but will bring in the automatic warning system, so that the incon-
    990
    venience which people will, necessarily, have to suffer in the next 18 months or two years, when travelling to the North and North-West of England, will, in the end, bring quicker and safer trains.
    Mr. John Hynd: Will not the Minister confirm that the records and the inspectors' reports since the war show that there has been a progressive decrease in the number of railway accidents, particularly those involving injury to passengers and staff, and that that is a great tribute to the progress made as a result of the careful inspections and reports?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that subject, I will answer it in detail.

    Railway Lines (Closures)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to consult with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Defence as to the economic and strategic importance of railway lines being considered with a view to their closure, and to obtain from them estimates of the economic value of such lines to their respective Departments.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. Proposals to close lines are widely publicised and the Consultative Committee procedure permits full account to be taken of the value of a line to trade and industry. Any potential defence interest in a particular railway line affected is, of course, taken into account by the Government Departments concerned.
    Mr. Boyden: Where a railway is being closed, would not it be convenient to consider the significance of the Board of Trade trying at a later date to come to the help of a particular area, and trying to improve the economic amenities, when the Commission, having closed the railway, has done exactly the opposite to what the Board of Trade would be trying to do? May I give as an example the possibility of this happening to the Barnard Castle—Penrith line?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I will look into the matter to which he referred in the first part of his supplementary question.

    991
    Industrial and commercial undertakings and units of the Service Departments may make representations to the B.T.C. or the appropriate Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
    Mr. Boyden: May I ask whether the B.T.C. communicates with the Ministry of Defence when the closure of a line is being considered?
    Mr. Marples: All the Ministries are informed and can raise objections if they so wish.

    Pay (Committee of Inquiry)
    Mr. Popplewellasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will give an assurance that the Government will give all necessary assistance in implementing in full the findings of the Guillebaud Committee of Inquiry into railwaymen's conditions;
    (2) in view of the fact that the findings of the Guillebaud Committee of Inquiry into railwaymen's conditions involve the British Transport Commission in additional expenditure, what financial assistance the Government will give to the Commission to help it to meet this additional liability.
    Mr. Marples: The Committee of Inquiry into railway pay has not yet reported. It will report to the British Transport Commission and the railway unions and it will be for them to consider the Committee's findings within the established negotiating machinery.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware that we know that the Committee has not reported but the Question was framed in this way in order to make it acceptable to the Table? Is he aware that we seek an assurance that when the Guillebaud Committee presents its Report, which will involve the Commission in additional financial expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman will give a guarantee to the Commission that the Government will support this expenditure? He will know that the Government have been responsible for the Commission showing a cumulative loss of £300 million, after paying interest charges up to now. Is he aware that this is a staggering figure for the Commission to find and that the railwaymen want an assurance that the Commission will get Government backing for any additional financial reward which
    992
    the Guillebaud Committee may give to them?
    Mr. Marples: This is not a Government inquiry. There are four parties to it, the three unions concerned and the British Transport Commission. They are paying for it. They have jointly decided on its terms of reference, and it would be wrong for me to anticipate the terms of the report.
    Mr. Wade: Is the Minister able to inform the House when the Committee will make its report?
    Mr. Marples: It is expected that it will report some time in April.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that public opinion is rather shocked by the excessively slow way in which this Committee appears to have worked? As the public interest is so deeply involved, will he try to see that on future occasions matters are conducted a little more expeditiously?
    Mr. Marples: It is a complicated task. This is an attempt to bring to an end the vexed question of differentials and, frankly, I think that the less we say about it at the moment the better. I ask the House to bear in mind that it took almost six months to settle the terms of reference of the Committee.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend concede that, as there is a very large trading loss forward on the British Transport Commission's accounts, any substantial increase in railwaymen's wages will, directly or indirectly, increase that loss forward? Does not that fact transpose matters and cause railwaymen's wages to become much more largely a House of Commons matter than a matter to be left solely for negotiation between the Transport Commission and the trade unions?
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend is anticipating the report.
    Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend may be anticipating the report but he is still making a point which is very important—
    Mr. Nabarro: I am absolutely right.
    Mr. Mellish: I have never been able to distinguish between the modesty of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and that of the Minister; it is

    993
    quite a job. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the finances of the Commission are in such a parlous condition that the Government must make a statement very soon? After all, whether we try to avoid it or not, it looks as though we are heading for a major strike in about a fortnight, and the finances involved are the concern of the Government.
    Mr. Marples: I am well aware of the gravity not only of the short-term situation but of the long-term situation, and I hope that the House will not press me today but will leave the matter till a little later. I can assure the House that it is the long-term as well as the shortterm problem which is causing me concern.

    Victoria Line Tube
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Minister of Transport if he is now able to announce his approval of the project recommended by the London Travel Committee for the construction of a new tube railway from Victoria through North-East London.
    Mr. Marples: I am unable at present to add to the reply on this I gave to the hon. Member on 27th January.
    Mr. Fletcher: In the meantime, would the Minister be good enough to confirm whether it is true, as reported in today's Press, that preliminary work at a cost of £400,000 is already in progress in connection with trial borings for a mile of this proposed tube from Tottenham to Finsbury Park?
    Mr. Marples: This is an experimental section—I say that without commitment, because I am not sure about the contract which was given by the London Transport Executive—but for many years experiments have been carried out, including construction of shields, which are necessary for a tunnel of this sort.
    Mr. Benn: We are waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement of policy. This is not a new idea. It has been urged many times in the past. Can he say when he intends to give us his decision?
    Mr. Marples: The report was published on 21st December and today is 3rd February. I ask the hon. Member to be patient a little longer.

  SHIPPING

    Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement on the provision of nuclearpower propulsion for merchant ships.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport when his Department expects to be in a position to place orders for a prototype nuclear marine-propulsion unit; and when he estimates this unit could be undergoing sea trials.
    Mr. Marples: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to hon. Members last week about this, except that invitations to tender for a nuclear-propulsion unit have now been issued.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is rather disappointing, because I had hoped for a further statement? The reaction to what he said last week is that there seems to be an arguable case that we have lost so much ground in this field of research that we ought to pay more attention to the more advanced forms of reactors submitted to the Galbraith Committee. Will he look at the matter again, as it might be a means of catching up in a race which we appear to be losing?
    Mr. Marples: In this matter, we must bear in mind the astonishing rapidity of big changes now going on all over the world. They are not necessarily solved by going into production. They may be solved by looking at things, and we think that asking for these tenders is the best way of dealing with the matter. The decision whether the ship should be built must be taken in the light of the tenders disclosed.
    Mr. Wall: If my right hon. Friend takes a decision to build the prototype, could he say what is the minimum time before the ship could be in the water?
    Mr. Marples: A ship using a pressurised water reactor might perhaps be got to sea by 1964, but it might well be worth while waiting a little longer to secure the benefits of either the boiling water or the organic liquid moderated reactor.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is bearing in mind that

    995
    if we do not make a forward step soon, the lead which the British shipbuilders have over the whole trade might well be lost, as this period of four years is rather too long a time to wait before the prototype ship begins to start operation?
    Mr. Marples: We had better wait a little longer until we have got the tenders, for which we have now issued invitations, which I think my hon. Friend will admit is a forward step.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister say how long it will be before this power could be available for fishing trawlers?
    Mr. Marples: I could not give an answer without notice.

    Minister of Transport (Visit to U.S.A.)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about his visit to the United States of America; and what discussion he had with regard to nuclear marine propulsion.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Transport the nature of his discussions with representative shipping interests in the United States of America; and what conclusions were reached.
    Mr. Marples: My talks were with the United States Government officials and were purely informal. The primary object was to acquaint myself at first hand with their views on shipping policy, and at the same time to reiterate the continuing concern of this country over certain aspects of the United States shipping policy. I emphasised the contrast between the policies of world trade liberalisation advocated by the United States and her restrictive practices in shipping.
    I also took advantage of being in Washington to hear for myself from the United States Government something of the progress they are making in the design and construction of nuclear merchant ships.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that that is all that happened during these conversations with American shipping interests and the American Government on this very important matter of the decline of British shipping and the
    996
    restrictive practices operated by American shipping interests? How long are we to put up with this sort of thing from the United States? Do they regard it as an effective partnership with the United Kingdom, when everything is being done by their shipping interests, endorsed by the American Government, to destroy British shipping? Is no further action to be taken? Are we to take this sort of thing lying down?
    Mr. Marples: I did not conduct, nor did I intend to conduct, direct negotiations. The whole of the European countries are acting together and it would have been wrong of me to have gone in as a representative of this country and initiated talks myself. This is being done collectively and it will be more fruitful because of that.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American shipowners have made a pronouncement that they reject the representations made by the European and other maritime countries outside the United States? That has appeared recently in the Press. If the right hon. Gentleman denies that, will he tell us what is the present position?
    Mr. Marples: I have not seen it in the Press. If the right hon. Gentleman will send me a copy of it, I will look into the matter. This is the first I have heard about it. So far as I know, there will be informal discussions very shortly.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about British shipbuilding.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport if he is now prepared to outline his plans for the future of the shipbuilding industry in this country.
    Mr. Marples: I have discussed with the Shipbuilding Conference and with the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, on which both sides of the industry are represented, the problems currently facing the industry. I will give careful consideration to any proposals they may wish to put before me.
    Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a good deal of anxiety in the shipbuilding industry

    997
    because of increasing unemployment and redundancy. Would it not be wise of him to discuss this matter with the President of the Board of Trade and possibly to issue a White Paper on the policy of the Government towards shipbuilding areas?
    Mr. Marples: Before I discuss this matter with any of my colleagues in the Government, I ought to discuss it exhaustively with the trades concerned. I met a committee yesterday, and the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee meets tomorrow. We are having these meetings and we have already received from the industries concerned a number of papers which we are now studying.
    Mr. Rankin: While the right hon. Gentleman is holding these discussions, will he realise that speed is becoming a factor in the situation which confronts the shipbuilding industry? Will he bear in mind that during the last 15 to 18 months the number of persons employed in the industry has decreased from 210,000 to 190,000? That is creating a feeling of uncertainty amongst all those who are still employed in the industry and is producing instability in the yards. Will he not try to come to a speedy decision—
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Get on with it.
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Member should keep quiet. He consumes more time than anyone in this House.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member will keep his supplementary question short.
    Mr. Rankin: When the right hon. Gentleman reaches some decision after his consultations, shall we have the opportunity of debating the matter in the House?
    Mr. Marples: The question of a debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I am glad to say that this country is now second in the world for building, which is something, and in the last weeks of 1959 100,000 tons of new orders were placed here, including some foreign orders. This is a world-wide problem. I realise that it is serious. When all these consultations have taken place I hope to be making some sort of announcement.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the shipbuilding industry has suggested that an acceleration of the naval shipbuilding programme might be put into operation in order to relieve this temporary recession in shipbuilding? I ask for an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will discuss this matter with the Admiralty and the Treasury with a view to putting this suggestion into operation.
    Mr. Marples: I should like to look into that.
    Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his other Joint Parliamentary Secretary—not the one who is present answering Questions today—who recently visited the North East? Will he bear in mind that the position is quickly deteriorating in the North East where we have the highest shipbuilding unemployment figure of the country and where 30 per cent. of the boilermakers are unemployed? This position has been aggravated by the arbitrary closure of Messrs. Stephenson and Hawthorn's by English Electric. Unless Government policy on shipbuilding is worked out very soon, the position will he quite serious.
    Mr. Marples: I consulted my noble Friend last evening and I am going to see him again. I am glad to say that the North East has an order for the largest passenger ship for which an order has been placed in recent years.

    Freight Rates
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Transport to what extent his Department is consulted at any period before the fixing of freight rates by the shipping conferences.
    Mr. Marples: The fixing of freight rates by shipping conferences is a commercial matter and my Department is not consulted.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people feel that the time has come for this matter to be closely looked at by the Government, because what amounts to restrictive trade practices carried out by shipping companies have been detrimental to many of our export trades?
    Mr. Marples: It is really in the interests of British shipping, which trades

    999
    with all countries of the world, that there should be as little interference as possible by the Government with shipping companies.

YOUTH SERVICE
The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement concerning the Youth Service.
In November, 1958, my predecessor appointed a Committee uder the chairmanship of Lady Albemarle to review the contribution which the Youth Service of England and Wales can make in assisting young people to play their part in the life of the community, in the light of changing social and industrial conditions and of current trends in other branches of the education service. The Committee's Report has been published as a Command Paper today, and was available to hon. Members in the Vote Office this morning. It makes valuable and timely proposals for dealing with the changing needs of young people about which Parliament has shown that it is greatly concerned. On behalf of the Government, I should like to thank Lady Albemarle and her colleagues for the speed and excellence of the work they have done.
We accept in principle all the main recommendations for Government action.
The Youth Service today is an alliance, without adequate resources, between the Ministry of Education, the local education authorities and the voluntary youth organisations. We have, therefore, much to discuss with our partners before deciding precisely how to act on the Albemarle recommendations. The necessary discussions will take place urgently.
The Youth Service requires more voluntary and paid workers, more buildings and facilities for sport, more money and more enthusiasm. The Government have decided that these deficiencies must be made good, though everything cannot be done at once, and the will to succeed must come from the local areas at least as much as from the centre.
1000
The following are the important steps that we shall take.
The Committee recommended that the present strength of 700 full-time youth leaders should be increased to 1,300 by 1966. The Government will finance most of this expansion in training facilities by Exchequer grant, and I hope that an emergency training college will be open by 1st January, 1961.
The recruitment of leaders will turn on the salaries offered and the opportunities for transfer to other careers after a period in the Service. I shall ask the interested parties to examine with me how we can carry out the Committee's recommendation on this matter.
The need for new buildings is urgent and in the next two years "starts" will be authorised for building by the local authorities and voluntary organisations up to £3 million. Grants to voluntary projects will be increased. Much of the accommodation used by the Youth Service today is shared with other forms of educational activity; given proper design and planning this can be a considerable advantage and will be encouraged.
Turning to current finance, grants will be increased for the headquarters' expenditure of the voluntary organisations and also for approved experiments in attracting young people now not using the Youth Service. Some organisations will get larger grants, others will receive grants for the first time.
The Committee recommended that a Youth Service Development Council should be appointed of about twelve persons chosen for their special qualities and experience. A Council of this nature will have to work very closely with the Minister, if only because the job to be done is urgent and largely experimental. To begin with, the work will be most easily planned and executed if I take the chair of this Council myself.
The Government believe that as these proposals are translated into action enthusiasm for the Service will grow. We look forward to full co-operation with the local education authorities and believe that volunteers and voluntary funds will increase on a scale that will énsure the success of the drive for expansion.
Mr. Greenwood: I should like to join with the Minister in thanking Lady Albemarle and her colleagues for providing us with a most valuable document. May I add the regret which we on this side of the House feel that Mr. Denis Howell, who served on that Committee, is no longer a Member of the House.
The Report is welcome because it bears a marked resemblance to the proposals made in our own policy statements. I am glad that the Minister has accepted in principle the main recommendations. But does he seriously believe that we shall get the full effect of this Report if the Government persist in a high-interest-rate policy and with the block grant, or does he also accept the recommendation in paragraph 317 of the Albemarle Committee's Report that additional general grants or separate percentage grants should be made available to local education authorities?
When may we expect a detailed statement about the salaries and conditions of youth leaders, when is the Development Council to start work and what steps is the Minister taking to persuade local education authorities to review urgently their further education schemes? Will he consider the possibility of allotting a day, or perhaps two days, for a debate in which we could discuss this Report and the Crowther Report together?
Sir D. Eccles: The block grant is about to be considered for the next period, and what the local authorities are ready to spend for the Youth Service will be counted in the calculation. It is because I do not know precisely what local authorities will be ready to do that I cannot today give the House an estimate of the costs. We will get on with the question of salaries as quickly as we can, but we have to have a body with which to negotiate. I hope that it will not be long before such a body comes forward.
I have not yet been able to consult the local education authorities, because the Report was published only this morning, but I assure the hon. Member that we shall lose no time in talking to them about the expansion which they are willing to undertake.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could have a debate on this and the Crowther Report together. I should
1002
like to consider that request. I will discuss it with the Leader of the House.
Mr. Greenwood: May we take it from what the Minister has said that he accepts the proposal for additional general grants, but rejects the proposal for special percentage grants?
Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.
Sir J. Duncan: Does the Minister's statement apply only to England and Wales, or does it apply only to the United Kingdom? For instance, is the Youth Development Council to be a United Kingdom body, or purely a body for England and Wales? If a Scottish Minister is ready to make a statement, may we have one from him?
Sir D. Eccles: The Report applies only to England and Wales and my authority is confined to England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) asked whether the Development Council would get going soon. The answer, "Yes," as soon as I can find the right people.
Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order. As the Minister is unable to make a statement on the Scottish aspect, and as he is a member of the Government, would it be in order to ask a Scottish Minister to make a similar statement with reference to Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mrs. White: The right hon. Gentleman is casting himself in the rôle of a youth leader. In view of comments in the Report on the acute depression in the Youth Service and the need for an urgent blood transfusion, will the Minister say what he and his predecessors have been doing for the last eight-and-a-half years? Does he accept the recommendation that the age range for the Youth Service should be 14 to 20 which, with other factors, will increase the number of young people to be taken into the service by no less than 46 per cent. in the next few years? Does he propose to raise the limits on capital expenditure, which, at present, are imposed by regulations under the Acts of 1937 and 1939?
Sir D. Eccles: We propose to accept the recommendation that the age range should be 14 to 20. The question of the capital limit is one of the things which

1003
we shall look at sympathetically directly we get the Council going. I can assure the hon. Lady that we intend to do better in the future than we have ever done before.
Mrs. Slater: We all welcome the Report, but does the Minister think that £3 million will be sufficient for the building programme, especially as many areas have done very little for the new service? Cannot places for the training of youth leaders be provided more quickly so that recruitment can take place much faster than is at present proposed?
There is also the relationship of building for the Youth Service and local authority building. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in my own area we have added wings to many of our modern secondary schools, but if the school building programme is cut back it will also affect the youth programme. Can the Minister say to what extent he will give local authorities more power to add these buildings to their larger secondary moderns, and thereby speed up the programme?
Sir D. Eccles: The £3 million "starts" in the next two years is, of course, an estimate. It will not be very easy to get many of the projects started in, say, the next six months. It takes time to plan. We will just have to see how we go along. I agree with the hon. Lady for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) that playing fields, for instance, attached to a secondary school can be a great help. As to the training of leaders, I think that we have already found a suitable place where a new college can start, but, of course, there will be more places in our ordinary teacher-training colleges for those taking these courses.
Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory Answer given by the Minister, in which he was unable to say in what way similar proposals will apply to Scotland, I shall raise the question of a Scottish statement on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be able to do that, if opportunity arises, but not in respect of an unsatisfactory answer. This is all about the statement, and it is sufficiently irregular, anyhow.
Mr. M. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, important as the Youth Service is, it must not be regarded as a substitute for an adequate period of full-time education; and that, if we want the best results, anything done in the Youth Service must be complemented by an attempt to raise the school-leaving age as soon as possible?
Sir D. Eccles: We shall, of course, be considering the school-leaving age when we debate the Crowther Report, but whatever is done about that, I am quite certain that a new impetus to the Youth Service is required.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister tell us whether his enthusiasm for youth extends to giving our youth the rights of citizenship; and whether I can now expect him to support my Bill to give votes to young people at 18 years of age?
Sir D. Eccles: That is quite another question.
Mr. Short: In the opinion of many of us, a great factor in the improvement of the Youth Service is leaders of the right quality, and that it is much more a matter of quality than of quantity. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best way to get leaders of the right quality is to Make their salaries equate more closely to the Burnham scale for teachers? Is he further aware that, if these were financed by way of general grant, the Youth Service in congested urban industrial areas will be penalised as against the service in more prosperous areas? Would he look again at the question of a percentage grant?
Sir D. Eccles: I feel confident that when the Committee considers salaries it will take into account the Burnham scale, but as we have not yet got a negotiating body we shall have to wait to see what is done. I am confident that the general grant system, provided that the local authorities are enthusiastic for the Youth Service, as I really believe they are, will prove quite all right.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Local Employment 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

  LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL
  As amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.
  3.45 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of the consideration stage of the Bill, I should like to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice by letter. It refers to the Amendment to Clause 1, in page 2, line 37, to leave out:
  "or, if so authorised, compulsorily;"
  standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and in my name.
  According to Erskine May, there are various points during the consideration of a Bill and, after that, before Third Reading, when your predecessors have ruled that the House may again be put into Committee to deal with specific Amendments. In page 575 of Erskine May we read:
  "A motion by an unofficial Member to recommit a government bill in respect of certain amendments at the beginning of the consideration stage has been accepted in respect of one amendment only by the Speaker…"
  To that passage there is a footnote (t), which refers one to Volume 503 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The OFFICIAL REPORT records that on 15th July, 1952, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), after the reading of the Order for consideration of the amended Pensions (Increase) Bill, was permitted by Mr. Speaker to put the House back into Committee for the consideration of a specific Amendment. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will carry out that precedent on this occasion in respect of the Amendment to which I refer?
  Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) for giving me notice of this point. For various reasons, I have sympathy with his complaint, and I should like to allow him to do this if I thought that I properly could. The difficulty is that I have to look at the precedent to which he referred me. That was a case in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  1006
  for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) had given notice of his recommittal Motion, and did it on the first opportunity for recommitting the Bill.
  It does not help me very much in these circumstances because, of course, the noble Lord, in common with other hon. Members, had the opportunity, of which other hon. Members did avail themselves, to put down Amendments which were to be involved in the recommittal Motion of yesterday. It is clearly in the interest of the House that as regards unofficial Members' Motions there should be some finality in these matters.
  There is another difficulty. The noble Lord will appreciate that, although he very courteously gave me notice, that did not involve notice to the House. What he is asking me to do is now to recommit the Bill in respect of his Amendment without notice to the House having been given at all. In those circumstances. I cannot feel it right to accede to his request.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your view on the matter. To save, perhaps, an unnecessary further exercise, could I ask you whether, in respect of another occasion when another such Motion in respect of a Clause was made at the conclusion of the consideration stage by an unofficial Member, when Mr. Speaker refused it, you would feel bound to accept your predecessor's Ruling on that, and rule me out of order if, at the conclusion of the consideration stage, I sought—with proper notice on the Order Paper this time—to raise it?
  Mr. Speaker: I should, obviously, in principle, although I must confess that from the particular precedent to which the noble Lord now refers I do not derive much guidance, because HANSARD does not say what the proposed Amendment was in respect of which recommittal was asked. So it is very difficult to see the significance of my predecessor's Ruling.

  LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL

    New Clause.—(ANNUAL REPORT OF BOARD OF TRADE.)
    As soon as may be after the thirty-first day of March in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-one and each subsequent year the Board shall prepare a report on the discharge of its functions under this Act and under subsection

    1007
    (4) of section fourteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and subsection (4) of section twelve of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, and shall lay the report before Parliament.—[Mr. Maudling.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The Clause is in fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave to the Opposition in Committee that an annual report should be presented to Parliament by the Board of Trade covering the discharge of its functions under the Bill when enacted. The Clause is worded to cover everything the Opposition had in mind and I hope, therefore, that the House will be prepared to accept it.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are very grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for tabling the new Clause. As he said, it gives us all that we asked for in Committee. The annual report will provide right hon. and hon. Members with all the information necessary to enable them to review from year to year what is being done under the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. That will be of greater value to us than merely to have a review, as was suggested so frequently yesterday, at about the end of seven years, when the powers will expire. This is a sensible thing to do and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1.—(PURPOSE FOR WHICH PART I POWERS EXERCISABLE, AND DURATION OF POWERS.)
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out from "exercisable" to end of line 12 and to insert:
    "with due regard to the proper diversification of industry, for the purpose of providing for the benefit of any development district employment appropriate (having regard to the circumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons therein) to the needs of the district.
    (2) In this Act 'development district' means".
    The purpose of the Amendment is to meet three separate points made by the
    1008
    Opposition in Committee. I think that I should apologise to the House for the fact that the Amendment is starred, but we had to change it at the last moment. The Amendment as it originally stood on the Notice Paper referred to providing employment in any development district. We have changed that to the words:
    "providing for the benefit of any development district."
    A factory might be provided outside a district, but yet give employment within the district. I am sure that the House will approve of the change.
    The three points we are trying to meet in the Amendment are these. The first is the question of diversification. Many hon. Members spoke about that in Committee and argued that there will be required within development districts not merely the provision of employment, but the provision of what is likely to be lasting employment. They argued that it was, therefore, a mistake to provide in an area highly dependent on one industry further employment in that industry. I accept that as a valid argument. The Amendment places on the Board of Trade a duty, while providing employment in these areas, to have regard to the fact that the employment provided should, so far as possible, contribute to the diversification of industry and, therefore, contribute to the likely lasting quality of the employment provided.
    The second point we are meeting is contained in the words in brackets:
    "having regard to the circumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons therein".
    In Committee, there was much reference to the position of particular categories of people, for example the disabled. It was argued that we should make special provision in the Bill so that the Board of Trade had a clear duty to take account not merely of the number of people unemployed in any given district, but also whether that number contained for example a high percentage of disabled. We certainly accept that obligation, which we thought was inherent in the original wording. However, I accept that there is a need to make it more clear.
    At the same time, I argued, and will continue to argue, that it would be a mistake to enumerate particular categories.

    1009
    Most of the discussion at an earlier stage was about the disabled. In recent weeks I have received deputations, particularly from some of the districts in Scotland, who stressed the special difficulty of school leavers, for example. We should have them much in mind. It would be a pity to select one or two categories. If such a selection is made in a Statute, it inevitably implies the exclusion of other categories which may be in practice equally deserving. Therefore, we have hit on this form of words:
    "any particular description of persons therein."
    In ordinary, non-statutory English that means that when looking at the situation in any area or district we must look not only at the number of people unemployed, but also whether for example there is a high percentage of disabled; whether there is a high percentage of school leavers; and—which is another important point which has cropped up in one or two examples I have seen recently— whether there are more men than women unemployed. All those factors are most important. The words we now propose lay a clear duty upon us to have regard in every case not merely to the number of people unemployed, either present or prospective, but also to the nature or type of people who will be unemployed. I hope that that meets, as I believe it must, the point of view expressed from the other side at an early stage.
    Finally, there is the question of the name to be given to these areas or districts. In the original Bill we talked about "unemployment localities". It was argued very forcibly from the other side that that was a bad phrase, and I accept the argument. The reason why it is bad is the reason advanced by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that it is a negative concept. The right hon. Gentleman argued that we should have a positive concept and should, therefore, retain the word "development" which was in the original legislation. I accept that we should think of these areas not in terms of unemployment, but in terms of development. We have done so. But I do not think that it would be right to go back to the original words "development area", for two reasons.
    First, in the Bill we are endeavouring to change the concept upon which this
    1010
    legislation is based. We are moving away from the original idea of certain areas specified by Parliament where there are special problems to the concept of a general duty on the Government to aid any locality where certain conditions obtain. Therefore, I think that there is an advantage in marking the break with the old system by getting away from the old phrase "development area".
    The second reason why I do not think we should return to the words "development area" is a strong one. "Area" implies on the whole rather a large area. I agree that there is a particular exception to which the right hon. Gentleman can refer; but while we argue, as we have done throughout the Bill, that our powers should cover both small places and large areas, "district" is more appropriate. It can be applied to areas as big as an existing Development Area and to places as small as a single town on the existing D.A.T.A.C. list.
    That, not any particular wish on my part to be obstinate, is the reason why I cannot accept "development area", but why after a good deal of thought about it I have put forward the words "development district", which, I think, are consistent with the purposes of the Bill and also the major point of the party opposite, namely, that we should think in terms of development and not in terms of unemployment.
    The Amendment meets the three points made by the Opposition, first, the question of diversification within the areas concerned; secondly, the point of having regard not merely to the number of unemployed, but also to the type of people who are unemployed; and, thirdly, the psychological point about the description of the places concerned. I hope that as we are trying to meet the points made by the Opposition the Amendment will commend itself to the House.
    Mr. Douglas Jay Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Jay: I intended to make a brief comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Speaker.

    1011
    As the right hon. Gentleman observed, he has attempted to meet us on three separate points and he has gone a long way to do so. I thank him for the effort he has made. He has introduced into the Bill the concept of the proper diversification of industry for the purpose of defining areas within which help is to be given. I will not say anything about that now, because we have an Amendment to the new form of words and it will be more logical to discuss that point on that Amendment.
    Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has introduced the words:
    "having regard to the circumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons therein"
    which appear in brackets in the Amendment, to meet the point that there are classes of workers, such as disabled persons, whom it is highly desirable to help in certain of these parts of the country. So far as I am able to judge, this form of words will enable the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention to disabled workers and to the possible problem of women workers and to other circumstances of that kind which may arise, and we hope that he will do so.
    Thirdly, he has attempted to meet us by introducing the words "development district". I think that he has not been so successful in this case. I agree that the phrase is a great improvement on "unemployment localities", which appeared to be likely to be the name of these parts of the country. However, it is a great pity that, having gone so far, he has not gone the whole way and adopted the recognised term, "development area".
    I agree that this is not a major argument. It is an argument about words, but there is some small substance in it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was one of the improvements of the 1945 legislation that we got away from the old terms, "depressed areas" and "distressed areas", which were discouraging to industry. Even though it was only a matter of words, there was undoubtedly something in it To continue the idea of Development Areas helped.
    It now seems to us to be a pity to fall back in this way. He has met us to the extent of introducing the word
    1012
    "development". It is a great pity that he should not go the whole way and adopt the now long-accepted phrase, "Development Area", which is familiar in these parts of the country and which, incidentally, is more easily pronounceable and, therefore, more likely to be used than is the phrase, "unemployment areas", which we did not want to have.
    The Minister's reasons for not adopting the word "area" were unconvincing. He said that the Bill had a concept different from that of the 1945 Act, but he said that only because he seemed to have the wrong idea of what the 1945 concept was. It was never intended that these should be fixed, permanent areas. Machinery was provided for altering them. I know that the present Government did not do so, which we regret, but it would have been possible to have frequently alterable areas under the 1945 legislation.
    Nor is there any substance in the argument that the word "district" applies to a smaller locality—or whatever word is used—or to a smaller part of the country than the word "area". I should have thought that either word could have been as easily applied to Pembroke, which was a Development Area, or to any other area which the right hon. Gentleman might have had in mind. We do not place great emphasis on this matter, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is rather spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. If he had stuck to "Development Areas", he would have made a cleaner job and I hope that in the remainnig stages of the Bill he will give this matter further thought.
    Mr. Speaker: I regret having embarrassed the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I had in mind the idea that it would be more convenient to the House to decide the Question of the words being left out, then to discuss the words which are to go in on the proposal of that Question.
    The Question I accordingly now propose is, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
    Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
    Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it your proposal, Mr. Speaker, that we should have a broad discussion on this Amendment and on our Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "proper", to insert "distribution and"?
    I should not mind that, provided that it is recognised that all hon. Members have equal standing—as might have been remembered earlier. Do you prefer that we should have a broad discussion, within reason, covering our Amendment?
    Mr. Speaker: I will not call that Amendment at once—I have not done so. If the House desires to have a rather wider discussion than would arise on the Opposition Amendment to the Government Amendment, then I propose to keep tie discussion wider, according to the will of the House. I called the hon. Gentleman to address the House, but it turned out that he was rising on a point of order. Does he wish to address the House?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire to address the House, Sir, but I think that what you have suggested will be the best form of discussion, provided that I can safeguard my right to make a contribution.
    Mr. Speaker: All I have proposed is the second part of the Government's Amendment. There has been no reference to the Opposition Amendment. Does any hon. Member wish to address the House after all that discussion?
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: I do not know whether I am strictly in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman two or three questions arising out of his Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker indicated assent.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for the Minister's response to points which we put forward in Committee. He has seen his way to meeting us on a number of issues, especially about groups of persons covered by the words which appear in brackets.
    Having made provision to meet the needs of those areas where there is a high percentage of disabled persons, for example, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to implement his Amendent? Does he intend to rely on a fresh application of the Grenfell
    1014
    principles of renting factories, or on an expansion of the work of Remploy? It is very important that we should know that. Remploy has failed to satisfy the requirements of those areas and its expansion has been limited to 6,000 instead of 12,000 personnel, as was the original intention.
    In Wales, there is only one Grenfell factory now operating on Grenfell terms and it is very important to know the Minister's intentions about implementing his Amendment.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: As it stands, the wording of the Amendment includes
    "circumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons therein."
    Would that wording enable the Board of Trade to take cognisance of the circumstances in some ports?
    For example, in my constituency and in Cardiff there may from time to time be many dock workers who are unemployed, but who, for one reason or another, will not technically be included in the general register of unemployed. There may be men who, for one reason or another, are not working at the home port but are working, let us say, at docks elsewhere to which they are conveyed under arrangements which have applied for some time.
    Will this wording enable the Board of Trade to take into account circumstances like that, which are of importance, I imagine, in many ports in the country?
    Mr. William Baxter: There is room for confusion in the minds of many people if we call a particular area, designated at this stage under the Bill a "district", because there are the already well-known district council areas. A district designated according to these provisions might pass right through the middle of a district council's area. Members of the district council and the community generally there might be under the impression that the whole of their area was designated under the Bill. I think that such confusion could be dangerous, and that it would really be better to go back to the former description.
    Mr. James Griffiths: This seems to be the opportunity for saying a little more about what we have in

    1015
    mind. I hope that we shall learn from our experience since 1945 in dealing with the vexed problem of providing for the disabled.
    In areas such as that with which I am concerned, and many others, where heavy industry is the principal source of employment, there are people who have been disabled in industry, but there are, also, those who have been disabled in war service, people registered with the Ministry of Labour on the disabled persons list. They really need special treatment and, for that purpose, Parliament has developed the scheme which we all know as the Remploy factory scheme.
    Some years ago, the Government stopped building any new Remploy factories. I think that there has not been one built for many years. Will the President of the Board of Trade now consider, with the Ministry of Labour and other appropriate Departments, including the Treasury, whether it is now time to remove that ban? They said at the time that the ban had been imposed because money was scarce, and so forth. In these days, it seems that money is, perhaps, not quite so tight.
    We are here concerned with very many men who have been disabled in industry or in the Services and who are capable of work, but their work must be special work. Quite frankly, it is work which we cannot provide as a commercial venture. We must admit that. It is a public service of immense importance. Very often, such men are in their middle years, 40 or 45 years of age, and we ought not to let them eat out their hearts in idleness when they are still capable of rendering great service although that service is not something which can be treated simply on a commercial basis.
    Beyond that, there is the vexed problem of pneumoconiosis, silicosis and other lung diseases. It was my privilege to be Minister of National Insurance and introduce certain changes in the scheme, but the fact is that now, by our present methods, we are seeking to identify pneumoconiosis before it reaches the very disabling stage and bring the men out. That is by far the best way.
    The problem is not quite the same now as it was ten years ago when we adopted what was known as the Grenfell factory scheme. As the House knows,
    1016
    Sir Stafford Cripps set up a Committee to examine what could be done to make special provision for persons disabled by this dreadful disease. The Committee was presided over by our friend David Grenfell and became known as the Grenfell Committee. It recommended that several factories—I think the number was 10—should be established in various parts of the country to make special provision in this respect quite apart from factories which were to be built to deal with the general problem of unemployment in the Development Areas. The purpose was to provide suitable employment for men disabled by pneumoconiosis. As I remember it, the Grenfell factories were to be run under the general condition that at least 50 per cent. of those employed in them should be persons disabled by pneumoconiosis.
    I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look at the matter again and consult with the Minister of Power and the National Coal Board to see what should be done now. It is becoming recognised in the coalfields generally that we are entering an age when smaller pits are going out and bigger pits are coming in. As an ex-miner with practical experience of how these things work, I can see what is happening. It will become more difficult to employ as many disabled men in the fewer large pits than it was in the many small pits. The mining industry has a tradition in this matter. Even many of the coal owners themselves behaved in exemplary fashion in providing special treatment for the disabled. Indeed, customs grew up whereby certain jobs were always absolutely reserved, by tradition, for these men.
    There will be a new problem now in coal mining and in industry generally. When a pit or a works closes, the disabled men have no chance of going elsewhere and they lose their jobs. Secondly, though I do not want to mention them as a special category, there are the men of about 50 years of age who lose their jobs. All these things call for a fresh approach.
    4.15 p.m.
    I am sure that the remedy is to secure adequate diversification. This is all part of the trouble created by so many areas being dependent upon one industry, very often a heavy industry. For my part, I

    1017
    do not want to see too great an expansion of special factories for special categories. Such a scheme has advantages, but it has great disadvantages, too. Disabled people should not all be congregated in the same place. It is better for them psychologically to have work in factories or workshops where they are thought of, and where they think of themselves, as normal people.
    We tried the experiment. It was worth trying, and the arrangements still continue. I should not want to dismiss them as something which we ought not to do. There are, of course, the severely disabled for whom we must provide Remploy factories and, inevitably, they will be people seriously disabled. Beyond that, however, we should try to provide work for the disabled where they can think of themselves as fellow-workers and not a special class.
    I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has added these words. They are rather legalistic words, but the message we must send by them is that we regard people who have been disabled in the service of the country, in industry or in war, as people towards whom we have a special obligation. It should be our desire to see that they are provided for in such a way that they can take their place in industry and society as fellow-workers and citizens with everyone else, not recipients of charity. They should be given a full opportunity to serve their country even though they are disabled.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Although the President of the Board of Trade seems to have gone some way to meet many of the arguments advanced in Committee, he has not really gone very far. He would have gone much further if he had put the words not at line 9, but at the point where they would have become the purposes for which the powers could be used. All this means at the moment, of course, is that, in dealing with severe unemployment, consideration must be had to these facts. That is quite desirable, but I should have thought that the Board of Trade would do that in any case.
    In previous debates, a great deal of the argument was directed to whether the powers contained in Clause 1 of the Bill should he used for purposes concerning districts which were not covered by the
    1018
    words "high rate of unemployment". This is particularly relevant in the matter being debated here, namely, the position of disabled men. It is quite possible not to have a high rate of unemployment but to have a hard core of unemployed consisting mainly of disabled men.
    I know of mining villages around Edinburgh where, when I was on the local employment committee, there was always a number of disabled men unemployed. The overall rate of unemployment was not high. In those circumstances, nothing could he done about that under the Amendment. That is why I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman would have done something much more effective by inserting these words later in the Bill.
    I should like to say something about the use of the word "district". I think that the point was made that the use of the word "district" in Scotland in connection with district councils might lead to some confusion. I imagine that the only real reason why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to use the word "area" is that he wants a change from the previous Acts so that his great fraud which is being put over in the country, that the Government are doing something entirely new, can be carried through and that, therefore, to enable them to carry it through, he wants different terminology. I cannot see any other reason for the use of the word "district". I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that his reasons why the word "district" should be used instead of "area" were rather thin.
    Mr. Maudling: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the points which have been raised on this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the position of the disabled. I hope that I shall not appear to be unduly narrow in my outlook if I say that we must confine ourselves to what the Bill does. I will certainly undertake to keep in very close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the question of the employment of disabled people.
    My right hon. Friend has the main responsibility for the provision of employment of a special kind for the disabled. In the Bill, we are dealing with a very specific point, namely, the powers of the Board of Trade under Part I of

    1019
    the Bill, and the Amendment makes it clear that, in exercising those powers, we must bear in mind the possibility of a large proportion of disabled or people suffering from pneumoconiosis in a particular area. We could not go further. We cannot go beyond the purposes of the Bill in any Amendment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) made a point about employment in the ports. I can only say that the basis on which we must work is the registered number of unemployed in any employment exchange area. I do not think that there is any other basis on which we can work, but in looking at the number of people registered as unemployed we shall have regard to all the circumstances of the district—seasonality of unemployment and whether there is a large proportion of women and disabled people, and so on.
    Finally, another point which was made concerned the word "district". I see the point that there might be confusion about the word "district", but I still think that it is the best word. "District" connotes something smaller than an area. One can think of urban districts or rural districts which are fairly small places, whereas the area of an electricity board may be large. This is the best solution which I can find. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) does not think that I have given sufficiently good reasons for the use of the word, but I have told the House in my own words why I suggested it, and I cannot add to what I have said.
    Dame Irene Ward: I want to add a few words to this very important discussion. In mining areas. which will be particularly affected by the powers under the Bill, there is a large proportion of disabled men who have found employment on the surface. I fully appreciate, as my right hon. Friend said just now, that the Bill deals with the powers of the Board of Trade, but that is the difficulty. Whenever we discuss these problems we are always given some reason why the people about whom we are speaking should not be adequately protected.
    I know that I cannot deal with the problem of small fixed income groups, but, of course, disabled people come
    1020
    within that category. The argument which is always used is that it is so difficult to find ways and means of helping them, and that I understand. As I have said before, this problem vitally affects mining areas, perhaps more than any other industrial centres. There is a vast number of them, and they have always been a very great problem.
    I was grateful for the sympathetic words of my right hon. Friend. However, sympathy is not all that we want. I hope that this very genuine point will be watched. When, as I hope, I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on Third Reading I shall be able to discuss the powers of the Treasury, because I see that that Department is mentioned in the Bill, and I shall want to know which Minister we shall be able to question, and so on.
    Many people who do not come from mining areas have no idea of the problem of disabled people in those areas. It is only people who know about these problems who can talk with authority. I can talk with very little authority, but I belong to my area and I know the problems which we have had in trying to find employment for men who have been disabled in the course of their duties, perhaps, underground.
    I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's sympathetic words, but to my mind they are not quite enough, and I shall look forward to something more. It is not the Minister of Labour with whom my right hon. Friend should discuss the problem—his powers are limited—but the Treasury and the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Jay: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "proper", to insert "distribution and".
    The purpose of this Amendment to the Minister's proposed Amendment is to insert the words "distribution and" in addition to the words "diversification of industry" in the definition of the areas which are to be assisted. It may appear to be a very small verbal point and that as the word "diversification" has been included there is nothing further to be added by inserting the words "distribution and". I do not think, however, that this is so.
    The 1945 Act included the words "proper distribution of industry" for the purpose of selecting areas for positive assistance, and it does not seem to

    1021
    us that, with the words "diversification of industry", this Clause will be wide enough, although no doubt it would be wider if the words "distribution of industry" were included. We are grateful to the Minister for the word "diversification", which is a great improvement.
    As the Bill was originally introduced, we had the anomolous position that, under Clause 18, the balanced distribution of industry for the purpose of granting or not granting an industrial development certificate in areas which it was considered should be restrained from developing was taken into account, but the balanced distribution or diversification of industry in areas which one wanted to help could not be taken into account.
    All that could be taken into account was the actual existence of unemployment or the imminence of unemployment. We have certainly moved much further than that, in that an area which might be threatened with unemployment but had not yet experienced it could be considered because it was a one-industry area or, indeed, a one-firm town.
    There are two reasons why I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider introducing the words "distribution and". In the first place, he himself said during the Committee stage, when he agreed to consider a concession in this matter, that
    "… we must have regard to the distribution and diversification of industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1959; Vol. 614. c. 1131.]
    The words which we propose to insert are precisely the words which he used during the debate in Committee.
    4.30 p.m.
    If the right hon. Gentleman asks, as reasonably he might, in what possible sense the addition of "distribution" could add anything to diversification, I would give two answers. Under the 1945 Act conception—it was inserted, incidentally, in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning and I have quoted the words before—in both parts of the operation, the restraint, on the one hand, and the stimulation, on the other hand, one took into account the whole distribution of industry over an area and over the country as a whole. That would enable one to consider
    1022
    strategic questions as well as pure questions of employment and diversification.
    Quite apart from economic grounds, it might well be argued on strategic grounds that it was undesirable to have a high proportion of the production of a key product like, for example, ball bearings too concentrated in one area. I am not saying that this is any more or less important today, but there is no doubt that with the adoption of the word "distribution", that could be taken into account for the purpose of exercising these powers, whereas that could not be done by relying solely on the diversification provision.
    There is, however, a second reason which at present, perhaps, is even more powerful. We are all considering the future of the motor industry and the location of its expansion plan. It could reasonably be argued that if the motor industry is to be one of our great exporting industries over the next five years, not merely is it undesirable to have it all concentrated in Dagenham, Luton or Birmingham, but it is positively desirable that there should be motor car production in Scotland, in the North East Coast, indeed, and in Merseyside, and so on. I know that the hon. Lady the Member the Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) would put an eloquent case for part of the motor car industry to go to the North East Coast whether or not she was in order in proposing it.
    Suppose that we have simply the word "diversification" and that it was proposed to put motor car production at Tynemouth. The President of the Board of Trade would have to show that in Tynemouth, or, at least, on North Tyneside, there was such an undue concentration of shipbuilding employment that there had to be diversification. He could not argue that it was desirable that the motor car industry should be not merely in Wales, Scotland and Merseyside, but should also be in the North East Coast. This could be a relevant consideration.
    I am not saying to the right hon. Gentleman that he should do this, that or the other with the motor car industry, but simply that if he adds these words there is no doubt that the powers would be wider and the wider considerations could be taken into account. That is what we have in mind and I hope that he will not turn down the Amendment out of hand.
    Mr. Maudling: The wording of the Amendment relates to a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. Whether, in practice, that difference of principle would produce very different results in individual cases of development, I am not convinced. Certainly, there is a great difference of outlook between the two sides on this matter.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay) was speaking of what could be called a proper development of, for example, the motor industry, which we should try to seek both by negative and by positive powers to impose upon that industry. I simply do not accept that. I do not believe that such a thing could be devised. I do not know what the proper development of the motor industry is. I think that the best development a priori is the most economic development in the place in which manufacturers can make their cars more cheaply and sell them competitively.
    As the Bill is designed, we must make some qualifications. These are twofold. First, we must prevent a growing concentration of industry in certain areas. That is the purpose of the later Clauses concerning I.D.C.s, in which distribution is referred to. I agree that I.D.C.s are, rightly, used to prevent the competitive planning of industry leading to a maldistribution of the kind which one has in mind.
    Secondly, one has a duty to provide inducements to get an expanding industry, such as the motor industry, to go into special areas where there is a social problem because of a high rate of unemployment. To tell that industry to go to an area which is contrary to its own interests is, however, fundamentally wrong. I could not accept the Amendment, because it is not something at which we should try to aim.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Surely, in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which we now seek to amend, we are dealing not with the purpose of the Bill or with the first six Clauses, but with the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman will have regard in giving effect to the purposes of the Bill. Does he now say that he does not think it right and proper that he, as President of the Board of Trade, should
    1024
    have regard to the proper distribution of industry?
    Mr. Maudling: I was saying that "proper distribution of industry" may well be a meaningless phrase unless we analyse what is meant. The purpose of the Bill is to interfere quite deliberately with the workings of private enterprise. It is the purpose of the Bill to compel highly competitive enterprises, which often are big contributors to our export trade, to set up in areas where their costs of production are higher than in the place to which they would wish to go. That can be the only purpose of the Bill. If such enterprises would go to the North East Coast, to Merseyside, and so on, without inducements and compulsion, we should not need the Bill. The only reason why manufacturers want to go to Birmingham and the South is because it is economically more suitable to them.
    We understand the purpose of the Bill to be twofold: first, to continue and strengthen the powers, to which the party opposite attaches much importance, to prevent a further expansion of industry in the areas where there is already great congestion. That is the purpose of the I.D.C.s, which we are using with a certain amount of effect.
    The second purpose of the Bill is to provide at the expense of the Treasury inducements to those companies which cannot expand in the areas of their choice, to go to particular selected parts of the rest of the country. The question is: on what criterion shall we select those other parts of the country to which inducements should apply? My argument is that that criterion should be the social needs of unemployment areas and not the vague concept of a proper distribution of industry.
    We are arguing about doctrine rather than about practical effects. As I have said time and time again, let us judge the Bill by its effects. As the motor industry has been mentioned, perhaps we will judge the effects of Government policy over the next few weeks by the number of new jobs created in the unemployment areas, which is what we are aiming at. I cannot accept the Amendment, because, although I do not think it would have practical effect, it would be quite contrary to the principle which we are trying to operate.
    Mr. Jay: I do not wish to get involved in doctrine, but does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the fallacy in his argument? There might well be an instance—probably there is one now— when, as between two areas in, say, Wales and Scotland, to which he might wish expansion of the motor industry to go, there might be no difference whatever in costs. Between many areas there is often no difference in costs.
    There might be some other quite different reasons why it might be undesirable that all the expansion should be concentrated in, for example, Wales. If that were so, undoubtedly it would be reasonable to say that "proper distribution" would cover such a case. If the right hon. Gentleman realised that the effects are as I have suggested, he would recognise that this is a practical point.
    Mr. Maudling: The first duty is to stop people setting up in crowded areas. The second point is how we should spend Government money to induce people to go to certain areas, and to which areas they should go. We say that they should be induced to go to areas where there is severe unemployment, not where severe unemployment does not exist and where there may be some theoretical basis of need for what is called distribution of industry.
    Mr. James McInnes: If the right hon. Gentleman has difficulty with the definition of "proper distribution of industry", may I direct his attention to Clause 18, which specifically refers to it? If it can be applied in Clause 18, why not apply it here?
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am not sure that I find very much to quarrel with in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not understand why what he said caused him to reject the Amendment. It seems to me that from time to time he forgets that this is an enabling Bill. Everything under it, generally speaking, is left to the Board of Trade. Much may be done or little may be done. All that we are seeking to do is to add something which the right hon. Gentleman should take into account when he is making decisions about these "development districts". This phrase, of course, came up when this matter was discussed in Committee.
    1026
    It was in the course of those discussions that the right hon. Gentleman used the words to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred just now. I do not think that my right hon. Friend quoted the right hon. Gentleman in full, and I propose to do so, because it seems to me—and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will agree—that Government pledges given in this way should be carried out fully. The right holt. Gentleman said:
    "… but I would be prepared to consider inserting an Amendment at a later stage in Clause 1, that would make it quite clear that, in carrying out the duties of the Board of Trade under the Bill in areas to which the Bill refers, we must have regard to the distribution and diversification of industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 1131.]
    Those are the right hon. Gentleman's own words.
    Mr. Maudling Mr. Maudling rose—
    Mr. Mitchison: If the right hon. Gentleman would let me finish what I have to say, I will give way to him in a minute.
    This, presumably, is the Amendment. If it is not the Amendment, that is a different state of affairs altogether. Then, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why he has changed his mind. I want to know from him why is it, when diversification and distribution had been under discussion for some considerable time, and he deliberately chose those two words himself, one of them but not the other appears in his Amendment.
    Mr. Maudling: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not read carefully enough the words from me which he quoted. I was talking about what happens in a district and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was speaking of distribution between districts If the purpose of the Amendment is to have distribution in a district, I do not know what is the difference between that and diversification. The whole burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was the need to distribute industry between different districts of unemployment. That is what I resist.
    Because the Amendment appears to mean that—and was taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself to mean that—I

    1027
    cannot accept it. Distribution in a district, if it means anything at all, appears to me to mean the same as diversification. Distribution between districts is the thing that I cannot accept. What I have been saying this afternoon, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find, is completely consistent with what I said in Committee.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. He is now saying that it is impossible to relate the words "distribution of industry" to something within the areas. The only defence that he can put forward comes to this, that when he was speaking in Committee the words used were quite meaningless. He said:
    "… in areas to which the Bill refers, we must have regard to the distribution and diversification of industry."
    I do not find that a difficult phrase to understand. It seems to me to be quite capable of meaning and I accepted at the time what the right hon. Gentleman said, but when the Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper I asked myself, "Why has he left out the proper distribution of industry?"
    I turn from what the right hon. Gentleman said then, and what is offered now, to one observation on the merits of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has already pointed it out and in so doing he was following some remarks of the Minister of Labour at the end of the discussion in Committee. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he himself said. He said that the key point in the action that the Government proposed was the refusal or the granting of industrial development certificates. He took that, quite rightly in my opinion, as one side of the medal of which the inducements to go to an area is the other. If that is the position, then I fail to see how he can introduce into the granting or refusal of industrial development certificates an element which he refuses to consider when we come to the question of inducements.
    Let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman in this way. I am sure that he will listen to what is said to him before making up his mind that there is no inconsistency. There is, I believe, an
    1028
    inconsistency. Suppose, for the purpose of an industrial development certificate on consideration of the proper distribution of industry, an area is considered suitable or unsuitable, as the case may be, then it is possible for that not to be considered when we come to the inducements and that an inducement will be refused in a case where the opposite action would have been taken in relation to an industrial development certificate.
    There must be the same standard for the two things, otherwise we shall find that an industrial development certificate ought to be refused in an area where, none the less, an inducement ought to be offered to some manufacturer to go there. I do not say that the number of such cases will be large. If this were a Bill which laid down precisely and to what extent the right hon. Gentleman should exercise his powers, that would be a different matter, but in an enabling Bill we must, I suggest, have consistency between the negative side of the Bill represented by industrial development certificates and the positive side of the Bill represented by these inducements.
    If we deliberately refuse to take into account the primary thing that matters for the purpose of industrial development certificates, then we may get into a position of the most absurd contradiction between the two sides of the medal. The history of the matter is very short. In what is called, later in the Bill, the principal enactment, this phrase occurred and it is repeated in Clause 18 of the Bill, as the Minister of Labour pointed out, because it was in the principal enactment, that is, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but no attempt whatever is made to suggest that when we are considering the question of industrial development certificates anything but a proper distribution of industry ought to be considered as the primary factor.
    Yet, leaving that on one side, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately refuses to be allowed to have regard to the proper distribution of industry when he is considering the question of inducements. The right hon. Gentleman has been persistently shaking his head. It seems to me that Governmental obstinacy can go a long way. He has, no doubt, decided to his own complete satisfaction

    1029
    that there is no contradiction whatever and no difficulty. I ask him to give himself the opportunity of thinking, even later if not now, whether it is not possible that there is some contradiction and that he is wrong to refuse to himself the duty to look at this matter when considering inducements.
    Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful for the word "diversification." Looking back over a very long period, during which both parties in the House have formed the Government at some time. one can see what a very long way we have been able to go in getting diversification. It is a very important aspect of the whole of our employment policy, and I am not against it. I think it is all right, but what I want to know is how the Board of Trade will interpret "diversification" and how far back in time it is prepared to go to see how diversification has so far taken place and in thinking out how it should proceed.
    I have been dealing with this problem of unemployment, and trying to attract industry to various parts of the country where it is necessary, for a very long time, and I am sometimes aware that distinguished Ministers—and ex-Ministers on the other side of the House —are really far too young to remember a11 the difficulties which were encountered when we originally tried to embark on diversification. My right hon. Friend has talked about congestion of the motor car industry in Birmingham, but, so far as I have listened to the debate, nobody has put forward, although it is important, one of the reasons why that congestion has arisen.
    My mind goes back to the war, when we were establishing our industries for the purpose of winning the war, whether it was aircraft production or the expansion of production of motor vehicles needed in the desert and other parts of the world, and when strategic necessities, referred to by one right hon. Member opposite, at that time demanded, because not only the North East Coast bat the whole of the East Coast of England were considered most vulnerable to bombing, that they should not get any of the benefit of employment in the new and expanding industries which were being concentrated in the centre of the country. Those industries continued to expand after the war, and that
    1030
    helped to bring about this tremendous congestion.
    Consequently, the East Coast of England —and I am not talking about the North East Coast only but the industrial part of the East Coast—fell behind in the race for getting proper, balanced diversification of industry, or getting balanced industry. It was because in the war we understood, although actually it proved wrong, that we on the East Coast were to be bombed out of existence. Therefore, we were not able to have new industries established in our part of the country, even though we may have had a pool of labour available to put into those factories.
    What I am anxious to know is whether the Board of Trade, and all the pundits there now advising the Department, when making an assessment of diversification and the need for industrial expansion, will take into consideration that, quite apart from all the other difficulties of winning the war, the East Coast of England had to make those very great sacrifices, and that consequently, when the war ended, we were not in a position to take advantage of aircraft production expansion, the motor car industry's expansion, and the like. What I want to know about the interpretation of "diversification" is how far we are to be able to argue that we fell behind in the race for getting a proper distribution of industry.
    We all talked, and rightly so, about having all our eggs in one basket. The radio industry developed in the centre of England because, as I say, we understood that the bombing would be along the East Coast and not in the centre of the country. Of course, as I say, that proved an incorrect prediction. However, it left the East Coast of England, and, no doubt, the East Coast of Scotland, too, at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the country. That ought to be remembered.
    It is no use the generation of my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary just talking about diversification now. Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Parliamentary Secretary was in the House of Commons at the time we were starting trying to have diversification of industry so as not to have all our eggs in one industrial basket. What I want to know is whether

    1031
    all that aspect of the matter will be taken into consideration.
    I am sorry that my right hon. Friend sprang up so quickly, to answer the case put for the Amendment from the other side of the House, that he gave me no opportunity to ask him for an answer on this very important point.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Hon. Members who were present when Mr. Speaker made the suggestion which he did, and which I readily accepted, will remember exactly what took place. Since then we have had hon. Members coming in making their contributions to the debate and then disappearing. We have learned to take that kind of thing philosophically, but it does take some accepting.
    On this issue, approaching our problems within these limits, I find myself approaching them in the same way the Minister did earlier, but from a slightly different angle. It would be wrong of me not to speak on this matter, because, as the Parliamentary Secretary can testify if necessary, no area in the country suffers more than mine does from the issues raised by the proposed Government Amendment and our Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will listen to our reasoning, by which we try to provide him with evidence to show why he should accept our Amendment to his Amendment, or, if he cannot accept it, why he should give an undertaking that the provisions of his own Amendment will be administered in the way we ask.
    When I read the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, when it first appeared on the Notice Paper, I thought it a tribute to the work of the Committee on the Bill. I remember the days when Ministers, whether of that party or this, used to listen to debates and the reasoning put forward, and when, if there was any weight in the reasoning, they adapted themselves and their Measures to it, according to the evidence produced in debate. I have seen a great change in the ways of Ministers. This is not a party point, but for many years Ministers have tended to stand tightly to their briefs. They have been unprepared to deviate one-sixteenth of an inch from their briefs. I have often thought that fundamentally wrong, especially in Committees on Bills.
    1032
    I welcome the present Minister's listening to reasoning, and adapting Bills to conform to reasoned argument in debate in Committee. So I thought, when I first read his Amendment, that it was a big step in the right direction. I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who protested against the Minister's getting up so quickly. There is a certain amount of that done far too often. There is an inclination among some people to think that they know it all.
    Mr. Maudling Mr. Maudling rose—
    Mr. Ellis Smith: In this, I do not include the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Maudling: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me a moment to explain. I hoped that by intervening early I might help the debate by letting the House know the Government's point of view, so that it could know that as well as the point of view of the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that explanation right away, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that Mr. Speaker had given me an undertaking, which I readily accepted, provided I could retain and safeguard my Parliamentary rights. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that? I thank him. I thought he would. That is the reason why I thought that the Minister was too ready to get up. I shall not carry that too far, but it is a point worth noting.
    5.0 p.m.
    I feel very strongly on this subject, because no area has suffered more than the one I represent in this respect. I have had recent correspondence with the President of the Board of Trade, which I much appreciate, in which he has reminded me that at present we have not a very large proportion of unemployed. I accept that and I pay tribute to those who are contributing towards maintaining that position. But there are special circumstances in the area and it is for that reason that I feel strongly about both these Amendments.
    The circumstances are that in the main the area has only two industries, pottery-making and mining, and that if anything serious took place in either of those industries we should be in a terrible position. It is true that, fortunately, as a

    1033
    result of the National Coal Board's present policy of large-scale expenditure to increase Output from the most modern mines in the country we are benefiting for the time being. But as a result of having only those two industries, there are more people in the area suffering from silicosis or pneumoconiosis than in any other part of the country.
    When it was first my privilege to represent the area one would see a procession of men and women on the streets on the way to the employment exchange. Their faces were white or cream-coloured as a result of the effects of silicosis and they were unable to find work. It is true that since then there have been great improvements in industrial conditions which are reflected in the improved health of the workpeople but we have still a relatively large number suffering from pneumoconiosis because so many are employed in these two industries. It is for that reason, among others, that I ask that there should be greater diversification of industry. I would urge also that the King's Roll should be used more extensively in order to find employment for these people.
    I was once employed in an establishment where there were 25,000 workpeople, and because they were mainly engaged in carrying out Government contracts the King's Roll was administered to 100 per cent. A fair proportion of those who, through no fault of their own, were suffering as a result of war injury or industrial disease found employment. I admit that it is not the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade to see that greater use is made of the King's Roll, but he has already said that he will consult the Minister of Labour and that the Government will do all they can in this area where there is a special claim for consideration in any discussion of the substance of these Amendments.
    It was my privilege to be as friendly as a man could become with Colonel Josiah Wedgewood. He was a big man who approached things in a big way, as all who remember him would testify. He had his idiosyncracies and eccentricities but he was a big man and when I was a young man lacking experience he took me time after time to every Government Department with which he was in touch and every Department admitted that the
    1034
    area which I now represent had a great claim for diversification of industry. That was how it came about that we had the two Royal Ordnance factories, one at Radway Green, employing 25,000 people, and one at Swinnerton which during the war employed 50,000. The factory at Swinnerton is now completely closed down. This is another reason why I hope that the House will approve our Amendment.
    I pay tribute to the influence which the Minister has exercised over the British Motor Corporation. He and his officials must have had great influence over the Corporation in bringing about the result of which we all know. Now, in addition to his present authority and in the light of the country's economic needs, the Minister will be armed with the powers which it is proposed to give him under the present Bill.
    I readily give credit for the fact that we are now to have a new establishment employing at least 1,000 men at Swinnerton, but we need a great deal more. This is only the beginning and I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give an undertaking that he will approach Associated Electrical Industries, English Electric and General Electric in the same way. These concerns are among the most important and efficient in the world. They have great influence in the world and, provided that we avoid world slumps, there is a great future for them. Acceptance of our Amendment will provide an opportunity to do with those great industrial establishments what the right hon. Gentleman has already done with the British Motor Corporation.
    The area which I represent is a geographical and economic unit which is largely cut off from the rest of the country. About half a million people live in the area, 270,000 of them in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. Birmingham and Manchester are both about 40 miles away. In this isolated unit 500,000 men and women are mainly dependent on two industries. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will readily see why I am speaking with great concern and trying to exact from him the maximum undertaking that even if he cannot accept the Opposition Amendment he will take every step to ensure that the Bill will be administered in accordance with the intentions of the House.

    1035
    I have already paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his readiness to accept reasoned argument. This is democracy at work. If the House will function more in this way, instead of our having the personal quibbling and striving and straining of which we see so much, it will help to establish the House in the eyes of the people. It will let the people see that we really mean business and that we are trying to reflect their needs in our day-to-day proceedings. That should go a long way not only towards establishing the House in the eyes of the people but towards giving greater confidence to the industrial areas where people are watching debates on a Bill of this kind.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With the sole exception of the mining point, I do not think the Opposition has a case at all on the Amendment, the mining point being simply that if unemployment occurs the diversification of industry must be automatic. One cannot put more mines down to cater for unemployment that may be arising. This is where the Opposition is hard up against the general or special theory of industrial planning which is so dear to the hearts of hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
    One of the most fascinating things is the bobbishness of the Socialist Party. After three successive defeats, one might have thought they could induce themselves to believe that a conservatively-controlled State would not in any circumstances accept a priori theories of industrial planning. Yet we have the hon. and learned Gentleman for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) complaining that my right hon. Friend cannot accept his ideas.
    There is a mystique about planning in the Socialist Party, just as there is a mystique arising out of Gaullism in France at present. People do not understand it. It is impossible to tell from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) what he means when he says that it is necessary to have a proper distribution of industry. We have never heard what is the plan. There may be some highminded economist, like Dr. Kaldor, who has a perfect gem picture in his mind of how the motor car factories of Great Britain should be located, but it is not produced in concrete form, and no
    1036
    reasons are adduced as to why it is necessary to have the various industries of the country segregated and de-centralised.
    Not even the strategic argument was brought into the debate today. If any hon. Gentleman opposite had said, "The fear of mass bombing is now so great that we must remove most of the motor cars from Coventry and put them elsewhere", one could have understood that argument. But there is no attempt to justify this high concept of redistribution planning which is so dear to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, I am not at all sure that one of the reasons why they have lost out—I hope I am not being presumptuous and patronising in saying this—in the last fifteen years or so is because they are not putting across to the electorate fundamental and sane and comprehensive reasons as to why they want this aspect of their Socialist philosophy.
    I can see no reason, strategic questions apart, why most of the motor car industry should not be in Coventry, why most of the wool industry should not be in Bradford, why most of the cotton industry should not be in Oldham, and so on. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave two justifications for refusing this Amendment, and they are absolutely tenable and understandable. They represent our economic philosophy that, on the whole, industry thrives best when it can go where it likes.
    According to my right hon. Friend, there are only two exceptions to that. One is that industry shall not move into enormous conurbations and thus lead to all kinds of other social disadvantages, which were so well put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) earlier in these debates. However, that can be catered for by the I.D.C. procedure, which, incidentally, is not a new one under this Bill. It was caught up from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and has been in operation for some time. So it has been drawn from the past and is perpetuated by this Bill. I believe that all sections of the country are prepared to see this aspect of negative planning of industrial aggregations of industry.
    The other point made by my right hon. Friend is fundamental to the Bill,

    1037
    namely, that it is right to use State inducements for private enterprise to go into specific areas in order to take up unemployment. That I wholly object to but, and these are my final words, that is a matter for the Third Reading debate.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I was rather surprised at the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) leering at the Socialist concept of industrial planning. If he will read the history of railway development in the nineteenth century, he will gather that then the great industrialists who were laying railroads across this country were frustrated, not by the central Government, but by noble gentlemen throughout the land who often made them put their tracks over considerable detours, cuttings and tunnels so that the railways should not go anywhere near their valuable estates—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord went rather wide, but he is going further still. He should come back to the Amendment.
    Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Sir Gordon. Having spent a great part of my life in industry, knowing some of the frustrations imposed on us by many owners of land during our industrial development, I could not help being taken along the trail taken by the noble Lord.
    The purpose of this Bill is to bring into the distribution and location of industry some planning on the basis of what is best socially and economically for the country. It is no use any diehard Tory getting the idea that the Tory Party now rejects planning. Members of the party opposite do not accept it, but they have proved by this Measure that they do not completely reject it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nationalisation."] Nationalisation in many cases has been a great success. I am sure that if in the 19th century a high cost of capital had not been forced upon the railways—I am sorry, Sir Gordon, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are leading me off the Amendment again—which was in large measure due to the refusal of certain landowners to let the railway developers put the railways where they wished, we would not
    1038
    find that burden reflected today in the cost of our railways.
    I want to plead for distribution as well as diversification. Diversification takes place within British industry itself on a large scale. For instance, many people do not realise that the British Motor Corporation produces many things in addition to motor cars and other internal combustion engines. In fact, the Bendix washing machine is produced by the Corporation and also the Empire typewriter, as well as the moulds of the Marley tiles made in Scotland. So diversification in that sense takes place within engineering plants. The purpose of this Bill is not merely to encourage that type of diversification within one industry. Its real purpose is to bring about a redistribution of economic activity. If it does not mean that, it means nothing.
    Mr. Gower: The main purpose of the Bill is to deal with high unemployment in certain parts of the country.
    Mr. Bence: There is heavy unemployment in certain areas of the country because there is a lack of economic activity. There is over-full employment in some areas because there is too much economic activity. So the purpose of the Bill is to shift some of the economic activity from areas of over-full employment into areas of under-employment. Is not the purpose of the Bill to redistribute economic activity from those areas where there is too much to those areas where there is too little?
    I take the view that the population from the Midlands down is too high and that the population from the Scottish border upwards is too low. Scotland could carry a higher population if it had a higher industrial activity.
    May I comment on the word "diversification"? In my constituency we produce ships of all kinds but we also produce domestic and commercial sewing machines, rotary water and oil pumps and electrical switchgear. There is a great diversification of industrial activity in my constituency. The trouble is that there is not enough industry. Diversification alone is not sufficient.
    I notice that the B.M.C.'s proposal in respect of its works at Kingsbury Road, Birmingham, where I have worked, is to move the Bendix washing machine works

    1039
    to Kirkby in Lancashire. The Corporation does not intend to take the motor car manufacturing works there but the manufacturing section dealing with domestic appliances. I wish that such an enterprise would move to Scotland. I would rather the manufacture of consumer durables were moved to Scotland, because we could stimulate capital production in Scotland in this way, and by that stimulation we could develop further pressure in the South on consumer durables. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has heard me stress this point before. It is a well-known point made by economists for a number of years in dealing with regional unemployment.
    By all means let us encourage diversification. Beardmore's Porthead Forge, in Glasgow, in the past has manufactured almost nothing but heavy steel castings for the shipbuilding industry, and we should help it to diversify its industrial activity. With the arrival of the B.M.C. a wonderful chance is offered for this firm to augment and diversify its own activity by producing propeller shafts and crankshafts for heavy commercial vehicles. Such diversification is good. If the Government can take action to encourage the diversification of economic activity within industrial plants, so much the better. I prefer to work for a company which has diversified its products. That is why it is a good thing to work for the B.M.C. which does not depend entirely on motor-car production. It is a good thing for any engineer or for any toolmaker, as I was, to work in an industry making diverse products.
    But that is not the main purpose of the Bill, which is to redistribute industry. We do not use the word "redistribute", but that is what it means; the purpose is not to create new industries in Scotland but to redistribute some industrial activity from the over-congested areas into the underdeveloped areas of the country.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If that were the purpose of the Bill there would be a lot to be said for it, but as far as I can see the purpose is to pack in more industrialism where industrialism now exists.
    Mr. Bence: The noble Lord suggests that the purpose is to pack in more industrialism where there is already an excess of it. I cannot see that. If industrial development certificates are refused in an over-congested area and if assistance is given to firms prepared to go to areas with heavy unemployment, surely that is a sound policy. There may have been heavy industrialism in such areas in the past, but because of the changing pattern of industry and because of new techniques and technologies and the nature of world trade, those areas have become under-industrialised.
    For instance, I suggest that hon. Members should visit Staffordshire and the Black Country around Ironbridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South knows that area as well as I do. This is a town which is overgrown with weeds. Up to the end of the eighteenth century it was a great iron centre, and the first iron bridge ever built stands there as a monument. Today it is derelict. Would the noble Lord call that an industrial area? It was 200 years ago, but it is not today. In the same way, everyone speaks of the "Black Country". Indeed, eighty years ago it was the "Black Country", but today it is a green country. In Lanarkshire and parts of my constituency there were great industrial areas in the past, but if no attempt is made to bring about a redistribution and relocation of industry in the country, those areas will become derelict.
    My right hon. Friend's Amendment is justified as an attempt to keep this purpose in the Bill. We must bring about a redistribution and relocation of economic activity in the country. With the new technologies and new techniques which are arising, I believe that in the future most large engineering plants will increasingly create a diversification of products within their own organisation. The British Motor Corporation, one of the most successful motor enterprises in this country, founded by Austin and Sir William Morris, both able and competent men under whom I have worked, found this advisable. Hon. Members may not know that until a few years ago, Lord Nuffield had a lathe in his bedroom and used to do a bit of turning with it for amusement, because he so loved the technique of the engineering processes.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should come back to the Amendment.
    Mr. Bence: That was a case of the redistribution of economic activity.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South knows that for a hundred years the wives in the Midlands have been used to such engineering processes in their houses. My hon. Friend knows of little hand presses being set up in the bay window of a house. I have seen them, and so has he, and I have taken raw materials to those houses. That is how industry was distributed there forty years ago.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position again and to include the word "redistribution" in the Bill. It has a psychological meaning and it is more conclusive of the Government's intention to go further than they seem to intend to go under the Bill. The Bill may not prove sufficiently effective. In three or four years we may have to go a stage further, as a Parliament, to deal with this problem. We have a responsibility on both sides of the House.
    We shall have to do more planning in this generation; and I mean "planning", because that will inevitably come. Hon. Members opposite may fight their rearguard actions until the cows come home, but there must be some State intervention to plan and locate the industrial activity of our country in the interests of efficiency, housing, good living, good culture and good society.
    We cannot afford to have half of the country overcrowded, with the people there rushed, crushed and pushed, while the other half is under-employed and in many cases almost destitute and without hope. We cannot have two nations living geographically apart. We have learned over the years that we cannot have the old concept of two nations; we have almost eliminated Lord Beaconsfield's two nations of poverty and wealth. By unplanned location of industry, however, we have again created two nations, this time geographically. We have the high-prosperity nation, south of Gloucester, and the low-prosperity nation, north and west, including the north of England, Scotland and Wales. This concept of two nations must be changed by the redistribution of industrial activity in the country.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gower: The hon. Member said that the kind of planning which he envisaged will have to come and he implied that it would have to cone for the sake of efficiency and of the industrial prosperity of our country. He implied that those who in many cases have spent a life-time in learning the administration of a great industry are the least well-equipped to decide how that industry can be successfully run.
    Mr. Bence: I spent too many years with the British Motor Corporation to make that suggestion. We have been able to put our products at the gates of the factory at such a speed that neither the railway nor the roads can get them away. The fact that we cannot get them away fast enough represents our highest cost.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Let us come back to the Amendment.
    Mr. Gower: I was observing that there was the implication that the people who are running industry have not the least idea how to do it and that there was some other body or some politicians who would know far more about it. I do not think that that is a view which is generally held; it is certainly not the view of my right hon. Friend. The implementation of the powers in the Bill would in many cases not be of benefit to an industry; in many cases it would be a handicap. We must recognise that fact and ensure that the handicap under which any industry shall labour shall be as small as possible and not as great as possible.
    I believe that my right hon. Friend, in that setting, has gone a very long way indeed to meet the wishes expressed when the matter was discussed in Committee. On the one hand, he has ensured that when the Board of Trade considers to what areas industries shall be dissuaded from going there shall be reference to the question of redistribution. On the other hand, when the Board of Trade considers to what areas industries shall go, its attention will be directed not to the question of distribution but to the much more relevant question of higher than average unemployment and, to some degree, to the question of diversification within those areas. I think that those are much more appropriate matters.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to find

    1043
    it difficult to understand why in the case of the industrial development certificate it might be appropriate to consider distribution and why, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend was not prepared to have that consideration included in the Clause. I should have thought that there was a distinction to be drawn between the two cases. When we are considering why an industrial development certificate should be withheld in the case of London or Birmingham, surely maldistribution must be one of the main considerations. But when we are considering to what area an industry should go the main consideration should be the evil of high unemployment and not of maldistribution of industry in the area. On the other hand, one of the faults in such an area may well be the failure to have diversification.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman comes from South Wales as I do, and it amazes me that with his experience he should be talking as he is now.
    Mr. Gower: I am submitting that under my right hon. Friend's proposals there is power to deal with an area in which there is higher than average unemployment. My right hon. Friend's Department has already shown by its withholding of industrial development certificates, in the case of the motor industry, its ability to influence the movement to Wales and to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency of Llanelly, and indeed, to Scotland, of major industries. The consideration there has not been diversification but higher than average unemployment.
    Mr. Griffiths: As I have said, the hon. Gentleman comes from South Wales as I do, and he knows that up to comparatively recent times three out of every five persons employed in Wales, including Barry, were dependent upon one industry. Because when that industry failed there was no alternative employment, the people suffered. Barry was one of the towns which suffered, and it is still suffering. That is why I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should say that we do not suffer from a lack of proper distribution of industry.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is failing to deal with the Amendment.
    Mr. Gower: Surely the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making is covered by the lack of diversification. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I should have thought it was patently obvious that the lack of diversification answers the point which he has mentioned. For these reasons, I think that my right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that when the Bill becomes an Act and is in operation the Board of Trade should concentrate on the areas of higher than average unemployment. Indeed, I imagine that people living in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, near Llanelly, or in the high unemployment areas in Scotland would resent it if the Board of Trade did not place industries in those areas but put them elsewhere because there was lack of diversification.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to pursue the discussion on this Amendment.
    Mr. Gower: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this Amendment deals with the lack of diversification— it deals entirely with that point. I should have thought that people living in areas with higher than average unemployment would be very concerned if the question of distribution claimed the major consideration of the Board of Trade at a time when that major consideration should be higher than average unemployment.
    Mr. Tom Brown: The debate so far on this Amendment has been contributed to in the main by hon. Members who come from districts which have suffered in the past and which are still suffering from the lack of distribution of industry at the right time and in the right way in order to obviate or minimise unemployment. Very few of the speakers so far have personal experience of unemployment. I speak as one who has experienced the loss of dignity which unemployment causes to the man or woman who is thrown out of work. I have always maintained that there is dignity in labour and degradation in being out of work and inforced idleness. No man that I have come across when discussing this matter has deliberately thrown himself out of work.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going very wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Brown: Right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The question of the distribution of industry has been discussed many times, and we must put forward arguments to show why we support an Amendment of this character.
    I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) state that there are only two industries in that area, namely, mining and pottery. In the district which I have the honour to represent we also have only two main industries. They are mining and cotton. Hon. and right hon. Members know what is happening in coal and what is happening in cotton. Both industries are contracting very rapidly. The coal industry is contracting far more rapidly than we anticipated. That is why I am anxious, as one who comes from a mining area, that the word "distribution" should be incorporated in the Minister's Amendment.
    In many parts of the country the coal industry is contracting with great rapidity. Twenty-five years ago, in Lancashire and a small portion of Cheshire, 80,000 men were employed in the pits. The figure today is 38,000. It may occur to some right hon. and hon. Members to ask where the men have gone. They have gone to other industries in distant parts of the county and the country, and even overseas. We as a nation failed to provide alternative employment for these men when they were thrown out of work.
    I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South pay a tribute to the President of the Board of Trade. I reinforce what my hon. Friend said. It has been my experience when serving on Committees for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible that he was amenable to reason. I hope he will be amenable to the reasoning that we are putting forward to prove the importance of the Amendment, and that he will accept the word "distribution". That word is very important if we are to maintain a high standard of living for all our people and protect them from unemployment.
    I said a moment ago that at one time 80,000 men were employed in the mining industry in Lancashire and that only
    1046
    38,000 men were employed there today. Where have those men gone? They have not left the district entirely, but they now have to travel long distances to work rather than occupy the ranks of the unemployed.
    I should like to give a picture of what is happening where mines have closed down. A man who used to work for eight hours a day in a mine is now away from home for more than twelve hours a day, because there is no alternative employment in the area in which he lives. That shows neglect in the past by the Government of the day to distribute industry to places where it was required.
    In Ashton-in-Makerfield in my constituency six or seven pits are to be closed in the next two years. The mining industry has contracted steadily over the last few years but we have not been offered an alternative industry. I plead with hon. Members to listen to the reasons why we consider the Amendment so important. We must have a real distribution of industry to areas where it is required, and that as quickly as possible.
    My hon. Friend referred briefly but sincerely to the number of men suffering from pneumoconiosis and silicosis. Let us consider the position of these men. When the pits were in full commission and a man was unfit for work through injury he was found light employment within the industry. There is now no light industry in which he can be found work. To keep down the percentage of unemployment in localities where there are only two industries we must redistribute other industries to those areas to provide work for those men.
    I support the Amendment because it will help considerably, if it is put into operation. It will help those districts like Ashton-in-Makerfield, Ince-in-Makerfield, and Abram where pits are being closed and the men are being displaced. I know that the closing of a pit is sometimes unavoidable. I am not blaming the Government for that—not at this stage. I have enough common sense to know that when pits have been in commission for 300 or 400 years the coal stocks run out. There is, however, no reason why the men displaced should not be found alternative work by the distribution of such industries as are available for distribution to those districts.

    1047
    I am not saying that the President of the Board of Trade can manufacture an industry. I am saying that by proper control and proper diversification and distribution the Minister would be able to direct into those areas those industrialists who want to help the bad areas. He could say to the industrialists, "Here is a site. Here is labour and material. Instead of sending your industry to the south of England build your factory in this area." I know there has been a battle between the North and the South, and we have lost the battle so far, but let us now try at least to effect a draw. The Minister should direct those industries which are available for direction into the districts which have unfortunately suffered a contraction of the industries that once helped to provide employment for the people living there.
    5.45 p.m.
    It may be that even if two new light industries are directed into a mining area, we shall once again face the problem of finding employment for the men displaced from the mines which are contracting with ever-increasing rapidity, but there is no reason why the President of the Board of Trade, with his tolerance and his amenability to reason, should not accept the Amendment.
    As one who has suffered in the ranks of the unemployed and has tramped the country and been unable to find work, I plead with the Minister to accept the Amendment. If any words of mine can prevent any individual, be he in Lancashire or in any other county, from experiencing unemployment, it is my duty to say them. I hope that the Minister will agree to our Amendment and include the word "distribution" either after or before the word "diversification," because the two things must go together. By doing that he will help the districts which in the past have experienced, and are now experiencing, the difficulty of having many unemployed men and women.
    Mr. Maudling: We have had a very interesting debate, but it has been a little diffuse. I think that at one and the same time I can agree with a great deal of what has been said by many speakers, including the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), without accepting the
    1048
    Amendment, because, on the whole, speeches have been directed to supporting not so much the Amendment to the Amendment as the arguments which I put forward against it in the initial stage.
    Much has been said about the need for diversification. It is true that there is a need but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) pointed out, it is already covered by the Government Amendment. We recognise that in providing for the needs of an area where there is a substantial amount of unemployment we must try to make available the sort of employment which will be permanent. If a district is substantially dependent on one industry, or one branch of an industry, it is wiser to try to persuade industry of a different kind to go there, so that all the industries in the area will not be engulfed at the same time if difficulties should subsequently arise.
    In Committee the argument was put forward very powerfully that in operating our policy we should have regard to the need for the diversification of industry—meaning the diversification of industry in the areas in which we are trying to create new enterprises. That is the purpose of the Government Amendment, which describes the circumstances in which the Board of Trade can use the powers under Part I, but even in respect of the Government Amendment, to which we are now discussing an Amendment, the powers are to be used only within development districts. That was the point I made earlier, and it was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry. In so far as we are inducing people to go to certain areas at all we must try to get them to go to places where there is a high level of unemployment.
    We say that the criterion we must have is that the areas concerned are areas with a high level of unemployment, and in inducing industries to go to those areas we must take account of the situation already existing in them. We must take note of the fact that there is a concentration of heavy industry, or a large number of school leavers or disabled people, and so on. But in every case the area or district to which we are trying to persuade industry to go must be an area where a social need

    1049
    exists because of a substantial amount of unemployment.
    The Amendment to the Amendment could mean one of two things. It could mean that we should have regard to the distribution of industry, first, within development districts and, secondly, in the country as a whole. I do not think that the first alternative is relevant. If a firm is going to Merseyside, as I hope some firms will, it does not very much matter to the Board of Trade which part of the area it goes to; that is a matter for the local planning authority. Our job is to get firms to go somewhere where unemployed people are waiting.
    Therefore, if the Amendment to the Amendment has any significance we must treat it as dealing with the distribution of industry between different districts. I can only explain the point of view of the Government once again. The attitude that we adopt is somewhat different from that of the party opposite. We do not start from the proposition that there is something called a "proper distribution of industry throughout the country", which can be defined and set down in terms of a blueprint. We say that, as far as possible, industry should be allowed to develop in accordance with competitive conditions, under free enterprise.
    We recognise that there are limitations to that view, and I accept that we must employ negative controls, which prevent industries going to crowded districts. There is nothing illogical about that, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested. He tried to argue that if we say "No" to a person in respect of one area we must say "Yes" to a person in respect of another area. Even the party opposite would not do that. They have said that they would shrink from directing people and that they would use the negative but not the positive power. We can say, "This place is too crowded, so no one else can come in", but we do not have to tell people who want to come in where they must go.
    It might be that everybody on a railway platform tried to get into the same coach. It would soon become overcrowded, and further people would have to be prevented from getting in, but that would not mean that we should tell them exactly how many of them were to go
    1050
    into each of the remaining coaches on the train. That is a logical analogy, which can be sustained. We do not accept that it is the function of the Government to tell industry where to go. We want to see it go where it thinks it can be most efficient, and where its costs can be kept low, but this wish must be conditioned by two things. First, we must exercise strenuously these negative powers, preventing industry from going into areas which are already overcrowded where, on economic, strategic— as the right hon. Gentleman said—and social grounds there is a strong case for preventing further expansion, even at the cost of some loss of economic efficiency. We are doing that.
    Beyond that, we say that in respect of districts where there is a special danger of unemployment we should, at the expense of the Government, offer inducements to firms to go into those areas. We should not direct them; no one is proposing that. If there were no areas of special unemployment I see no reason why the Government should have anything to say upon the question where firms should go, beyond preventing them from going into crowded areas. It is only because of the existence of a special unemployment problem that the inducements in Part I are being provided.
    As clearly as I can explain it, that is our reason for saying that the introduction of a concept of distribution at this stage would run counter to all our ideas.
    Mr. Jay: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's argument inconsistent with the wording of Clause 18, which says:
    "In considering whether any development for which a certificate under the principal enactment (hereinafter referred to as an "industrial development certificate") is applied for can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, the Board shall have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment in the localities mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act."
    Surely the President of the Board of Trade would agree that that must mean that the Board of Trade takes account of the proper distribution of industry over both types of area, which is all that our Amendment to the Government Amendment is asking for.
    Mr. Maudling: I should have thought that those words expressed, as succinctly as possible, what I have been saying.

    1051
    We have only two purposes. The first is to stop people from going into crowded areas, which would clearly cause maldistribution of industry, and must be stopped, and the second is to induce people to go into areas of special difficulty, because a social problem exists there which must be solved.
    We will not go further and say that we should use Government influence and money to induce industry to fall into a pattern which accords not with the principle on which one would like industry to work but with a theoretical principle
    which the Government are trying to impose. There is a fairly clear division between the two sides of the House on this matter. I have done my best to explain our point of view and I am sorry if I cannot persuade the party opposite to accept it. I cannot assist the House any further, beyond saying that these are the clear purposes of the Bill and that we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 260.

    Division No. 32.]

    AYES

    [5.58 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Albu, Austen

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Millan, Bruce

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Grey, Charles

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Awbery, Stan

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Monslow, Walter

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Moody, A. S.

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Grimond, J.

    Morris, John

    Beaney, Alan

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mort, D. L.

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Benson, Sir George

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Blackburn, F.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Neal, Harold

    Blyton, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Boardman, H.

    Healey, Denis

    Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phillp(Derby,S.)

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

    Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oram, A. E.

    Bowles, Frank

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Boyden, James

    Hilton, A. V.

    Padley, W. E.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Holman, Percy

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Holt, Arthur

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hoy, James H.

    Paton, John

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Peart, Frederick

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pentland, Norman

    Callaghan, James

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Chapman, Donald

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Chetwynd, George

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Cliffs, Michael

    Janner, Barnett

    Probert, Arthur

    Collick, Percy

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Proctor, W. T.

    Corbel, Mrs. Freda

    Jeger, George

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Randall, Harry

    Cronin, John

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Crosland, Anthony

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rhodes, H.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lawson, George

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Deer, George

    Ledger, Ron

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

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Ross, William

    Dempsey, James

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Diamond, John

    Lipton, Marcus

    Short, Edward

    Dodds, Norman

    Logan, David

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Loughlin, Charles

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    McCann, John

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Edelman, Maurice

    MacColl, James

    Small, William

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McInnes, James

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Evans, Albert

    McLeavy, Frank

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Finch, Harold

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Steele, Thomas

    Fitch, Alan

    Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Forman, J. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Stones, William

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mapp, Charles

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

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

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Marsh, Richard

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

    Ginsburg, David

    Mason, Roy

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Swingler, Stephen

    Sylvester, George

    Wade, Donald

    Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Warbey, William

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Watkins, Tudor

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

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Weitzman, David

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Woof, Robert

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

    Whitlock, William

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Timmons, John

    Willey, Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Tomney, Frank

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Mr. Darling and Mr. Redhead.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Allason, James

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Farr, John

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Arbuthnot, John

    Fell, Anthony

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Longbottom, Charles

    Balniel, Lord

    Freeth, Denzil

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gammans, Lady

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Barter, John

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Batsford, Brian

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McAdden, Stephen

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

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

    McLaren, Martin

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Goodhart, Philip

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Goodhew, Victor

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

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Gower, Raymond

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

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

    McMaster, Stanley

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Green, Alan

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Bossom, Clive

    Gurden, Harold

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Box, Donald

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Marten, Nell

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Braine, Bernard

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Brewis, John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

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

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hay, John

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Mills, Stratton

    Bryan, Paul

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Bullard, Denys

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Morrison, John

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Burden, F. A.

    Hendry, A. Forbes

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Neave, Airey

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

    Hiley, Joseph

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

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

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

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

    Noble, Michael

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hobson, John

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrle

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Holland, Philip

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hollingworth, John

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Cole, Norman

    Hopkins, Alan

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Collard, Richard

    Hornby, R. P.

    Page, Graham

    Cooke, Robert

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Cooper, A. E.

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

    Partridge, E.

    Cooper-Key, Sir Edmund

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Peel, John

    Cordle, John

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Peyton, John

    Costain, A. P.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Coulson, J. M.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorna)

    Jackson, John

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Crowder, F. P.

    James, David

    Pott, Percivall

    Cunningham, Knox

    Jennings, J. C.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Curran, Charles

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Dance, James

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Rameden, James

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Doughty, Charles

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Rees, Hugh

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Renton, David

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kirk, Peter

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Duthie, Sir William

    Kitson, Timothy

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Eden, John

    Leavey, J. A.

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Elliott, R. W.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Emery, Peter

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Legh Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Roots, William

    1054

    1055

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Tapsell, Peter

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Russell, Ronald

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

    Watts, James

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Teeling, William

    Webster, David

    Sharples, Richard

    Temple, John M.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

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

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Smithers, Peter

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Wise, Alfred

    Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

    Turner, Colin

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Speir, Rupert

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Woollam, John

    Stodart, J. A.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Worsley, Marcus

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wall, Patrick

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Mr. Whitelaw.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We now have a series of consequential Amendments which, I believe, are drafting.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are intimating that you do not propose to call the Amendment standing in the name of one of my right hon. Friends, some of my hon. Friends and myself, in page 1, line 16, to insert a new subsection (3)?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment has not been selected by Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Griffiths: May I raise a point of order about the matter? It is a very important matter, which, with every respect, we think ought to be debated on this Report stage. May I indicate briefly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why we put this point to you?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Very well, but I cannot vary the decision of Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Griffiths: May I now assume that you are Mr. Speaker, and therefore put my point to you? I hope you will listen to what I have to say, and I wish to say only one thing. When we pass this Bill, we shall repeal entirely the whole of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. That Act contained a Schedule which delimited and defined the areas which it covered. The whole of that Schedule goes, and there is to be no Schedule to replace it. That is why we think it is important to discuss this matter and make it an obligation upon the Minister, within a definite time after this Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, to declare and announce the areas to which the new Act will apply. We thought that, because the Bill makes this important
    1056
    change in national policy, because it completely repeals the whole of the 1945 Act, which included the areas that were scheduled, or, to use the old term, the Development Areas—which this Bill does not—there was a very sound reason for allowing us to move this Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman out of courtesy, but I cannot alter the decision of Mr. Speaker.
    Amendments made: In page 2, line 3, leave out "such locality as aforesaid" and insert "development district".
    In page 2, line 7, leave out "such localities" and insert "development districts".
    In page 2, leave out line 9 and insert "a development district".
    In page 2, line 11, leave out "locality, or to the" and insert:
    "development district, or to that".
    In page 2, line 16, leave out "locality or to the" and insert:
    "development district or to that".
    In page 2, line 20, leave out "locality" and insert "development district".
    In page 2, line 23, leave out "locality" and insert "development district".—[Mr Maudling.]

    Clause 2.—(PROVISION OF PREMISES AND SITES.)
    Amendment made: In page 2, line 32, leave out from "any" to "for" in line 33 and insert "development district".—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 3.—(BUILDING GRANTS.)
    Amendments made: In page 3, line 11, leave out from "any" to "towards" in line 13 and insert "development district".
    In page 3, line 13, leave out "locality" and insert "district".—[Mr Maudling.]
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be convenient if we discussed this Amendment together with the next Amendment, in line 26, to leave out "including" and to insert "which may include".
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, the two Amendments hang together.
    It will be appreciated that subsection (3) permits the President of the Board of Trade to attach conditions to building grants which may be given to undertakers under the provisions in this Clause. We think that Parliament might wish to make it obligatory on the Minister to attach conditions to ensure that the purposes for which the buildings were provided and the grants made are fulfilled. Were the Clause amended as we propose, we think that we should be putting a reasonable obligation on the Minister and at the same time we should not make the thing so rigid as to be unworkable. Were the Amendments made, the subsection would read:
    "The Board in making a grant under this section shall impose such conditions as they think fit for securing that the building or extension will continue to serve the purposes of this Part of this Act, which may include conditions for repayment of grant in specified circumstances."
    6.15 p.m.
    I think that all hon. Members would regard it as a misuse of a grant were it made for the building, for example, of a factory and then, shortly after being built, the factory was used as a store or for some other purpose. Yesterday, when we discussed offices in quite a different context, the President of the Board of Trade made it clear that he could give grants for the building of offices and the like. It would be a pity were a grant given for the building of offices or for an hotel, because it was believed that this work would lead to the solution of an unemployment problem in a particular area, and then the building ceased to be used for the purpose for which it was intended and for which a grant was provided—perhaps to find employment for 100 or 200 workpeople —and was used as a store. Such premises might be taken over by one of the new companies getting contracts from the Independent Television Authority
    1058
    and employment provided for perhaps only six or twelve people.
    It would appear reasonable that in making these grants the Board of Trade should attach conditions to them all the time, not unreasonable conditions but conditions which would vary according to the circumstances of each case. It seems to us that the varying of the conditions would not necessarily lead to it being desirable that there should be a repayment of the grant, but in some circumstances the need to do that would exist. We propose, therefore, that the word "shall" should appear in the first line of the subsection to make mandatory the imposition of such conditions as the Board of Trade thought fit, and leave permissive the provision regarding the repayment of grants.
    I hope the Government will consider that these Amendments represent a sensible and realistic proposition. We do not think that there will be a tremendous contribution to the solution of our unemployment problems by way of building grants. But this is a new thing, and we have to realise that when factories are built or owned by the Board of Trade, or owned and managed by the managements corporations, and if the properties are not being used properly the corporations or the Board of Trade should be free at any time to change the use of the building or, if the tenant is not making a proper use of the property, to terminate his tenancy.
    If we are to spend the taxpayers' money in order to solve the unemployment problem in a particular area, by giving capital grants to an industrialist, we ought to be as sure as we can be that public money spent for this purpose will be used to provide a property which may not be disposed of for quite another purpose which might well be more rumunerative than the original purpose for which the building was erected. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that these Amendments are reasonable and that he will be able to accept them.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think it appropriate that another hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency should second this Amendment,

    1059
    because it is part of the Scottish ritual in the discussion of Bills that we should debate whether the word in the Bill shall be "may" or "shall". On this occasion, however, it is a little more than a piece of ritual because undoubtedly there is force in the Amendment.
    I do not wish to repeat the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). We desire to ensure that public money shall be spent properly and that the Board of Trade shall see that that is done. What would happen if a factory were built with the aid of a grant—say, 85 per cent. of the cost of the factory—from the Board of Trade and if within a year or two the factory were put to some other use? What would be the position if the Board of Trade had laid down no conditions, as might well be the case, under this subsection? We ought to have an answer to this question, because if there is not a satisfactory answer it seems to me that the Amendment ought to be accepted.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I think it would be convenient if I gave the Government's views on this point right away. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, the effect of the Amendment is to make it obligatory instead of permissive for the Board of Trade, in making a building grant, to impose such conditions as are thought fit for securing that the building will continue to serve the purpose stipulated in the Bill. We propose in any event to do this, and I think that answers the question put to me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
    I agree with both hon. Members that it would be intolerable that someone who had obtained a grant of public money to enable him to erect premises to provide employment should be able to dispose of the premises so that they were put to a use which would not provide employment within the area.
    Therefore, in so far as the use of "shall" emphasises the Board's intention that the money shall be paid out for the purposes stipulated in the Bill, we accept the Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 26, leave out "including" and insert: "which may include"—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

    Clause 4.—(GENERAL POWER TO MAKE LOANS OR GRANTS TO UNDERTAKINGS.)
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 33, leave out from "in" to end of line 35 and insert "a development district".—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out "or grants".
    I had hoped to deal with the elimination of grants and the substitution of loans throughout the main spending Clauses of the Bill, namely Clauses 3 and 4, but for technical reasons the Amendments were out of order on Clause 3, and I am confined to this Amendment and the next Amendment in page 4, line 5, leave out "or grant", which is consequential. These are second-line Amendments. They are not attempts to wreck the Bill but they are attempts to hamstring its activities somewhat.
    For the benefit of hon. Members who do not know the nature of my opposition to the Bill, and without going out of order, I think I should say quite briefly that while not being opposed to State action in some form, either general or particular, to alleviate unemployment in certain localities—and I am thinking particularly through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government by way of clearing and altering the character of the locality and employing labour, improving amenities and activities of that kind—I am totally opposed, as are some of my hon. Friends, to the giving of State assistance to private business to open up in places where there is alleged to be a sufficient qualifying degree of unemployment. I am opposed to that, first because it discriminates between the new private entrant to the locality as against the existing business man in the locality who, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) the other day, has been "sweating it out" there for a generation or more, and also because it discriminates as between the lucky firm which gets this Government assistance and the competitor in the same trade who does not get it or does not elect to seek it.
    I deplore the fact that the present Conservative Government, in so many

    1061
    fields which I cannot cover in this Amendment, are today subsidising private industry either to go to places and do things or to amalgamate—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: And agriculture.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that some of the subsidies to agriculture are in need of surveillance and in some cases severe curtailment. I say that in spite of the fact that my constituency, while not being purely agricultural, is largely an agricultural constituency. However, this being a second-line Amendment, I cannot develop the point.
    It seems to me to be a mistake to use the taxpayers' money to aid and abet the arrival of industry in areas which are already heavily industrialised by definition, because otherwise unemployment in those areas would not arise. The concept that I have is one of decentralisation on the lines of some of the things that are now being done abroad, notably the tremendous Renault factory in the heart of rural France, and in my own constituency where Winfrith Atomic Energy Station is not surrounded by a large industrial conurbation but employs large numbers of persons. That is the type of concept that I have, and, for the reasons that I have given, I deplore the use of taxpayers' money to pay grants or loans to private enterprise in order to aid and abet the process of massive industrialisation in areas where these "dark satanic mills" have existed for too long.
    The basic question here is how to save something of the taxpayers' money without destroying the concept of the Clause infernally. I am therefore moving to leave out these words "or grants." The purpose is quite simple. The State might consider making a loan to private enterprise, as it has done in the past to various iron and steel firms—notably Tube Investments which firm is now in Corby, and the Cunard Shipping Company for the building of the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary". This has been done by means of loans which are repayable I hope that there will not he a grant for the new "Queens". If any assistance is given, it should be done by means of a loan and not by a grant.
    1062
    Here we have a proposal to make available very large sums to private industry to move to areas of unemployment, and if these sums are to be available they should be made available in the form of loans repayable over a period rather than by means of grants. If a grant is made of, say, £100,000 for a large industry to move to an area of relatively high unemployment, that comes above the line on the Estimates. It is paid for out of current taxation. If it is a loan it may qualify to go below the line. It is repayable and the sole feature of it which reflects against the taxpayer is the annual interest.
    6.30 p.m.
    Many concerns can go to their banks and, by paying 4 per cent., 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., can get a sizeable industrial loan. By coming to the State they get it at whatever the lending rates are at the time, 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent., and there is a minute difference between the two. We should not quibble about the difference in what private enterprise can get from private sources and from the State. My main point is to try to reduce the large sums, directly payable by the taxpayer to industry.
    The Government may come forward with two counter-arguments. They may say the alternative to making a grant is for an industry to request that a Board of Trade factory should be erected for it. That in part begs the question, because I cannot see any responsible Government acceding to the request to build a very expensive factory for a firm if a grant was not there. Secondly, they may say this is a once-for-all payment for a firm to uproot itself, travel, get settled, re-tool and get going again, and after that it is off on its own. That is only a "little baby" argument, because no other private firm that has moved to a centre which has had unemployment in the past, until the 1945 Act came into existence, has had Government assistance for this purpose. Hitherto industrialists have been required to raise capital for their initial establishment expenses. Many firms are doing that at present. If the Government argue that this is a once-for-all payment, I do not think that mitigates the enormity of their offence under this Bill sufficiently to allow it to pass.

    1063
    Where are we going with these grants and loans to private industry? I hope very much for the assistance of some hon. Members opposite in attacking this problem fundamentally as we proceed to our financial debates throughout the year. It is interesting that some of the great men of commerce are beginning to have feelings of very sincere regret about this. I know that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) is deeply interested in the processes now at work in the cotton industry. Perhaps he will be interested in what Mr. Anthony Tuke said on 18th October last to the Annual Conference of the Cotton Board:
    "At the moment you have your special problem of redundant capacity, which is so serious that the Government have been prepared to take special measures to alleviate it. I need hardly tell you that this action has not met with universal acclaim. I only say one thing about it, which is that Government financial aid, whether by grant or by loan, can act as a boomerang. In particular its acceptance, especially I think if it takes the form of a loan, provides an argument, perhaps the only plausible argument, in favour of nationalisation, which is that industry is now so big that when it needs finance only the Government is big enough to find the money; and that what the Government finances it is entitled to control. I make this as a general point, and not as having any special reference to the cotton industry."
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hon. Members opposite need not cheer so loudly. I made exactly the same point myself in my peroration when opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. I ask the Government again to recognise the danger of this process of chasing industries, in a certain stage of temporary decline it may be, with subsidies and grants. It may please hon. Members opposite. This may be a form of Conservative philosophy which is feeding their ultimate purpose. I do not know. Goodness knows what the Minister of Aviation is doing to the aircraft industry. We might very well soon get to the stage where it will be natural for people to demand that it is the duty of the State to invest in, take over and manage industries which have been the subject of so much Government help.
    I hope the Government will take a warning from the fears that some of us are expressing about current legislation at the present time. It is extraordinary
    1064
    that, while the Russians now seem to be developing various arts of private enterprise and private commerce, even in a rudimentary way, we in Britain remorselessly, for some extraordinary reason, since the war have been moving towards collectivism. No doubt one day we shall salute each other as we pass, both of us at sea.
    Mr. John Eden: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In the course of his remarks, my noble Friend showed that the payment of grants by the Government is undesirable. I hope in one or two sentences to show that it is equally unnecessary.
    The one purpose of the Bill, I understand, is to induce industry to move to areas where there is a high and persistent rate of unemployment, hoping that by moving fresh employment opportunities will be created in those areas. The accent so far in our discussions, both in Committtee and today, has been on the word "induce". This is one of the methods by which it is hoped to induce industry to go to those areas. This form of inducement, the payment of a grant, is, in effect, designed to amount to compensation for the expense of moving. If it is to compensate an industry for moving from one area where it now exists to an area where the Board of Trade wishes it to go, this is not going to be the only consideration which the owners or managers of that industry are going to have before them when deciding whether or not to accept the invitation to move to that area.
    I imagine that, on the whole, it will be one of the smallest of the considerations they will bear in mind. Their main consideration, surely, will be whether or not, after having settled in that new locality, they are going to be able to trade successfully, to produce their particular articles economically and to market them efficiently. One of the smallest factors in their minds when weighing up the various arguments in favour of moving or staying will be this question of compensation for the cost of actually moving and setting up in the new locality. It is not going to be the one big point which will persuade people to move who otherwise might not be prepared to do so.
    In any event, I think it will be unnecessary because in trying to consider

    1065
    which industries are likely to move I think they are more likely to be the larger concerns. I cannot foresee many small industrial companies, or even groups, running the risk which undoubtedly a move of this kind would involve. It is much more likely to be those which we regard as the leaders in British industry, which hitherto have taken a lead in doing this sort of thing, big firms which have gone to these areas and saved the situation by creating fresh employment opportunities there. They have been followed by the smaller firms, like smaller fish following big fish. It is the risk, which the big fish can well afford to take, which is the first and foremost one. Therefore, it seems to me to be unnecessary to exercise this power of administering grants.
    In fact, my right hon. Friend has said so in the Bill. In Clause 4 he makes it clear that there must be some test before a grant or loan is given, and the test is to be whether or not it is assumed by those administering the money that the industrial concern will be a success. Clause 4 (1, b) says that there must be good prospects of the undertaking ultimately being able to carry on successfully without further assistance under that provision. If there are good prospects for the concern to carry on successfully, it seems unnecessary for it to be in receipt of any form of grant. If it can carry on successfully, then it can be expected to be successful enough to repay the loan. Consequently, it is essential that we should remove from the Bill this imposition on the taxpayer.
    I think it will help to some extent—a little, not much—to encourage a certain amount of movement in the labour force. I have very much sympathy with and understanding of the arguments put forward at earlier stages of the Bill about the preservation of the life of the community, but I think it is true to say that there is not today as much mobility of the labour force as there was. I believe that the labour force has been rendered immobile by the settlement of wages on a national basis. Therefore, I would hope that such money as can be spent under the Bill will be directed towards encouraging individual potential employees to move from one area to another rather than towards grants to individual industries.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. H. Rhodes: Since the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) mentioned me, I should like to tell him that I support a good deal of what he said. We now have the example before us of the mess that the Government have made of the grants to the cotton industry. When one looks at these things it depends, of course, how they affect one. If one is at the receiving end it is not so bad. I was hoping that the Government would, perhaps just before the next General Election, apply to the wool industry a scheme similar to that which they have put into operation for the cotton industry, because it is very nice occasionally for those engaged in industry to get something for nothing.
    I would urge the Minister to consider the question of grants and also what the noble Lord has said. Just before the General Election the Government brought in their scheme for the cotton industry, and as a result vast sums of money have been paid, estimates varying between £30 million and £60 million. As the area concerned is a D.A.T.A.C. area, it is still possible for a firm to apply to the Treasury for permission to set up again in the same business. Hon. Members must consider the matter not just in terms of political expediency at a time when a General Election may be pending so that the Government of the day may be helped to keep seats which they would otherwise be likely to lose; they must look at it in terms of how it will build itself into the fabric of the economy as a whole. There is something in what the noble Lord has said, and it ought to be very seriously considered. I look forward to co-operating with him at a later date on the same sort of issue.
    Mr. Anthony Fell: I support the Amendment. I am not sure whether it is a concomitant of democracy that one must do the wrong things for the wrong reasons practically all the time, but on the question of these grants it seems to me that it is easy enough to get a grant out of the Treasury for something which is generally politically acceptable to the voters. In other words, if there is a cry for pouring out some money that moves a Government strongly enough from the voting point

    1067
    of view they will pour it out, but they very often think twice about granting money for what may be more important purposes.
    Mr. Willis: Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman that he thinks that the Tory Government in the past nine years have been pouring out public money because it had a certain voting value?
    Mr. Fell: I will not be drawn out of order by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Willis: That is what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Fell: Perhaps there are other hon. Gentlemen opposite who would like to interrupt me. If so, I should be glad to give way to them.
    Mr. Rhodes: I merely wish to say that I understand absolutely what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
    Mr. Fell: It is perfectly true of any Government—it has been true of all Governments since the war—that they will pour out money for things which they think of political advantage, but they are loth to pour out money for other matters which may be of very great importance. Perhaps I may explain what I mean. This afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) spoke about the East Coast. There are many ports, including one in my constituency, which were very much harmed during the war. Industry was practically driven away and the ports became more or less armed camps. Also, great damage was done to the towns. However, do hon. Members think that one could get a sizeable grant out of the Admiralty or the Government in order to repair the damage? Not at all. Yet had that been done in the case of my area— which may well come within the provisions of the Bill—it would probably have had the effect of making much of the provision of the Bill unnecessary in my constituency because it would have improved the town, made the port facilities better and brought revenue into my constituency.
    I agree with my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), when he says that he is frightened of unfair competition; in
    1068
    other words, the subsidising of private concerns in areas where others may be manufacturing the same sort of goods. There is that sort of subsidising of the one industry. There is also, the fact that this is gradually leading to a position in which there will be large holdings in many interests all over the country, which will simply make it easy for Socialism to nationalise those industries. It is one of the great dangers that may result from the Government granting money in this way to industries—for the best of reasons, but, I think, wrongly. It is opening the way to those industries becoming flabby so that, at a later stage, the Government will have to take control of them.
    Nor does it help that, because of this Bill, a spirit is getting abroad amongst people who may recently have fallen out of work of, "Why should I bother? Let the Government bring work to me." I have already come across this among one or two people in my constituency, and I am sure that other hon. Members, if they were frank, would say the same. That is a serious trend, because if people are not prepared to search for work it is extremely doubtful whether our economy will be very sound in the future.
    I hope that the Government will take some warning from the attacks promised on parts of their financial policy by my noble Friend. I assure the Government that there are quite a few of us on this side who are worried about the apparent trend—of course, we may be quite wrong —towards Socialist policies in our finance.
    Mr. T. Fraser: During this discussion, I have gained the impression that some hon. Members have been seeking to convince the House that the present issue is whether or not the Government should give grants generally to private industries. That is not the case at all We are considering whether, in this Bill, the purpose of which—supported, I think, by Members in all parts of the House—is to deal with those areas where there is a lot of unemployment and real social distress, we should give authority to the Government to take certain action to protect the interests of communities which, generally speaking, have contributed largely to our economic wellbeing in the past.

    1069
    As I understand it, by writing into Clause 4 this provision about grants the Government are following the precedent of the 1945 Act, Section 4 of which contained provisions for grants and loans to industrialists in certain circumstances. The Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that not many grants were given under Section 4, and I do not think that envisages many grants being made under this Clause 4.
    Let us consider, for a moment, whether there are not circumstances in which it would be very highly desirable that the President of the Board of Trade should have power to make a grant. I think all Members will support the later provisions about industrial development certificates. There are some congested areas, and some congested cities in particular, in relation to which we would all applaud the President of the Board of Trade if he were to refuse an application for an I.D.C.
    In some cases, and it is not difficult to imagine this, the employer in a congested area who is refused an I.D.C. is invited to carry on his new development or his extension in, say, an area of high unemployment. He might be in quite a small way. He could say, as very large employers like the British Motor Corporation have been saying in recent weeks, "It would be hopelessly uneconomic for me to divide my factory." The smaller employer could argue with very great conviction that it would not be economic for him—employing, perhaps, only 100, 200 or 300 workers—to carry on his activities in two different parts of the country, perhaps 200 or 300 miles apart.
    He might very well say to the right hon. Gentleman, "I cannot divide my industry. If you do not let me have an industrial development certificate in this congested city, you are really telling me that I cannot extend my business at all." The President of the Board of Trade might ask, "Could you not take the whole of your industry into this other area?" The industrialist might well answer that he could, if he got some assistance.
    Would not all hon. Members think it right that the right hon. Gentleman should give that industrialist the assistance he needs to take his industry from the congested area to the area of high
    1070
    unemployment, where he would carry through his expansion and employ, perhaps, another 100, 200 or 300 workers—
    Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I disagree entirely. What small employer, and I am one, will think of spending his life training his employees in a very specialist trade only to see them dispersed like that? It is ridiculous to say that, in his lifetime, he could build up the same kind of specialist labour. The analogy is not good enough. If an employer has been building up a specialist business during his lifetime, I think that he is entitled to an I.D.C., and entitled to develop in the area in which he has spent his life.
    Mr. Fraser: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not followed me—
    Mr. Rhodes: Oh, yes, I have.
    Mr. Fraser: I have not said that every employer in a specialised line of business who has a few specially-trained workers should always be refused an I.D.C., told to uproot himself and go elsewhere. Of course I have not. I have given an instance of what has occurred in the past. Employers have uprooted themselves, and they have taken their specially-trained workers to other parts of the country where houses and other accommodation have been specially provided for them.
    If one wants to do anything at all to ease the great pressure of population on this great Metropolis, I should have thought that when we are spending millions of the taxpayers' money in building new towns and so on, we would not be averse to paying the removal costs of an industrialist going from here to unemployment areas in Wales, to the Merseyside, to north-east England, or to Scotland or elsewhere. It is the sensible thing to do. It is because I believe that it would be a great pity to deny the President of the Board of Trade the opportunity of doing this sort of thing that I hope that the noble Lord and his hon. Friends will not press the Amendment to a Division. In any case, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not feel able to accept it.
    We on this side are not asking that wholesale grants of public money should be made available to industrialists to go into those difficult areas. We accept at

    1071
    once that in the vast majority of cases no grants at all will be made but that, at the most, if they need capital, the industrialists will get a loan which they will repay over a period. That will be the general position. There is, however, the exceptional case, in which I think that all hon. Members would agree that a grant should be paid. It is, I hope, to cover the exceptional case that the Government have used these words and given the President of the Board of Trade this power. In those circumstances, we support this provision, and hope very much that the noble Lord's Amendment will not be widely supported.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross: From one point of view, I am very happy about the stand taken by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). It is about time that someone gave publicity to the extent to which private enterprise is no longer quite so enterprising. To that extent we should be very grateful to him; but when we look at what he is trying to do we must bear in mind the purpose of the Bill. It is to bring employment to hard hit areas. I wish that the noble Lord or one of his hon. Friends had produced figures.
    I have in my hand one or two figures given in an Answer on 17th December in relation to grants in Scotland, as compared with loans, under the financial aid provisions of the 1958 Act. Up to 16th December, which was well over a year after the passing of the Act, grants in Scotland amounted to only £8,250. Every one of them was to the counties of the Highlands and Islands—just the very places where it is most difficult to get industry going. If the money had not been available, it would probably have meant only 300 or 400 jobs, but they would have been very important jobs when compared with the prospects of obtaining employment in those areas.
    I ask the noble Lord to think again about this and to appreciate that he is deliberately seeking to take from the President of the Board of Trade a weapon which can be useful in certain circumstances. As far as I understand the Clause, the grants are not to be handed over freely. Conditions may well be laid down for repayment. I hope that
    1072
    the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the figures for grants over the whole country so that the noble Lord may appreciate just how they have been given. I deplore very much indeed that in order to further a financial theory of his own the noble Lord is prepared to deprive such areas of much needed help.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: The effect of the Amendment moved by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) would be to prevent the Board of Trade making grants under Clause 4 for undertakings in listed localities and confine the assistance we can offer firms to persuade them to move to such areas to loans. The corresponding section of the 1945 Act gave power to make annual grants as well as loans. Therefore, the present Bill does not create any new power in this respect, save that single once and for all grants can now be made. Moreover, I ask my hon. Friends to remember that the 1950 Act contained in Section 3 (1) a power, not repeated in the present Bill, to make grants in certain circumstances towards the cost of transferring an undertaking to a development area.
    It is expected that the new committee which will advise the Board of Trade in most cases will recommend loans rather than grants. The hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) were right in saying that very few grants indeed have been made under the 1958 Act. The reason for that is that we want to steer to the new localities only firms which have a good chance of being viable and becoming going concerns when they are no longer in receipt of Government assistance. It seems to us appropriate in some cases to make a grant to a firm to cover its once and for all expenses of setting up in places of high unemployment. We believe that the opportunity of obtaining grants for that purpose will be a useful incentive in persuading firms to go to such areas.
    To lose this power, as suggested by my hon. Friends, would substantially impair the usefulness of the Bill. The supporters of the Amendment have urged, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), that in addition to involving the irrecoverable

    1073
    outlay of public money grants given in these circumstances will give firms an unfair advantage over their competitors. If the grant is used as it is intended that it shall be—primarily to cover once and for all expenses incurred in moving from the area in which the firm is at present doing business to the new area—this will not be so. Its effect is only to offset the disadvantages from which the firm would otherwise suffer in moving. That is the purpose of Clause 4. I therefore recommend the House to reject the Amendment, unless my noble Friend can be persuaded to withdraw it.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) accurately put the case for the Opposition. On the other hand, this is a delightful Amendment. The noble Lord mentioned the same point on Second Reading. When I wound up for the Opposition I ventured to say that I agreed with many of the points he made. I still do.
    We are now reaching the point where so many of the larger undertakings which are still in private hands are able to maintain themselves in that position only if they receive a State subsidy of some kind. This naturally, from his own philosophical point of view, places the noble Lord in a position in which he foresees the danger of nationalisation being the only alternative to State grants. There is no answer to it. The noble Lord's dilemma is one which neither he nor any other Tory can answer.
    My hon. Friend was right in pointing out that, in the main, the firms to which grants are given are not in the category of the great private monopolies which the noble Lord mentioned, as I did recently, that the Minister of Aviation is now busy creating. The right hon. Gentleman is going round the country smashing down the competition of private enterprise and replacing it by private monopoly. Although the terms and conditions are not known, we all know that that is being done by Government patronage, by the promise of contracts, perhaps by direct grants of public money; or, conversely, to those which will not enter into such an agreement, by the threat of the withholding of contracts, and so on. The noble Lord is
    1074
    utterly right in saying that this is incompatible with Tory philosophy. I was pleased that on this issue he came back to what I am sure for him is a philosophical monstrosity, in that a Tory Government are conniving at that kind of thing.
    I draw a distinction in this matter. The Bill envisages small firms still working under strictly private ownership, plying for profit. Yet we are asking them to uproot themselves and go to areas where there is the need for the provision of employment for unemployed people. I do not believe that the basis of the noble Lord's philosophical argument there applies. I am fortified in that by my feeling about the great motor firms which are going into certain Development Areas. I am very glad that they are. Some are going to Merseyside, and I am very glad of that. One has the feeling that the motor car manufacturers have sufficient financial strength not to have to depend on the Government to provide them with the finance to go to those areas.
    This is a very great dilemma and I am sure that the noble Lord is utterly right on this point. If it were merely a question of that type of firm going into Development Areas I would support the Amendment, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton pointed out, there are also the smaller firms which are financially incapable of making such a move without assistance. Where the once-and-for-all grant makes a difference to a firm's decision to move or stay where it is, I come down on the side of making the grant.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has a vast constituency. I cannot imagine many small firms being able to move from the Metropolis, or some other congested area, to the hon. Member's constituency to provide employment for people there unless they are given initial grants. It is precisely those isolated areas which are mostly in need of the assistance which the Bill will provide.
    The noble Lord has raised an issue of which the House will hear a great deal for many years. We are now in a state of flux with this kind of matter. It is wrong and immoral that vast sums of public money should be allocated to private enterprise merely so that private

    1075
    enterprise can maintain private monopolies. We feel that once an industry has reached that position there is no alternative to public monopoly. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to agree with me about that, but that is the historical process which we are now seeing. I am very glad that the noble Lord has raised the subject, because I am very sure that the House will hear much more of the argument in the years to come.
    7.15 p.m.
    Sir David Robertson: The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock) (Mr. Ross) all clearly indicated that these grants were mostly likely to go to places like the Highlands. I think that they are absolutely right. I have been working on the problem of trying to persuade successive Governments to attract light industry to the old Highland towns and large villages, because unless industry goes to those areas their populations will continue to go away. It begins with unemployment, goes on to depopulation, and ends in decay.
    In the nine years since 1951, the Government have failed to attract industry. I sometimes think that they lack the will, and I have said so in the House before. We have the experience of the extraordinary development which has occurred in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland where, through wise legislation in the Northern Ireland Parliament, and supported by finance from our Exchequer and great assistance from the Board of Trade and other Departments, 70,000 new jobs have been created in rural areas.
    My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) mentioned the Renault factory out in the fields in France. Henry Ford started the original Ford factory in the fields outside Detroit, because he believed that the finest labour would be the labour of agricultural workers.
    Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind what the Amendment is about. It is about the distinction between loans and grants in this context.
    Sir D. Robertson: I am sorry if I have embroidered my case too much. It seems to me that this important matter
    1076
    was fairly stated by hon. Members opposite and particularly by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock who named the figure of about £8,000—under D.A.T.A.C., I presume—which had been given so far and which had all gone to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Undoubtedly, without that assistance there would have been very few means of attracting new industry. I quoted the Northern Ireland example because that has been a matter for admiration by all and the improvement in those rural counties has come about with the aid of grants similar to these.
    I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Newton said about aviation. I remember the motor industry when there were several hundred motor manufacturers. In those days, we could export very little and the cost of motor vehicles was high and the most successful succeeded and the weaker went to the wall. Today, we have large groups of private enterprise firms which have not had a penny of subsidy from anybody, but which have been able to produce cheaply and to attract a great export market. We have every reason to be proud of our motor industry when we think of the cost of vehicles today.
    It seems that such firms are going to Scotland, where they are so much needed and where new employment is needed, without grants. I believe that the bulk of industries will go to Lancashire and the populated areas—I do not think that my noble Friend need have any anxiety about that. However, to get firms into places where there is a serious maldistribution of population, I am convinced that the Bill is perfectly right in offering grants.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 5.—(DERELICT, ETC., LAND.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 9, leave out from first "in" to "where" in line 10 and insert "a development district".—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]

    Clause 6.—(PAYMENTS FOR REMOVAL AND RESETTLEMENT OF KEY WORKERS AND THEIR DEPENDANTS.)
    Amendments made: In page 4, line 44, leave out from first "in" to "by" in line 45 and insert "a development district".
    In page 5, line 2, leave out "locality" and insert "development district".—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]

    Clause 7.—(FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BASIC SERVICES.)
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 22, leave out from "any" to "in" in line 23 and insert "development district".—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out "any" and to insert:
    "the provision of facilities for transport (whether by road, rail, water or air) or of power, lighting, heating, water, or sewerage, and sewage disposal facilities, or of any other".
    Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient with this to discuss the Amendment in page 5, line 31, after "facility", insert "whatsoever", which is not selected.
    Mr. Rodgers: In Committee, the party opposite moved an Amendment whose object was to specify in virtually the same terms as appear in Section 3 (2) of the 1945 Act the basic services for which grants or loans may be made. We believe that the creation since 1945 of the nationalised corporations responsible for transport, electricity, gas and so on, makes the listing of the services less appropriate now than it was then in 1945. For that reason, the general definition contained in the draft Bill—
    "any service or facility on which the development of the locality in question … depends"—
    is preferred by us. But there is no objection to meeting the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite that these services should be specified.
    The Amendment meets in essential the wishes of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and differs in only two respects from the Amendment which they themselves proposed in Committee. One is that water, sewerage and sewage disposal are specified and they were not mentioned in the 1945 Act, but are in fact the services for which grants have been made under that Act and are most likely to be made in future.
    The other is that housing and health, which were mentioned in 1945, are omitted. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in the debate in Committee, we think that it would be wrong to include housing, since the Ministers concerned already have power under existing legislation to assist the provision of houses to meet the urgent needs
    1078
    of industry. Most of the public provision of health services is now financed through the National Health Service and such part of the service as is run by local authorities is included in the General Grant. On that ground, therefore, both housing and health are already covered under existing legislation.
    The Amendment does not speak of services in or affecting the locality, as was proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The reason is, I am advised, that those words add nothing. The question is whether the services would assist the development of a listed place and, as my right hon. Friend made clear, it is only local and not national facilities which will be assisted under this Clause.
    Mr. Jay: The Parliamentary Secretary has very largely met the point we put forward and has now included a list of facilities. The only anxiety we have is whether, by including these individual items, he may, on a legal interpretation, be excluding some item not specifically named. We had it in mind, therefore, to suggest that the word "whatsoever"- should be inserted which, so I understand from those more learned than I in these matters, would ensure that nothing was unintentionally omitted.
    Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that he is achieving by the form of his Amendment what I think we all want to achieve, or would the insertion of the word "whatsoever" help?
    Mr. Tudor Watkins: In Committee, I asked about recreational facilities. Do the words "or of any other" at the end of the Amendment cover recreational facilities?
    During our previous discussion, the President of the Board of Trade promised that he would look at the matter and, by the Report stage, if it was not covered, would do something about it. I still wonder whether this Amendment will cover recreational facilities in addition to what is actually laid down here.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Inasmuch as I am not blessed with legal training, I really could not answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about whether the word "whatsoever" would have the significance which he attaches to it. I assure him that I will take it up with my legal

    1079
    advisers and, if it is necessary, as he suggests, we shall introduce an Amendment in another place.
    We have power under the Bill to provide moneys for recreational facilities if they meet the overall purposes of the Bill in providing further employment and attracting industries to the localities in the designated list.
    Mr. James Dempsey: I am very much concerned about housing. Housing is not covered in the Bill, but the Parliamentary Secretary says it is covered by our housing and health legislation. I implore him to be perfectly sure about that.
    North of the Border, we have experienced great difficulty, when endeavouring to induce industrialists to come to the areas hardest hit by unemployment, in persuading the Scottish Department of Health to allow the local authority to provide houses for this very purpose. I readily agree that, in respect of other services, our distribution of industry legislation does work. I recall one of the largest water reservoirs in Scotland being grant-aided under the old Distribution of Industry Act.
    Unfortunately, I can see nothing in writing which would in any way govern housing. This is a very serious problem, particularly in my part of the country. We have there what is estimated to be one of the largest industrial estates in Scotland, known as Newhouse—the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows the area very well—but there has not been a single house built for any part of that estate. It took a long time to induce the Department in Edinburgh to allow us to build houses for some of the other parts of the county of which I have the honour to be one of its representatives.
    Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that he is absolutely convinced, without any reservations whatever, that housing for this purpose will be covered by our ordinary housing legislation? I ask him to say that in order to clear the air and convince everyone that the Scottish Department of Health has ample powers to provide for this need or agree to such provision on representations made by the appropriate local authorities.
    1080
    We have experienced tremendous difficulties. It took us years to persuade the Department to allow us to provide some houses which were urgently required. We even asked our own particular Scottish institution, the Scottish Special Housing Association, whether it could provide houses. The Department refused. These houses were required principally for industrial workers, not for the general needs of the community, yet the Department still refused to allow our own Association to provide them.
    It is plain that this matter must be clarified before the Bill passes to its next stage. I hope the hon. Gentleman will assure the House that there will be no deterrence from the housing administration if we are, indeed, to fulfil the objects of this part of the Bill by allocating appropriate housing accommodation to meet the requirements of industry.
    Mr. Ian Fraser: There are certain dangers in specification. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary if he would give an assurance to the House about roads. One of the most important matters in operations to be carried out under the Bill after it becomes an Act will be the provision of roads to sites and road facilities on sites. Can my hon. Friend assure us that this form of words will, in practice, cover the provision of a new road to a site and will include the improvement of an existing road? These are some of the practical questions which will agitate county borough authorities in particular when dealing with operations under the Bill.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I support the plea made by my hon. Friends. We must have a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary which will satisfy the House and also an undertaking from him about how the matter will be approached.
    It is well known that one of the most serious problems with which Britain is now faced is the imbalance between North and South. In the South, generally speaking, there exists a great shortage of manpower. There is enormous industrial capacity, and this capacity is, in the main, being used to the maximum extent possible at the moment. But, if it were run really as it should be in order to achieve the best results, the maximum number of people should be employed

    1081
    on either two or three shifts. This, however, cannot, in many instances, be done because of the shortage of manpower in the South.
    In the North, there is a relatively large number of unemployed and people on short time. Therefore, one of the most urgent needs in the country today is to introduce a greater mobility of labour. When I was younger I was prepared to travel anywhere and prepared to move Provided that suitable housing was available. In the main, there was. In these days, as is well known, no matter how magnanimous employers may be in incentives to their workpeople to move, there is the fundamental stumbling block of a shortage of houses.
    In the administration of the Bill, as I say, one of the basic needs will be to introduce in some way—I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour is here—greater mobility of labour. We cannot, however, expect people to move unless, within reason, they are provided with incentives. Most British people are reasonable people, and, provided they are treated fairly and given a square deal, they will respond to the needs of the situation. But we cannot expect young people, in particular, to move to places where there is not housing accommodation.
    7.30 p.m.
    My area has relatively the finest housing record in the country. It is true that we are now building very few houses, but this is because we are subject to the most reactionary Minister of Housing that I have known since the end of the war. Housing policy is now more reactionary than the policy of any other Minister in this or any other Government. How the Minister of Housing and Local Government can answer the Questions which he does—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to bear in mind the Amendment to which he is speaking, although it may be argued that the word "housing" should be expressly included in the Amendment.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I respect the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I have the Clause and Amendments before me. The Amendments deal with the provision of lighting, heating, disposal of facilities and the
    1082
    question of derelict land. In the area of which I am speaking there is a large amount of derelict land, and I was about to suggest that this derelict land should be used for housing purposes. Would that be in order, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: In so far as the question of housing can be said to arise, I think that the real issue appears to be whether or not there is need to make express provision in the Amendment relating to housing with the Minister saying that there are other powers so that, therefore, the provision need not be there.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It was on those lines that I proposed to proceed. Maybe I had slightly irritated you, Mr. Speaker, by speaking of the Minister in the way that I did, but I make no apology for that because it is what I really believe. It is not my intention to go out of order in any way, and therefore I shall not pursue the matter any further provided everyone remembers what I said about that Minister.
    We have a large amount of derelict land in our area. No one knows that better than the Minister of State, whom I am glad to see in his place. He will remember, in the days when he travelled North, the terrible eyesores of derelict land. I should like him to remember the scenes which he passed when travelling in the train between Kidsgrove and Stoke-on-Trent. There is derelict land which has been there for over fifty years. Nothing at all has been done about it. We want houses built in this area and we want to attract more industry.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consult his right hon. Friend about what I am saying. [Interruption.] Is he not right hon. yet?
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): No.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: He is well on the way to it. Provided that he carries on as he is at the moment, step by step, it is only a matter of time. However, I must bear in mind Mr. Speaker's advice and keep to the point.
    When the Parliamentary Secretary replies I hope that he will have consulted his hon. Friend, who, I hope, will confirm what I have said about derelict

    1083
    land. Land in this country is too valuable to be left derelict. Now that we are taking steps to deal with it, I hope that it will be levelled out and that lovely houses will be built on it. I hope, too, that, as a result of the passing of the Bill, and especially if the Amendments are accepted, the situation in the area about which I have been speaking will be improved.
    Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I wish to comment on the Amendment in page 5, line 30. In my constituency, we are faced with a very large unemployment problem in the shipyards. Part of it is due to the fact that builders are unable to quote for large ships and have to depend on the building of small ships. If the waterways could be widened—and it is quite on the cards that that could be done easily—shipyards would be able to quote for much larger ships.
    I hope that, as a result of the Amendment, special provision will be made in respect of aid to carry out such basic work as the widening of waterways. If that were done it would make a very considerable difference to the unemployment position in my own home port of Lowestoft. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay attention to this point and that, when we make our application after the passing of the Bill, he will receive it favourably.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: By leave of the House, I will answer the points put to me by various hon Members.
    I do not think that there is any need to specify housing in the Amendment because, as I said in moving it, the Ministers concerned have appropriate powers under existing legislation. There is nothing to prevent a housing authority providing houses for existing as well as prospective tenants. I am confident that at present there is no need to include such a provision in the Bill.
    In answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. I. Fraser), private approach roads would be covered in the Bill but not the main road system.
    We have power under the Bill to deal with derelict land if it would add to the amenities of the area and make it more attractive to industrialists to locate their industries in it.
    1084
    The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is one which I cannot answer immediately. The prime test whether those projects of which he spoke would qualify for assistance under the Bill is, of course, whether they would provide employment or would relieve the unemployment problem in the area and whether the money so expended would be commensurate with the amount of employment provided. I shall be willing to look into any individual cases which my hon. Friend may send me.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 31, leave out "locality" and insert "district".—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]

    Clause 8.—(THE INDUSTRIAL ESTATES MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS.)
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, to leave out "persons appearing to the Board" and insert
    "a person appearing to the Board to have adequate experience of industrial matters, a person appearing to them to have adequate experience in the organisation of workers, and one or more persons appearing to them".
    During the Committee stage, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) moved Amendments to increase the membership of each corporation from five to seven and to include among the numbers people with experience of (a) local government and (b) the organisation of workers. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade undertook to consider all these Amendments, but made it clear, I think, at that stage that the Amendment which impressed him most was the provision for the inclusion of a trade union representative.
    With regard to the increase in number from five to seven, my right hon. Friend said—and I must say that I have great sympathy with him, as I am sure many hon. Members on both sides of the House have—that he would like to keep the number at five—a chairman and four members. It will be the experience of most hon. Members that the smaller a committee, the better job it does.
    Concerning the possible inclusion of a local government representative, the right hon. Member also said in Committee that it would be a pity to bring people with a local authority viewpoint

    1085
    into a sphere where it was not appropriate; it would only waste their time and, possibly, lead to a corporation with more people than were needed. The Government Amendment, in conformity with the provisional views expressed by the right hon. Member in Committee, provides for each corporation to include a person having
    "adequate experience in the organisation of workers"
    but does not provide for a local government representative or for an increase in numbers. The effect of the Amendment is that each corporation will consist of a chairman and four other members, the five members to include a trade unionist, an industrialist and at least one member experienced in accountancy, building or estate management.
    Mr. Jay: Here again, the Parliamentary Secretary comes some way to meet us but feels himself inhibited, as usual, from coming the whole way. We very much welcome the inclusion of those experienced in the organisation of workers. One only wonders why the Government themselves did not think of this before introducing the Bill.
    I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that local authority representatives would not be suitable. Several of the industrial estate companies in the past fifteen or twenty years have had persons who were experienced in local authority work, particularly on building and land, with the estate management type of qualification. It is not fundamental to the Bill whether this is included. It is a pity that the Parliamentary Secretary has left it out, but I hope that even though he does not now lay a statutory duty upon himself to include local authority experts, the Government are not prohibiting themselves from selecting somebody of that kind if there is an individual who seems to them particularly suitable far the job.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11.—(INDUSTRIAL ESTATES CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE.)
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 8, line 24, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 44
    1086
    I think it would be for the convenience of the House to consider at the same time the Amendment in page 9, line 9, to leave out from "1959" to end of line 11.
    The effect of the two Amendments is to take Clause 11 out of the Bill and to take out the last two lines of Clause 12, which refer back to Clause 11, consequential on the deletion of Clause 11.
    In Committee, we had discussion of the Clause and I put forward to the President of the Board of Trade the proposition that there did not seem to be any need to write into the Statute a provision for the setting up of a coordinating committee for the three management corporations. I suggested that the right hon. Gentleman could bring them together as he thought fit to see that they were all following a similar pattern in the work they were undertaking. It seemed unnecessary to write all this into the Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that he had great sympathy with the views I then expressed and I have learned from him subsequently that he would not feel able to resist an Amendment, if I were to put one down at this stage, to leave out Clause 11. In the circumstances, there is no need for me to make the case that was made in Committee.
    Mr. Bence: I beg to second the Amendment.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said in moving the Amendment, an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend that if the hon. Member and his hon. Friends cared to move such an Amendment, it would be acceptable to us. The effect of the two Amendments is to remove all reference to the industrial estates coordinating committee. We are in agreement with that and, therefore, we have pleasure in accepting the Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS AND COORDINATING COMMITTEE.)
    Amendment made: In page 9, line 9, leave out from "1959" to end of line 11.—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

    Clause 13.—(INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANIES.)
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, to leave out "this section" and to insert "the three following subsections".
    I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the later Amendment in page 10, line 3, at end insert:
    (6) The following provisions shall have effect (without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) of this section) as respects any pension, superannuation or life-assurance scheme or fund in force at the commencement of this Act for the benefit of persons in the employment or former employment of a company to which this section applies:—

    (a) anything authorised or required to be done for the purposes of the scheme or fund after the commencement of this Act which apart from this section would fall to be done by, with or to the company or its directors shall be treated as falling to be done by, with or to the Management Corporation acting for the part of Great Britain in which the company exercised its functions;

    (b) for the purposes of the scheme or fund employment after the commencement of this Act by that Corporation shall be treated as equivalent to employment by the company, and employment after the commencement of this Act by the company shall be disregarded;

    (c) any requirement to do anything for the said purposes at the registered office of the company shall be treated, in relation to things falling to be done after the commencement of this Act, as a requirement to do that thing at the head office of the said Management Corporation;

    and references in any deed, rules or other document to the company shall be construed as, or as including, references to the said Management Corporation as may be required for giving effect to, or in consequence of, the foregoing paragraphs.
    When the Clause was being studied in Committee, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said:
    "We are examining the pension schemes which the companies have been running and we shall ensure that the rights of the officers concerned will not be adversely affected by the Bill. If it is found necessary, I will table an appropriate Amendment at a later stage to cover this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c. 685.]
    The Amendments give effect to my right hon. Friend's undertaking. The first Amendment is a tidying-up. consequential Amendment only.
    The second Amendment introduces provisions designed to ensure that the
    1088
    pensions and life assurance schemes now operated by the estate companies for the benefit of their employees will continue to operate satisfactorily after the transfer of the rights and liabilities of those companies and of their staff to the management corporations created by Clause 9 of the Bill.
    Clause 13 (2) makes provision for a general transfer of the rights and liabilities of estate companies to the management corporations. This subsection effects certain of the necessary changes in the pension and life assurance schemes. It will, for example, result in the transfer to the appropriate management corporations of the obligations of estate companies to pay contributions under the scheme.
    Clause 13 (2) does not, however, go far enough. It is necessary to do more than transfer the rights and liabilities of the estate companies. The provisions set out in the Amendment are required to effect the following changes. Paragraph (a) is couched in wide and general terms. It is necessary because certain of the pension schemes provide, for example, that notices in writing have to be deposited with the relevant estate company. Obviously, once the Bill comes into operation, it will be desirable that such deposits should be with the appropriate management corporation. Paragraph (a) effects this change. It also deals with the situation where the right to appoint trustees of a pension scheme is vested not in an estate company itself, but in its directors. The right would not be transferred to the appropriate management corporation by Clause 13 (2), but it will be so transferred by this new provision.
    Paragraph (b) is necessary because certain of the pension schemes are so worded that the transfer of employees in the estate companies to the employment of the management corporation would have to be regarded by the trustees of the scheme as terminating their employment with the company in question and, therefore, ipso facto terminating their membership of the scheme.
    Paragraph (c) deals simply with matters requiring to be done under pension schemes at the registered offices of an estate company. It provides that they should require to be done at the head

    1089
    office of the appropriate management corporation.
    The last three lines of the Amendment provide for the necessary textual changes to be made in the light of the provisions of the Amendment when reading any document connected with the pensions or life-assurance schemes.
    I hope that the House will accept the Amendments. I think that they are in line with the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: The Minister has gone a great deal of the way to meet some of the criticisms made in Committee by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and myself. He has not gone the whole way, and I am wondering whether, even at this stage, it would be possible for him to look again at one of the other problems that arise over the transfer of staffs from the old companies to the new corporations.
    Two points arose when we discussed this matter in Committee. One was the question of the pension schemes applicable to the staff, and the other, which was in two parts, concerned, one, the changing or possible changing of status of some members of the staff, and two, the possible redundancy of some other members of the staff. The Minister then indicated quite clearly that there was no guarantee that under the new setup the same number of staff would be required. He admitted that there might well be changes in the status and functions of the staff that would be required.
    I feel that the Minister should look more closely at the question of the possibility of staff redundancy, particularly in view of the fact that we are in practice now dealing with the whole question of unemployment. In my view, the functions and degree of activity of the new corporations, in comparison with the old trading companies, will mean a reduction of staff. There is no provision whatsoever in this Measure to face up to the responsibility of dealing with those redundancies.
    The question of compensation has now become acceptable, in a large measure, throughout the whole of industry. The principle of compensation for loss of jobs, both of staff personnel and workpeople, is one that has received a great deal of
    1090
    attention in the last few years. I should have thought that the Minister would have faced up to this because even the Government accept the principle of compensation for unemployment and because it will be recalled that one of the conditions for the assistance given to the cotton industry was that the industry would be prepared to negotiate with the trade unions adequate compensation for redundant staff as a result of the reorganisation.
    Then there is the question of the changing of the top management of the old companies, some of whom will not he required to do their present jobs under the new corporations. I think that the Minister might well have a closer look at the possibility of dealing with the position of redundant personnel of the old companies and compensation for loss of jobs for those people who will no longer be required in top management under the new corporations.
    Mr. Graham Page: I rise only to thank the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend for now including in the Bill at least part of the Amendment which I tabled in Committee. I am indeed grateful for his dealing with the pensions side of this problem. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) on the other part of the problem which he and I discussed in Committee, I think it may be that the Bill already covers it. If the management corporations take on the liabilities of the existing undertakings, then they surely take on the liability to compensate if redundancy occurs.
    Mr. Loughlin: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. As I understand it, there is no provision for the payment of compensation under this Measure to staffs who may be redundant. Perhaps the Minister will either confirm or reject that point of view.
    Mr. Page: I think that from the fact that there is doubt between the hon. Gentleman and myself calls for some explanation from my hon. Friend, and if then there is still a doubt in the Bill I should like to see it remedied. There may yet be time to do so in another place. I thank my hon. Friend very much for the inclusion of the Amendment concerning pensions.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: In answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), they are quite right in thinking that every employee of a company becomes on the appointed day an employee under the same conditions of service of the appropriate corporation and his employment thereafter will be governed by contract of service as it is now. I think that the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West will be adequately taken care of.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is it not a fact that the sum total of the contract of service merely necessitates the requisite notice of termination of employment if the person concerned is redundant? Provided that the requisite notice of termination of employment is given, then the contract under the provisions of this Bill is carried out and there is no compensation or provision for compensation of any kind for those people who are moved from job to job or who become redundant.
    Mr. Rodgers: Whatever liabilities the corporations have towards their servants or former servants will be taken over in toto by the new corporations.
    Mr. John McCann: Surely this is a point worth labouring. The difficulty in the textile industry was that the question of compensation was not written into the agreement and it was only by virtue of the fact that the firms themselves were prepared to pay that those concerned actually got it. Can the Minister say whether people at present employed are liable for compensation in the event of redundancy, because if not, there is no point in taking over the liabilities if those liabilities to the workmen do not exist.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I have no detailed knowledge of the actual contracts of service of the employees of the various companies. All the contractual obligations to the companies are transferred to the corporations and each employee of the companies will become, on the appointed day, an employee of the corporations, and all the same obligations of the companies will be transferred to the corporations.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary, as he has no intimate knowledge of the details of the contract between the present employers and employees, will again look at this matter if what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has said is correct, that the new Corporation when created can escape any obligation to pay compensation to servants in their employment by reason of a previous commitment which gave them the right to sever the employment provided that they gave the requisite notice. That requisite notice would not be the means to use in a takeover such as this. if we can have some undertaking tonight that the Government will look at it in order that some protective provision will be put in if things are like that, I am certain the House will be very pleased.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I honestly do not think there is any need to look into this any further as has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), because we are satisfied that all the liabilities of the companies towards their employees are being transferred to the Management Corporations under Clause 13 (2), and all the liabilities of the companies now and the contractual rights of the staff are being preserved in toto.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 3, at end insert:
    (6) The following provisions shall have effect (without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) of this section) as respects any pension, superannuation or life-assurance scheme or fund in force at the commencement of this Act for the benefit of persons in the employment or former employment of a company to which this section applies:—

    (a) anything authorised or required to be done for the purposes of the scheme or fund after the commencement of this Act which apart from this section would fall to be done by, with or to the company or its directors shall be treated as falling to be done by, with or to the Management Corporation acting for the part of Great Britain in which the company exercised its functions;

    (b) for the purposes of the scheme or fund employment after the commencement of this Act by that Corporation shall be treated as equivalent to employment by the

    1093
    company, and employment after the commencement of this Act by the company shall be disregarded;

    (c) any requirement to do anything for the said purposes at the registered office of the company shall be treated, in relation to things falling to be done after the commencement of this Act as a requirement to do that thing at the head office of the said Management Corporation;

    and references in any deed, rules or other document to the company shall be construed as, or as including, references to the said Management Corporation as may be required for giving effect to, or in consequence of, the foregoing paragraphs.—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]

    Clause 15.—(PROVISIONS AS TO LAND, ETC., OUTSIDE LOCALITIES REFERRED TO IN S. 1 (2).)
    Amendments made: In page 10, line 34, leave out from "be" to "the" in line 36 and insert "a development district".
    In line 36, leave out "locality" and insert "district".
    In page 11, line 3, leave out from "not" to first "the" in line 4 and insert "a development district".
    In line 22, leave out from "outside" to end of line 25 and insert:
    "a development district as to land in such a district, and that the application of subsection (2) of section thirteen of this Act is not limited to development districts".—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]

    Clause 16.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 29, at end insert:
    "'development district' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2) of section one of this Act".—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]

    Clause 18.—(DETERMINATIONS UNDER PRINCIPAL ENACTMENT TO TAKE PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF PURPOSES OF PART I.)
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page 12, line 8, after "employment" to insert:
    "and for providing research and development which would lead to employment".
    In spite of the provocation of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I move this Amendment. He ought not to have said that this Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (sir F. Maclean) has "my" support.
    1094
    He should have said it has "our" support. I was trained in one of the largest industrial establishments, where, before the war, they spent £150,000 a year on research, which was more than most industries as a whole in Britain were spending on research. The reason they spent that amount was that it was a good business proposition; they had to spend it to keep pace with foreign competition and to hold their own in the world. It is very annoying, when one is involved in this kind of research and development, and if one has developed a new product which needs a new factory for its manufacture, if the factory is taken to some other part of the country and one is not even considered.
    To avoid any misunderstanding on this, let me make it quite clear, speaking for myself and for those with whom I am very friendly, that there is no section of the community in this country more friendly disposed than we are to those who suffer from unemployment. There are very few people to stand for a national overall plan such as I stand for, because I believe it is in the best interests of our country. My fellow countrymen, including my own party, do not accept the fundamental ideas, on which I do not compromise, for planning our economy in the way in which it should be planned in accordance with our national needs and international position, and it is with those in mind that I move this Amendment.
    I am reminded of the position in my own locality in North Staffordshire. We spend a large amount on research, and some time ago His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh opened a large extension of premises there and made a very fine speech showing the need for scientific research. To undertake research of that character means an enormous expenditure. If, having embarked upon that expenditure, one is faced with the proposition to carry out the development in another area, it is most unfair.
    So what we are asking for in this Amendment is that consideration should be given to the needs of an area where research has been carried out, and where research has been carried out leading to development. I am mostly familiar with development in engineering and in pottery. By this Amendment we say that, all things being equal, if the requirements of the locality are such that

    1095
    more employment is needed there, and the research and development leads to employment, that ought to be considered. For this and other reasons, I beg to move the Amendment.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It is most unusual that we should have an Amendment put down by four Members on the Government side and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), and that none of the hon. Members on the Government side is here to move the Amendment, particularly as it is an Amendment which they have now put down twice, once for consideration by the Committee on the Bill and again now on Report. It really is a disgraceful piece of shadow boxing to put down words suggesting that they are actively concerned with research and development and then to run away when the time comes to move the Amendment in the House. I think we are indebted to my hon. Friend who did see the importance of this Amendment and moved it.
    At this time of night, and in view of the amount we have still to do before we finish with the Bill, I do not wish to keep the House for more than a few moments, but it does seem to me that the insertion of these words in the Bill can do nothing but good. I think that everyone now recognises the importance of research and development, and to insert these words in a Clause dealing with the factors to be taken into account in issuing industrial development certificates will be helpful. It will place upon the Board of Trade the obligation to recognise the importance of this.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secrtary is going to accept this Amendment. I rather gather that he may be, in view of the way he is straining at the leash to get to the Dispatch Box. On most occasions during our proceedings on the Bill Ministers have not been too anxious to get to the Dispatch Box. We have had almost to drag them to it by various tactics.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: That is not so.
    Mr. Willis: Not true? Had the hon. Gentleman been present at all our proceedings on the Bill —I think he has been present at most of them—he would know
    1096
    that we have had to go to considerable lengths to get the Minister to the Dispatch Box on occasion. However, I can see that the hon. Gentleman is really dying to tell us that he is going to accept this excellent Amendment and to congratulate the Opposition on their courage and initiative in moving the Amendment, and on the fact that they have sufficient interest in the Bill to be present during the discussion of it, which is more, apparently, than can be said for the Government supporters. I am sure that he will reward our attendance here by saying that he has very much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: If I am straining at the leash it is merely because I regret very much that I played my part in agreeing with my hon. Friends whose names appear in support of the Amendment that it might be more appropriate if they raised the matter on Third Reading rather than at this stage, because I am sure that they would have moved it in better terms than did the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East talks as if the object of the Amendment was to help us to recognise at the Board of Trade the importance of research and development. We, of course, recognise that very much and we do not need the Amendment to remind us. The object of the Amendment, I thought, and I am sure it was the intention of my hon. Friend, was to make clear that firms would be discouraged from establishing research and development projects in the south of England where a disproportionate amount of this work is taking place. It is argued that once a research and development project has been set up there is a tendency and a pressure for production to be put next to it or located near it.
    That is a very valid point, but the Clause as drafted completely covers it because it provides that
    "in considering whether any development for which a certificate under the principal enactment … is applied for can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, the Board shall have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment in the localities …"
    where it is high and persistent. I can give an assurance that in considering

    1097
    applications for industrial development certificates, either for a research and development project or for a productive undertaking alleged to need to be near its research unit, the Board will take account of the need to provide employment in the listed localities.
    This is the policy at the moment and we shall not weaken in it. It would be wrong to specify this one consideration among the many which the Board must have in mind in dealing with applications for industrial development certificates. Indeed, to specify research might be taken to mean that considerations of distribution and diversification of industry and the proper use of local resources did not matter very much. The concept of the proper distribution of industry, with particular regard to the needs of unemployment areas, covers the case.
    It is also important to bear in mind that not all research work involves the carrying on of an industrial process. [An HON. MEMBER: "Reading too quickly."] It is only when the structure in which research is to be carried on is an industrial building within the meaning of Clause 22 that an industrial development certificate is necessary, and for this reason I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn or rejected.
    Mr. Jay: The Parliamentary Secretary's conduct is almost as odd as that of the original backers of the Amendment. It is oddly characteristic of the Tory Party that five hon. Members opposite should have put their names to the Amendment twice, for which quite strong arguments can be adduced, and when the time comes round to consider it on an important Bill like this, affecting the employment of millions of people, just because, as I suppose, it is dinner time, there is nobody on the Tory benches except the Parliamentary Private Secretary who has to be there compulsorily whether he likes it or not. I see that another hon. Member has just arrived rather belatedly but not in time to move the Amendment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on having had the initiative and the wit to be in his place and to move this important Amendment. On top of all that, the Parliamentary Secretary gets
    1098
    up and makes a gratuitous attack on my hon. Friends, I suppose in order to conceal the flimsiness of the arguments which he has just put before the House.
    8.15 p.m.
    I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary can contest the substance, that it is not only desirable to get direct employment to the areas which need it but that it is also desirable to see that there are research establishments which might provide employment later on. I remember that back in 1945 when the location of the Harwell Atomic Energy Establishment was being discussed I advocated that this original establishment should go to one of the Development Areas. That was turned down because all the scientists wanted to be near Oxford University. The result has been, as we suspected, that having got Harwell in Berkshire we were then told that the station now at Aldermaston had to be near Harwell.
    I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary seriously contests all this, but in spite of that he tells us that there is no need for the Amendment. What possible objection can there be to putting these words in the Bill? The hon. Gentleman says the matter is covered already by words such as "distribution of industry" and "diversification" in the other Clause, but if he thinks that the words are there already I do not see what objection there can be to accepting the Amendment. These are perfectly plain words which merely express an argument which the hon. Gentleman has already been compelled to accept. Has the hon. Gentleman any really good reason, despite the extraordinary conduct of his hon. Friends, for so obstinately rejecting the Amendment?
    Mr. Ross: The conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary's hon. Friends, who are not behind him and really ought to be, is something which calls for comment. I see that the first name to the Amendment is that of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). I would not say that he was an Ayrshire man, for he is a recent import. He now represents Bute and North Ayrshire but he was the former hon. Member for Lancaster. It is surprising to me that he is not here to

    1099
    proclaim the needs of his area, in respect of exactly this kind of research and development. It shows a rather tepid sort of enthusiasm for development and the provision of work for that area if the hon. Gentleman cannot spare a few hours' time to be here, if only to give the Minister an opportunity to make the statement which he has just made. But for the Parliamentary astuteness of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) the statement would never have been made.
    Mr. Willis: And it is a very unsatisfactory statement too.
    Mr. Ross: But unsatisfactory as it is, the Amendment having been moved and a statement made, we can debate it and put our point of view and emphasise the importance of this matter to our various areas. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he advised his hon. Friends to keep away.
    Mr. J. Rodgers Mr. J. Rodgers indicated dissent
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Members concerned certainly owe an explanation to the House. They had an Amendment on the Order Paper which they were neither prepared to withdraw nor yet to move, but the Parliamentary Secretary says that he advised them to raise the matter on Third Reading. At times when there is a point in relation to a Money Resolution and we ask whether it is in order to raise it at that stage we are told that it is not; and it is not the hon. Gentleman's province but that of the Chair to say what is in order on Third Reading. Since there is no mention of research and development in the Clause, any reference to it might well be ruled out of order on Third Reading. The Parliamentary Secretary's Parliamentary experience is not terribly long, but he should appreciate that discussion on Third Reading is very tight and is confined to what is actually in the Bill.
    The subject matter of the Amendment is so important in relation to research and development that we thought that it should be in the Bill, and we still think so. The hon. Gentleman told us that he was concerned about the concentration of research projects which tends generally to lead to the siting of development projects in certain areas outside the present Development Areas. Is not that sufficient reason why this change should
    1100
    be made here? The hon. Gentleman has been longer at the Board of Trade than his right hon. Friend. Is he telling us that the Board of Trade has been lax in this respect? He tells us, "Leave things alone. We have powers under legislation which continues the present position that will enable us to do what the House desires."
    Not long ago a delegation of Scottish Members of Parliament went to see the Minister for Science about the siting of an atomic research establishment in the South of England. This is not ancient history. That is what has been done, and is being done now, despite the fact that the powers are there, as the Minister has said. I am referring to the siting of an atomic research establishment somewhere near Oxford. We felt that this should go to the Development Areas and we mentioned that Scotland was one such suitable area. We were fobbed off with the same kind of answer.
    In each instance we are given plenty of reasons why such projects could not go to the Development Areas. Can the hon. Gentleman wonder that we are concerned to ensure that such projects are properly considered in relation to the granting of certificates?
    Can the hon. Gentleman wonder at my lack of enthusiasm when I hear about a new tractor factory going to a part of Scotland? We have one in my constituency already, which we got without the benefit of this Bill under Labour Government legislation. In fact, anything to do with Scotland can be done without this Bill. The point is that Massey-Ferguson have announced that they are moving that tractor factory, its development unit, from Kilmarnock and taking it back to Coventry. May I take it then that, using the powers which he says are there without this instruction to the Board of Trade, the Minister will take steps to prevent that happening and will ensure that the unit now in Kilmarnock, which is partly research and development, will remain where it started instead of going to the Midlands?
    We are concerned about the Board of Trade not exercising its present powers, and we are concerned to ensure that by putting these words in the Clause it will be plain to everyone dealing with the question that these matters must be specifically considered. The hon. Gentleman said that if we put in those words

    1101
    it would mean that all the emphasis would be on them and that all the other considerations would be forgotten. It does not work that way. The fact is that we would be adding only a phrase and joining to the words already there, which he considers sufficient, the words:
    "and for providing research and development which would lead to employment."
    Does the hon. Gentleman still think that is limiting or tending to limit? No, it is an extension, an amplification. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to particularise, he will find these words in subsection (2) of Clause 7—" … in particular of industrial undertakings therein.…" That phrase does not rule out other considerations, as the hon. Gentleman told us during the Committee stage, so he should be logical and consistent.
    This Amendment is a clarification, an amplification and an emphasising of the power that exists, that should be there and that should be used. The hon. Gentleman admitted to the House his own concern about this, so let that concern be further displayed by accepting the Amendment, which has been more clearly explained by my hon. Friend than it could have been by the transient Scotsman whose name headed the list of those supporting the Amendment but who has not seen fit to be here.
    Mr. Dempsey: I support the Amendment. I am surprised at the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary, which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. In his original remarks the hon. Gentleman indicated that he accepted the Amendment in principle, but eventually arrived at the culminating factor when he said that he did not think it was appropriate. So here we have what is in my view an important Amendment which meets with his approval, but apparently the timing is indiscreet, and because of its importance the hon. Gentleman sets out to give the House certain assurances. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members appreciate those assurances, but would it not be much better if the hon. Gentleman converted them into writing and agreed to their insertion in the Bill? There may be other Parliamentary Secretaries in the days that lie ahead and I do not think they will accept his responsibility in offering assurances. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to
    1102
    be asking that the House should be adequately safeguarded by having those assurances in writing.
    It is obvious to me that it is essential to re-allocate diversified industry—a contention we accepted during the Committee stage. It is also equally important to have the allocation of research projects sited in certain areas which require them. It is reasonable, in accordance with the words of the Clause and the Amendment, that the Board of Trade should have regard to that factor before issuing industrial development certificates.
    It is a well-known fact that, where there are attractive research units, certain types of consequential employment automatically follow. If the Parliamentary Secretary cares to look at certain Development Areas initiated under the old Distribution of Industry Act, he will find that consequential employment followed the establishment of research units, whether it was the mechanism of motor cars or even the manufacture of road material. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should realise that this is also important in combating unemployment.
    There is another particular aspect which the Parliamentary Secretary should take into consideration. Apart from the general employment aspect, we have to bear in mind individuals looking for employment, such as students leaving our central institutions and universities. They are prepared to equip themselves mentally and physically, with a view to serving our country. Yet I know that students leaving a Scottish university require to look for the type of research employment which they want to do in the Midlands or the south of England.
    I have in my possession a letter from a student at Glasgow University begging me to use all my influence to impress upon the Minister the need to encourage the siting of research units in parts of the country where there is a need to provide employment of this nature, so that students can serve the country without having to leave home. Surely the hon. Gentleman is bound to acknowledge the validity of that point of view. If he does, he can respond to it in a very simple fashion—by accepting the Amendment instead of giving a verbal assurance.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Probert: I implore the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) upon his persistence and remaining in the Chamber although his name was fourth on the list of the names attached to the Amendment.
    I wish to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) about young students. I would impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that one of the reasons for bringing forward the Bill was the dire state of many of our coal mining areas at present. Not long ago I had the fortune to spend a day at the National Coal Board experimental research station at Stoke Orchard, near Cheltenham, where processes have been developed for producing coal by-products. No one in his senses would deny that if the coal industry is to succeed it must very quickly develop by-products. In my constituency there is a "Phurnacite" plant, producing smokeless fuel, a very successful venture indeed which employs about 500 or 600 men and supplies areas such as London and the north of England with this very fine coal by-product.
    Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary see that if, for example, in my area—fortunately, we do not need it at the moment, but I can envisage such a need in the future—we could have a research station concerned with new forms of coal by-products certain demands would be satisfied? It would be doing the very thing that my hon. Friend mentioned, providing vacancies for young students in the locality. I had a sad experience at Stoke Orchard. I asked the young students where they came from and found that their homes included Aberdare, Rhondda and Swansea. If there had been a research station in their own locality these young lads could have remained at home. There is a great future for by-products such as "Shape". A plant might be installed in an area when a colliery closed down, and about 500 displaced men could then be immediately employed.
    I implore the Parliamentary Secretary to make certain that this sort of thing will happen by embodying such a provision in the Bill.
    Mr. Manuel: We have reached a rather unique position. We are discussing an Amendment for which I suspect the Parliamentary Secretary was in the first place responsible. I imagine that he was responsible for getting some of his intimate friends to put it forward.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has none.
    Mr. Manuel: Then the hon. Gentleman tells us that he has now dissuaded his hon. Friends from being in the Chamber to attend to their business and justify their words. However, I would point out to hon. Members who are present that it is a little more shocking than that because the Amendment has had publicity in the Press and, accordingly, people are expecting us to discuss its subject matter, the provision of research and development which would lead to employment. There have been reports in the local Press in the constituencies of these hon. Members and I think that amounts to sailing under false colours. We should be stern in our condemnation of such tactics.
    I am sure the House will agree that this Amendment is necessary. May I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on his ingenuity and courage in moving the Amendment, despite the fact that he did not have the support of his hon. Friends to bolster up the strong arguments which he advanced. Alone and unaided, my hon. Friend strode into conflict with the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend ought to be fair about this. I understood that the hon. Members who are absent were in the Library preparing their speeches for the Third Reading debate.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I do not think we should go too far in discussing the conduct of hon. Members during the debate on this Amendment. It may be referred to, but I think it has been debated sufficiently and that now hon. Members should deal with the Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. Manuel: I have to justify myself for speaking on this Amendment when

    1105
    my name is not attached to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) tells me that he suspects these hon. Members are lined up in the Library doing a bit of "devilling" in order to get some ammunition for the Third Reading debate—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think it is in order to discuss that on this Amendment. Hon. Members should devote themselves to discussing the Amendment.
    Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As the Parliamentary Secretary gave as the reason for not arguing this now that he had ordered his supporters out of the Chamber and told them not to come back until the Third Reading debate, surely this is relevant?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Reference to it was certainly in order, but I do not think that the debate should be devoted entirely to that aspect.
    Mr. McCann: Would it be in order to keep the debate going until the hon. Members come into the Chamber to explain why they were not here?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Willis: Would it be in order to ask my hon. Friend whether he said that the hon Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) had already published his speech in the local Press?
    Mr. Manuel: No, I did not say any such thing.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Manuel: I do not wish to get out of order, but I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would agree that it would not be in order to discuss this Amendment during the Third Reading debate and that it was not good reasoning on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary.
    I consider this Amendment of particular importance to Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) mentioned that there had been a deputation from the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group to the Minister for Science to express to him our keen anxiety that we should get a research development unit in Scotland, and that the
    1106
    atomic energy installation—for peacetime pursuits may I say—should not be sited in the south of England. I understand that the deputation failed in its objective, but in Scotland at any rate we have a particular interest in this matter.
    The Parliamentary Secretary knows that frequent reference has been made in this House to the plight of the constituency of Greenock over the question of heavy unemployment there. Despite that, by a deliberate act of Government policy the torpedo research factory has been moved from Greenock to the south of England. If Clause 18 had buttressed—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see reinforcements slowly rolling up. I want hon. Members who are present to be seized of the importance of this aspect of the matter. We should have had a much stronger argument for retention of the torpedo research establishment at Greenock rather than its removal to the South of England if this Bill had already become an Act and Clause 18 contained the words:
    "and for providing research and development which would lead to employment"
    I feel that we have said quite enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to be completely seized of the idea that we on this side of the House consider this very important. We are very weak on the question of research in Scotland. We should be giving far more help to Scottish industry and to Scottish industrialists if we were providing scope for our students coming from university to go into research establishments sited in Scotland. We should then be doing a great deal more for Scottish industry and providing many more jobs in Scotland than at present.
    Mr. J. Rodgers Mr. J. Rodgers rose—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Since one of the hon. Members whom we have all been looking forward to hearing speak has now come into the Chamber, may we have an opportunity of hearing him, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Minister wishes to rise to speak, he can do so only by leave of the House.
    Mr. Jay: Before the Minister rises, can we know whether the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) has the permission of the Minster to come back into the Chamber?
    Mr. J. Rodgers: With the leave of the House, I wish to deal with some of the points which have been raised. First, I am sorry that in trying to defend my hon. Friends against what I thought, perhaps wrongly, was an attack by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) I unwittingly did a disservice to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I apologise for that, and withdraw it. I think the hon. Member showed initiative by being in his place when the Amendment was called, even though he was fourth on the list of those under whose names the Amendment appears. Perhaps in defending my hon. Friends I did him that disservice, but I certainly did not advise my hon. Friends to leave the Chamber, nor dissuade them from being in the Chamber. I merely agreed with them that perhaps they would make their point more appropriately on Third Reading.
    It is true that research and development problems are extremely important. It is also unfortunately true, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) knows only too well, that there is a tendency for scientists and research workers in general to want to be near Oxford, Cambridge or London. I believe that research and development are vital to our existence in the expansionist climate in which we are now living.
    It would be wrong to specify any one consideration among the many to which we at the Board of Trade must have regard in the granting of I.D.Cs. It would be wrong of us to pick out this one element of research and development. If it were possible to steer research projects which provide employment to development districts, I should be one of the first to try to do it, but the major consideration must be whether the research and development projects are situated most efficiently to make their major contribution. That is the main point to which we at the Board of Trade must pay attention. If we can steer them, we certainly will. Many of them do not provide much employment and many do not require industrial premises.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I hope that other hon. Members will not mind if I point out that almost all the areas affected by this problem are areas where there is
    1108
    a wonderful provision of education. I worked at one time with colleagues who were in the Ministry of Education. I know that if we look, for example, at the proportion of places provided in grammar schools, we find these areas at the top of the list. We want not only balanced industry but balanced population in these areas, and we must get young men and young women trained in our own grammar schools and working in these areas.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. May I be permitted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?
    Mr. Griffiths: I said that we must bear in mind that we want a balanced population as well as balanced industry. The Minister says that he already has the power which we offer him. It has not been much used. Let us use it in the future. He also said something of vital importance when he admitted earlier that he realised that wherever these research establishments are located, they pull the industry after them. That is another reason why he should do everything within his power to steer them to these areas, because they will pull the other industries after them.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I said that there was a tendency to put productive units around research and development projects, and I therefore can give an assurance that where projects are steerable, we will steer them to the Development Areas. We have powers in the Bill and they need not be spelled out as they are in the Amendment. I deny the suggestion that we at the Board of Trade do not appreciate research and development; indeed we do, but it is only one of the criteria which we must take into account in granting an I.D.C. For that reason I must resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Willis: The Minister says that by mentioning research and development we exclude other things which ought to be considered. We have already mentioned one factor—"appropriate employment". If his argument were sound, that would mean that we have excluded everything else. Surely by making this addition we extend rather than exclude. The hon. Member's argument, while relevant to many Amendments which are moved from time to time, does not apply in the context of this Clause.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I could not understand the Parliamentary Secretary when he said the he could not accept the Amendment because it particularises too much. Once we have reached this Clause, the Amendment is in its proper context. The Clause sets out the considerations which the Board will have in mind when deciding whether to grant an industrial development certificate, and it ends:
    "… the Board shall have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment in the localities mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act."
    The Amendment seeks to insert the words on the Order Paper after the word "employment". The latter part of the subsection would then read:
    "… the Board shall have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment and for providing research and development which would lead to employment in the localities mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act."
    That does not particularise to the exclusion of any other consideration. The hon. Member has mentioned the effect which research and development have on employment in this country.
    Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that in London and the South-East we have some 19 per cent. of the country's industrial workers and 28·8 per cent. of its research and development workers; and that, because of that, so many industrialists who apply for I.D.Cs. tell the President of the Board of Trade when he is inclined to refuse a certificate that they cannot afford to go elsewhere because all the research and development work on which their industry depends takes place in London and the South-East?
    Perhaps I may give some figures at the opposite extreme. Looking at a table contained in the 1958 Report of the D.S.I.R.—the last one published—on this very subject, we find that in London and the South-East there is the greatest proportional excess of research and development workers over industrial workers of any part of Great Britain. In the Midlands the two are almost equated but, going beyond the Midlands, we suddenly find a movement in the opposite direction.
    The further north one goes the smaller the proportion of research and development workers and the larger the proportion of industrial workers. So, when
    1110
    we get to Scotland, we have almost 10 per cent. of the industrial workers of Great Britain, but our share of research and development workers is only 2·7 per cent. It is because of that that a great many industrialists say that they are unable to accept the Board of Trade's advice to take their industries to Scotland. Those are important considerations.
    It is true that in Scotland we have more university students in ratio to the population than has any other part, taking the country as a whole. It is also true that in recent years 60 per cent. of our Scottish science graduates have had to leave Scotland to find a job; 6 out of every 10 never find a job in Scotland. If we had more research and development work there, we could provide more work for our science graduates. That would provide the magnet to attract industry, and, at the end of the day, we would make a less heavy demand on the central Government for finance to provide employment in Scotland.
    In that context, it is highly desirable that the Government should accept the Amendment. After all, by accepting it, all that the Parliamentary Secretary would do would be to undertake that is his own right hon. Friend, in considering an application for an I.D.C., would have regard to this matter. It would not necessarily be the final determining factor. The President of the Board of Trade, in making up his mind, would still have to weigh other considerations, but I think that he would regard this as being a factor of some importance.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that he understood that the complaint was that most of these people setting up these establishments wanted to be between Oxford, Cambridge and London. We recently made representations against the decision of the Atomic Energy Authority to build a new thermo-nuclear research establishment at Culham, in Berkshire. Originally, the Authority proposed to set this up at Winfrith Heath, in Dorset. We understand that the boffins said, "No, we want to be near our pals"—and they got their way.
    The Government have now agreed that the research establishment shall be built in the most congested part of the country. This strip between London and the Midlands, where the great M.1 runs, is

    1111
    the most congested part of the country. This new establishment will provide 1,000 new jobs for highly skilled workers and will inevitably in the long run be a magnet attracting still more industries to that part of the country. Some of us said at that time that we thought that it should go north. I was with the deputation of Scottish Members which said that it should go to Scotland. I should have understood perfectly if my Welsh hon. Friends had said that it should go to Wales or if other hon. Members had said that it should go to Merseyside or the north-east.
    It is nonsense to say that this cannot be done except in a congested part of the country. Research and development work is being done at Dounreay, in the most northerly tip of the island. This is not for the convenience of the boffins, but because the work being done there must be done on tidal water where there is a plentiful water supply and as far away from population as possible. That was the reason for deciding to take that research establishment right up to Dounreay. Therefore, we can persuade boffins to go to out-of-the-way and not easily accessible places. We do not ask that all these establishments should go to inaccessible places. We ask merely that they should be spread out a little more than at present and that at least the President of the Board of Trade in considering an application for an industrial development certificate should have regard to the provision of research and development, which would lead to further employment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary should accept the Amendment. It does not tie the hands of his right hon. Friend in any way. If accepted, it would be an acknowledgment of the employment provided in those establishments and the effect that they have on employment generally. We in Scotland in recent years have had one new research establishment.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: Dounreay.
    Mr. Fraser: We have had the Dounreay atomic energy reactor, but we have had also the National Engineering Laboratory.
    Mr. Peart: I am glad to say that the main research station for the Atomic
    1112
    Energy Authority, which is fundamental to its development, is in my area, namely, Cumberland.
    Mr. Fraser: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. He might learn from the Minister concerned that his justification for the project going to Culham was its proximity to where the main work is done at Harwell. That is a long way from Windscale. It is a dreadful justification. In the days of the Labour Government we thought that we were doing something to induce industry to go to difficult areas when we took the National Engineering Laboratory to East Kilbride.
    We must spread research and development out a little. The Government can do much in this respect. Private industry provides much of its own research, but unfortunately almost all of it is in the south. Private industry provides precious little research in the north. There is only one private industry in Scotland which provides research services. Oddly enough, it is one which is going downhill. That is the jute industry. No other privately-owned industry in Scotland provides research.
    I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to take account of our need and of the needs of other parts of the country and to say that research and development are matters to be taken into account when the President of the Board of Trade in future considers an application for an industrial development certificate.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Peart: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the Government should accept the Amendment, and I shall not quibble about which area should have which research station. I agree that the more research establishments are distributed, the better. But I hope that we shall not use the argument which the Minister used. Indirectly, there is a danger. The Minister implied that most young scientists wished to concentrate their activities around Oxford and Cambridge. I reject that argument.
    Many young scientists wish to be outside those centres. That is why I quoted a case in my own area where, under the old Distribution of Industry legislation, with the need to diversify industry, we got the atomic energy

    1113
    projects at Calder Hall and Windscale. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton that they are great centres of fundamental research, and, according to the latest pronouncements of the Atomic Energy Authority, most of the fundamental research work is to be done there.
    I am certain that young scientists will be attracted to such centres. They are being attracted to them now, which is a good thing for an area which was formerly a distressed area. Most of the fundamental research into nuclear power is now done not at Oxford or Cambridge, but at Risley and Springfields and similar places. A study of those places will show that it is not true that scientists wish to flock to Oxford and Cambridge.
    After all, there are great research centres in Scotland. There are great universities with great traditions in pure research. I have always defended Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities against the fashionable places in Oxford and Cambridge, and in Durham there is a great tradition of research, particularly in engineering on Tyneside.
    If it is Government policy to have this distribution, young scientists can be attracted to the new centres. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, which will help decentralisation and ease the concentration around London and other areas. Young scientists should be attracted to new areas, such as those in Cumberland, where new power techniques are being evolved.
    Mr. James McInnes: I am not at all surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should confess that scientists and research workers are, concentrating around Oxford, Cambridge, London and similar areas. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) rejects the argument that that is the case, I nevertheless feel that there was a great deal of truth in what the Parliamentary Secretary said.
    I recently asked the Minister of Works how many establishments had been completed in Great Britain on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Atomic Energy Authority, arid other scientific organisations. I was
    1114
    told that about 300 establishments had been completed, at a total cost of £21 million, three of them in Scotland. representing only £270,000 worth of work. In other words, we have got 1 per cent. of that total expenditure. No wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has had to say that Scotland is very weak in research establishments. I wonder whether he realises that we have only one research association in Scotland, for the jute industry. We should take the opportunity—and the Minister will if he accepts the Amendment—of directing, guiding or steering research establishments North of the Border. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has already referred to the Culham project of the Atomic Energy Authority and said that that could have been steered to Scotland.
    In view of his own statement that research people and scientists wish to concentrate South of the Border, we must ask the Minister to take the opportunity now to accept this Amendment which has been justified beyond all doubt by the speeches made from this side of the House. I hope that he will say now that he intends to accept it
    Mr. Ede: Most of us who have been here for any length of time have sorry memories of leaving the Chamber without having been called and tearing up notes for speeches which we were quite certain would have established our Parliamentary reputation had we only been able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. We, therefore, congratulate the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on the opportunity which has been saved for him by the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).
    We have had from the Parliamentary Secretary two explanations why the hon. Gentleman was not here when his name was called. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself heard one of them. We recognise that the hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and certain of his own hon. Friends, placed the Amendment on the Notice Paper. There has been no supporter of the Amendment so far from the Government benches, but there have been two

    1115
    emphatic rejections of it by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    One of the stories we heard was that the hon. Gentleman had been advised by the Parliamentary Secretary that he should try to make the speech on Third Reading. It is a well-known fact that one can mention on Third Reading only what is actually in the Bill. It would appear that the Parliamentary Secretary advised his hon. Friend not to speak on the Amendment but to speak on Third Reading and, at the same time, he was prepared to prevent this matter going into the Bill so that, when Third Reading came, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire would be out of order if he attempted to mention it.
    We have had a long and interesting debate. Various of my hon. Friends have spoken in favour of the Amendment. I hope that, if the Parliamentary Secretary still finds it impossible to accept the Amendment, we shall show our displeasure at that attitude by going into the Lobby. But we should very much like to hear what the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, whose name appears at the head of the list against the Amendment on the Notice Paper, has to say before we pass from it.
    Sir Fitzroy Maclean: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a far greater expert than I shall ever be on Parliamentary procedure. I am, therefore, quite prepared to be warned by him that anything I could say on this subject on Third Reading might be out of order.
    Having failed to be called in Committee, I do not want to miss my chance altogether, and, therefore, as this is a subject on which I feel extremely strongly, I am only too glad to speak now, lest I should be ruled out of order were I to try and discuss it on Third Reading.
    I am in general agreement with much of what has been said by hon. Members opposite and, in particular, with what I thought were the very cogent remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I think that the need for increased research and development must be obvious to anyone, and I am glad that it has been recognised by the D.S.I.R's new five-year plan, which provides for a 70 per cent. increase in
    1116
    expenditure on research and development. The purpose of this Amendment, as it was tabled originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti), was, I think, to try to provide a link between this expanded programme of research and development and the idea which underlies the Bill—in other words, to take advantage of this expanded programme of research and development in order to bring new industries to parts of the country where they are most needed and where it is most necessary to stimulate the economy and provide increased employment.
    Nowhere is there a greater need for new industries in general and for the diversification of industry in particular than in Scotland, and it is with the Scottish aspect of the problem that I am chiefly concerned. One thing about which I think everyone is agreed is that research and development brings industry in its train, particularly science-based industry—chemicals, oil, electronics, and so on—and that is exactly what we need in Scotland—projects with a high development potential which can be used to replace waning industries and in general to revive the economy where this is needed and also completely new industries which at present do not exist in Scotland and which will serve further to diversify the economy.
    Such projects, particularly science-based industries, would undoubtedly help to utilise the many very great assets which we in Scotland possess. To my mind, the greatest of these assets is our output of men who possess special skills and special technical and scientific qualifications. The House has heard before, but I think it is worth repeating, that in Scotland one person in about 250 goes to university as opposed to one in 500 in England. There is, therefore, in Scotland a very plentiful supply of skill and brains.
    The tragedy to my mind—and one hon. Member brought this out very well—is that we do not succeed in keeping them. In 1957, 64 per cent. of our science graduates and 66 per cent. of our engineering graduates left Scotland. In 1958 38 per cent. of our science graduates and 59 per cent. of our engineering graduates left Scotland. I have not the figures for 1959. Certainly

    1117
    the 1958 figures show an improvement which, let us hope, will continue. But it is still far too high a proportion.
    9.15 p.m.
    To illustrate what I mean, I should like to read a letter which I recently received from a young constituent, who states:
    "Scotland has had a pitiable share of Government sponsored research and this is one reason why young Scottish scientists are forced to leave the country in their hundreds. To quote my own experience, of the 18 graduates who qualified at the same time as myself, 15 went to England to work and one went to Canada. Only one or two at most wanted to leave the country. I was only able to return later to Scotland by incurring some financial loss myself."
    That case is not untypical of the state of affairs in Scotland.
    That would be a sad enough state of affairs if we did not need these men. The fact is that we need them badly. It is a case where the laws of supply and demand are not operating properly. We have already had some discussion about planning and Government intervention generally. I personally regard this as a case where Government intervention is called for. It is the Government's business in this case to try to make the laws of supply and demand operate as they should.
    What we need most of all in Scotland is more science-based industry, more new industry and a more diversified industrial structure. The best way in which the Government can help to bring this about is by bringing more scientific research to Scotland. I wish that I had got my speech in before the hon. Member for Hamilton made his, but perhaps I might correct him. We have, I think, 9 per cent. rather than 10 per cent. of the total labour force and, as the hon. Member said, only 2·7 per cent. of research and development workers, which is nothing like the Goschen formula. Whether the figure is 9 or 10 per cent., 2·7 per cent. is still far too small a proportion.
    In all this, we should, of course, realise that there is a limit to what the Government can do. They have neither unlimited powers nor unlimited funds. It is also true that private industry could do more than it does, although we should not underestimate what is in fact done
    1118
    by private firms. Nevertheless, there is still quite a lot that the Government can do.
    Seventy per cent. of all research and development is financed by the Government. To the extent of 70 per cent., the Government therefore control its geographical distribution. It lies with the Government to say where the 70 per cent. will be directed. The whole purpose of the Bill is not to direct private industry—my right hon. Friend has made that clear—but to encourage private industry by the use of deterrents and inducements to go where it can do most good, in this instance to undertake more research and development in Scotland. Of the forty grants which are made throughout the country to research associations, only one grant—for the jute industry—has gone to Scotland. Clearly, that is not as much as we in Scotland have the right to expect.
    Another thing that the Government can do is to bring to Scotland installations that are Government-owned or Government-controlled. It was a great disappointment to hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as to hon. Members opposite, that the new nuclear research centre was not sited in Scotland but, instead, was sent to Culham. Knowing as little as any of us do about these matters, one is bound, I suppose, to accept the argument that it had to be sited near Harwell and near Aldermaston. Obviously, when a scientific installation is established somewhere, it immediately becomes much simpler to bring the next one there, too. And the one after that. And so on, indefinitely until it becomes out of the question to site them anywhere else.
    I hope that now that we have a Minister for Science he will use his powers to break what I consider is a thoroughly vicious circle, and that he will not allow himself to be blinded with science by his own boffins who are all too apt to hold up their hands in horror—and of course their wives even more so—at the idea of being sent anywhere outside the Home Counties, let alone anywhere as remote as Scotland.
    That is a vicious circle which it ought to be quite easy to break once we get things going. I think that once we get our fair share of research and development a great many of these difficulties

    1119
    will very quickly disappear. I have met and talked to quite a lot of the boffins, if they will forgive me for calling them that, who are working at Hunterston, in my constituency, and they all seem perfectly happy—just as happy as, if not happier than, they would have been in the Home Counties. If the Government will give a lead, I have no doubt that private industry will very quickly follow suit and it will then become just as easy and popular to site such an establishment in Scotland as anywhere else.
    If this could be done—and Dounreay is an example—it would mean that we should be able to offer far better opportunities to our own scientists and technicians in their own country where they want to be than it is at present possible to offer. It would also mean that we in Scotland would get our proper share of science-based industry and also the new industry which we need to give our economic structure diversification and the long-term stability which it so greatly needs. It could be done by a once-for-all injection of capital which would produce a permanent economic improvement. That is why I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment which stands in my name on the Notice Paper.
    Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman make some efforts to answer the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary?
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I hoped that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) would answer the points made in variation of the narrative which we have had as to why he was not here when the Amendment was called. I am sure that the readers of the Largs and Millport Weekly News and the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald, who may be likely to read his speech, will be much more interested to know whether the hon. Baronet will honour his Amendment and stand by his sentiments with his vote on this matter. All the "Hear, hears" during his speech came entirely from this side of the Committee and none at all from his own side, and I hope that his constituents will know that as well.
    He has enunciated exactly what is behind the Amendment and the case argued so far. What has he argued? He
    1120
    has argued that once we have achieved a fair share of research and development in these areas things will be well. Where does "once" begin? Do I take it that when the Amendment is passed, that is the beginning of "once"? Because the hon. Baronet said in answer to a comment that 1 per cent. of D.S.I.R.'s recent transfers in 1958 have gone to Scotland. That is nowhere near the Goschen Formula. One could go further, and say that because the total number of university students bears a certain proportion to the population we ought to get twice the Goschen Formula, or twice whatever proportion might be worked out on a population basis. That is nowhere near 1 per cent.
    He has argued the case that the D.S.I.R. has announced that for the next quinquennial part of its programme it will have a 70 per cent. increase in funds. It does not, however, follow that we shall get a higher proportion or a higher ratio unless articles like this are written into Bills like this, making the actions of the Government match their professions. After all, if a 70 per cent. increase in the D.S.I.R.'s budget is voted, it follows that we shall have only a rise from 1 per cent. to 1·7 per cent, in an actual share of the research stations throughout the United Kingdom.
    I view with great distress this assertion of the Parliamentary Secretary about the position of scientists, namely, that the community of scientists somehow or another all want to transfer to Oxford or Cambridge or London. This is nonsense. In the case of an institution of which I have personal and intimate knowledge, a very substantial research station in Scotland which made a transfer down to Portland, almost every senior scientist and every first-class technologist in that institution wanted to stay in Scotland, and I know of only three who wanted to go to Portland. The rest all dissented from the idea. They wished to stay where they were.
    Indeed, I can remember that the late Walter Elliot, a very distinguished Member of this House, a former Member for Scotstoun and two Labour Members went to the Admiralty to argue this case about taking that research station from Greenock, on the grounds that we were deserting a very formidable and learned university, namely, the University of

    1121
    Glasgow, which had pioneered many of the achievements of natural philosophy in research, which had gone on since the station was erected there in 1910. It is a most remarkable thing that the station actually left not because it was a temporary war-time institution but because it had arrived there before the First World War.
    It seems to me incredible that we should be willing to accept the professions of the Parliamentary Secretary who belongs to a Government who in the last few years have been willing to transfer formidable research stations from one part of the country where we have high unemployment to another part of the country where unemployment is overfull. It seems to me incredible. I do not think it is unreasonable for hon. Members on this side of the House to join reluctant hon. Members on the other side, who put their names to the Amendment but who probably now regret that very much, in insisting that we ought to have a declaration from the Government and written into this Bill that we should have consideration for research and development in those areas.
    As I say, in my own constituency, ever since the Government were elected, the average unemployment rate has run at 7 per cent., and yet the best brains of the labour force were transferred only because of this action by the Government.
    In his argument the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire said that the Government did not have unlimited facilities for achieving this. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has been good enough to argue the case in moderate tones, in the sense that this is not an Amendment imposing upon the Board an absolutely cast-iron condition which it must observe. He has argued the matter moderately, but the hon. Baronet has nevertheless emphasised that the Government have absolute, unquestioned control over where they put their own installations for research and development. Yet we have seen them actually taken away from a place where high unemployment has persisted.
    I think that the hon. Baronet and his ho a. Friends and hon. Members on this side can at least say that we are not being unreasonable in asking that these
    1122
    words should be written into the Bill. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary—even if he does seem not to know very much about the transfer of these establishments to be entirely out of sympathy with the community of scientists in this country and to believe that they all want to go to Oxford, Cambridge or London—if he really wants to see the proper distribution of scientific amenities throughout the country, will accept the Amendment. I hope that, if he does not, we shall divide on the Amendment, because I am sure we disagree with him about this concept of concentrating in those areas.
    9.30 p.m.
    Dame Irene Ward: I certainly hope the Government will give way on the Amendment. I hope that there will be a Division if they do not give way. I feel that the whole credit of the Bill depends on the Government's willingness to meet this kind of situation. I shall not go into all the scientific details, but here is an opportunity of extending over the whole area some of the advantages of scientific and technical development. When so much of the power rests in the hands of the Government, I do not see why they should not be prepared to do what they are asking private industry to do. The Government have kept on saying that they cannot force industrialists to go to this or that part of the country and that they can only offer inducements. I say to the Government, "Here you can set them an example, and there is a great deal in the force of example."
    I have accepted the Bill as being a Measure which follows in the tradition of trying to help employment in areas where it is difficult. At the same time, I am not as satisfied as all that that the Government are absolutely sold on doing the maximum that they can to make the stated policy operative. This is a matter of good faith. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should not set the example. There have been a lot of jeers and comments about people not being interested in this matter on this side of the House. That is entirely wrong, but I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that this was all a matter for Scotland. It is not all a matter for Scotland. It is a matter for the North of England as well.

    1123
    We are coming to a stage where nuclear power is being developed for application to marine engineering. Oxford and Cambridge and parts of London are not connected with shipping and marine engineering and the application of nuclear power to marine engineering development, but the North of England is and we say to the Government that on this kind of provision depends whether we believe that they are acting in good faith towards employment and development in our part of the country. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give way, I shall be delighted to vote in the Opposition Lobby.
    Mr. Lee: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, having heard a very powerful appeal to him from his hon. Friends the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) will reconsider the very reasonable approach and the reasonable words spoken to him in favour of accepting the Amendment. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is not seized of this serious point. We invite him to realise that we are now facing a situation in the North which is most serious for us all. We all know that the "bulge" of school-leavers is now rising very rapidly and that by 1962 there will be a vast increase in the number of school-leavers compared with 1956. In my constituency the number has risen to 85 per cent. above the 1956 level. Along with this we also know that a larger ratio of school leavers are now not going into the kind of employment which requires technical education. In other words, a larger ratio is going into work which can lead to a blind alley occupation.
    In the areas to which I have referred we have the older industries. The Industrial Revolution took place in the North. We have there the heavy industry which now requires new techniques, new approaches, if we are to maintain our position in the competitive world which is now developing. I invite the hon. Gentleman to remember that, of all the great industrial nations in the world, Britain is the slowest in applying research to its productive industries. This is a vital matter. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that in the North we have a large number of school leavers
    1124
    who do not feel that it is necessary for them to undertake technical training for research work because, when they have finished it, they cannot get jobs as technicians and technologists.
    This is an artificial divorce. We see research confined in a large degree to the test-tube atmosphere of Oxford and Cambridge, divorced to a great extent from the great, heavy, basic industries of Britain which are concentrated largely in the North. I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if this kind of thing goes on we shall speedily reach the point where it will be impossible for Britain to compete in world markets. These are most relevant points because in the new type of industrial production we shall need a far higher ratio of technologists and highly skilled men than we have needed at any other time in our industrial history. Yet it is at precisely this time that young people in the North are not being encouraged to take up technological studies because there is no scope for them when they leave the grammar schools and technical universities.
    I hope then that the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is most relevant to ask the Government to give more facilities for research on the site of our great heavy industries. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will know as well as I do, because he was at the same firm, that there are some large organisations which are doing fine work in this respect, but it appears to me that the Government are not in any way encouraging our young people in the North to turn their minds and abilities to technological training, which would enable us to modernise our industries and so be able to compete with those of other nations.
    For these reasons, I hope that even now the hon. Gentleman will listen to the words of wisdom he has heard from this side of the House as well as from his hon. Friends. It would not mean any loss of face to him if he said that, having heard the opinions expressed in all parts of the House, he will bow to those opinions and will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Jay: As the efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary to exclude the hon. Baronet—
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House—
    Mr. Jay: I wish to ask a question, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may be wishing to ask a question, but he still needs the leave of the House.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 208.

    Division No. 33.

    AYES

    [9.40 p.m

    Ainsley, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Rankin, John

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Rhodes, H.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Holman, Percy

    Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Awbery, Stan

    Houghton, Douglas

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hoy, James H.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Ross, William

    Beaney, Alan

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Short, Edward

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Blackburn, F.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Blyton, William

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Boardman, H.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Small, William

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

    Kelley, Richard

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Boyden, James

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Steele, Thomas

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Logan, David

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Stonehouse, John

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stones, William

    Callaghan, James

    McCann, John

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    McInnes, James

    Swain, Thomas

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Sylvester, George

    Cronin, John

    Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Mapp, Charles

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

    Deer, George

    Marquard, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Thornton, Ernest

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Mason, Roy

    Timmons, John

    Dempsey, James

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Wade, Donald

    Diamond, John

    Millan, Bruce

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Warbey, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Moody, A. S.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Morris, John

    Watkins, Tudor

    Fernyhough, E.

    Neal, Harold

    Whitlock, William

    Fitch, Alan

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Oram, A. E.

    Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Pavitt, Laurence

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Peart, Frederick

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Grey, Charles

    Pentland, Norman

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Woof, Robert

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Probert, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hayman, F. H.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Mr. Howell and Mr. Lawson.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Aitken, W. T.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Elliott, R. W.

    Allason, James

    Chataway, Christopher

    Emery, Peter

    Arbuthnot, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Balniel, Lord

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Farr, John

    Barter, John

    Cole, Norman

    Fell, Anthony

    Batsford, Brian

    Collard, Richard

    Finlay, Graeme

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Cooke, Robert

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Bearnish, Col. Tufton

    Cooper-Key, Sir Edmund

    Freeth, Denzil

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gammons, Lady

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Cordle, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Godber, J. B.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Costain, A. P.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Bingham, R. M.

    Coulson, J. M.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Bishop, F. P.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Gower, Raymond

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

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

    Bossom, Clive

    Crowder, F. P.

    Green, Alan

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Curran, Charles

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Box, Donald

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Deedes, W. F.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Braine, Bernard

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Gurden, Harold

    Brewis, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Bullard, Denys

    Drayson, G. B.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Roots, William

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Maddan, Martin

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Russell, Ronald

    Hendry, A. Forbes

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Hiley, Joseph

    Marshall, Douglas

    Seymour, Leslie

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

    Marten, Neil

    Sharples, Richard

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Shepherd, William

    Holland, Philip

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Hollingworth, John

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smithers, Peter

    Hopkins, Alan

    Mawby, Ray

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hornby, R. P.

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

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Mills, Stratton

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Morgan, William

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Morrison, John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Teeling, William

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Temple, John M.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Noble, Michael

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Jackson, John

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    James, David

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Page, Graham

    Turner, Colin

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Partridge, E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Kimball, Marcus

    Peel, John

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Kirk, Peter

    Percival, Ian

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Kitson, Timothy

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Pott, Percivall

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Watts, James

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Webster, David

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Ramsden, James

    Wise, Alfred

    Longbottom, Charles

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Rees, Hugh

    Woollam, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Worsley, Marcus

    McLaren, Martin

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    McLaughlin. Mrs. Patricia

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    McMaster, Stanley

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Bryan and Mr. Whitelaw.

    Amendment made: In page 12, line 8, leave out from "in" to end of line 9 and insert "development districts".—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 26.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ACTS.)
    Amendment made: In page 14, line 36, leave out from "in" to "and" in line 38 and insert "a development district".—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 28.—(REPEALS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 16, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "or that section as extended by the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958".
    This is a technical Amendment. The object of subsection (5) is to transfer from the Treasury to the Board of Trade securities for the repayment of outstanding D.A.T.A.C. loans as part of the general transfer of functions between the Treasury and the Board of Trade. The existing draft of subsection (5) operates
    1128
    only in relation to securities given for loans under Section 4 of the 1945 Act. Of course, it should also cover securities for loans given under that Section as extended by the Act of 1958. This is an omission from the original drafting which this Amendment repairs.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade underlined the basic philosophy which lies behind this Local Employment Bill. While tonight we are discussing the Local Employment Bill, nevertheless the first concern of the Government, and particularly of the Board of Trade, must be with the economy as a whole. As my right hon. Friend said during the Second Reading:
    "Anything which distorts that strength, anything which adds additional burdens, must weaken our competitive position, and if we weaken our competitive position as a country we endanger our ability not only to maintain full employment generally, but to deal with

    1129
    the special problems of individual areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 32.]
    While that must remain our overriding objective, it is recognised on all sides that the free play of economic forces may have unhappy social consequences. It is the Government's responsibility to do what they can to mitigate those social consequences. Frankly, having listened to a great deal of the debate, I think that the only difference between the two sides of the House is how far that mitigation can go without jeopardising the national economy as a whole. We believe that this Bill goes a long way in the right direction, and that is why we commend it to the House.
    The Bill, as I think hon. Members will agree, has had a very full and thorough discussion in Committee and the speeches which have been made from both sides of the House show the great interest hon. Members, wherever they sit, have in this subject of unemployment. Broadly, the Bill, despite the many hours spent in Committee, has emerged substantially as it was presented to the House. There have been a few Amendments, and I think I should say improvements, made to the Bill. I should like to single out the robust proposal of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), which my right hon. Friend was glad to accept, that we get rid altogether of the suggested co-ordinating committee. This will have the effect of bringing the management corporations closer to the Government, and also of getting rid of some red tape.
    I mention also the Amendment to provide that each of the management corporations shall have both an industrialist and a trade unionist among its members. This, I think, is a useful provision to ensure that the corporations exercise their professional functions with proper knowledge of industrial problems. Lastly, I mention the Amendment which the Government put down to ensure the preservation of the pension and superannuation rights of the estate company employees. I think their contractual rights are now safeguarded in all respects.
    There have been these Amendments and others but broadly, as I said, the Bill has emerged unscathed. Hon. Members pointed out in the Second Reading debate
    1130
    and in Committee that the actual terms of the Bill are less important than the way in which it is administered. I agree wholeheartedly with this contention, and I can assure the House that we are determined to administer the powers given to us by the Bill vigorously and relentlessly. The recent announcement of the British Motor Corporation's tremendous development in Scotland, West South Wales, Merseyside and Stafford is an indication of what can be done when there is a conjunction of an expansionist climate and a Government determined to exploit those conditions in the national interest. Rootes have made a provisional announcement and I hope that others will follow from the motor car industry.
    I apologise for again uttering the old cliche of the stick and the carrot, but I think it important to have in mind these complementary instruments for achieving our objective, both of which find their place in the Bill—namely, the industrial development certificate and the financial and other inducements. The Bill does not alter either the system of industrial development certificate control or the Government's policy in administering it.
    What it does is to emphasise the importance we attach in our consideration of each and every application to the need for helping what are to be called the Development Districts. If a firm can go to one of these districts or hive off part of its activities there, we shall not let it expand in a congested area. But that does not mean that we shall inflexibly refuse I.D.Cs for everywhere else. There are many firms which are tied to their existing base or which can go some distance—for example to an overspill town from its parent town—but which could not go to a development district. In all those cases we shall, of course, grant industrial development certificates. To refuse them would merely lead to a frustration of economic expansion.
    There are other parts of the country which need further industry, although they have not such high unemployment; here the benefits of this Bill ought not to be made available. In those districts also we shall not refuse I.D.Cs for any suitable expansions, but in the case of new projects we shall, of course, consider whether they could not go to a place

    1131
    which needs them even more. So much for the negative side of our control, without which the inducements offered in this Bill would not hold the attractions which I am confident they will hold.
    I will not go in detail through the Bill, but it may be useful to the House if I recapitulate the five chief facilities which the Bill offers.
    First there is the power to build factories for leasing or sale on favourable terms. This is not a new power, but it is now for the first time available over all the places which are judged to be areas of high unemployment.
    Moreover, there is one useful extension in that the Board can build factories for an industrialist on his own land: there need no longer be the complication and expense of a double conveyance.
    About a year ago I announced in the House that we would grant certain concessions on the rentals of Board of Trade factories either when the lease became due for renewal or when a factory was empty. These concessions were to be limited to cases arising in the following twelve months. I am glad to say that there has been a substantial improvement in the employment position and it is no longer necessary to make any abatement from current market rents. For instance, today we have only seventeen empty factories compared with twenty-eight a year ago. These special concessions have therefore been allowed to lapse as from 1st February in accordance with my previous announcement. The powers to grant concessions, however, remain, and if in the future we felt conditions justified such special treatment again, we would not hesitate to take similar action.
    I should add that the position of Board of Trade factories outside the new Development Districts has not been forgotten. We are taking powers under Clauses 15 and 28 of the Bill to enable us to continue to carry out work already begun in the former Development Areas, to honour agreements already made and to carry out the normal functions of a good landlord.
    On the other hand, in view of the importance of concentrating our resources on the Development Districts, our policy elsewhere will be to build
    1132
    new factories only in exceptional circumstances and to apply somewhat more stringent rules about building extensions to existing premises. If a firm occupying a Board of Trade factory outside the Development Districts requires an extension of its premises, we shall expect it first to consider the possibility of building for itself, and in most cases we shall be willing to sell the factory to the firm if it is willing to buy. If we are satisfied that these courses are impracticable, we shall in suitable cases be willing to build at Board of Trade expense, but we shall then expect to receive a rental for the extension calculated to give an economic return on the cost of building.
    To move on to the second chief facility in the Bill, industry is now offered the choice of building its own premises instead of taking a lease or conveyance of premises built by the Board. The inquiries which we have already had, perhaps two months before the Bill becomes law, give us confidence of the interest which industry is taking in this new facility. I hope that it will prove of great value, especially to firms already in development districts, which want to extend their premises.
    Thirdly, there is the provision again for loans and grants to be made to firms needing finance for their expansion in order to buy equipment or for the requisite working capital.
    I am glad to acknowledge again the Government's gratitude to Mr. Slimmings, the Chairman of D.A.T.A.C., and his colleagues for agreeing to serve on the new Committee and so continue to make their advice and assistance available to the Government.
    We have considered what should be the name of the new Committee, and have decided that it would be as well to preserve it as nearly as possible. It will, therefore, be called the Board of Trade Advisory Committee, or B.O.T.A.C. for short. While this may show a lack of inspiration, it at least should go some way to avoid confusion.
    Fourthly, there is the provison that the Government can make grants for clearing up derelict, neglected or unsightly areas—or, indeed, the Board of Trade can itself undertake this work. I hope that much use will be made of this provision, not only for economic reasons but for

    1133
    improving the appearance of our towns and countryside. But hon. Members will not overlook that it is not a blank cheque for aesthetic improvements, desirable as that might be. Powers can be exercised only when the Board judge that their exercise would promote employment in the places that need it.
    Lastly, there is the provision for basic services. This has been fully debated here, and I am sure that the House will not want me to say more about it.
    So much for the main features of the Bill. Hon. Members opposite have said that it does not go far enough. The Government's view is that the inducements offered by it will prove of real encouragement to industry and commerce. Time will show which side is right, but I can tell the House that the omens, based on the inquiries already received from all parts of the country, are favourable to our view.
    Throughout the Bill's Parliamentary history so far, the interest of Members has been not so much in the powers that we will exercise as in the places where they will be available. As my right hon. Friend said when we were discussing the Bill before Christmas, it was then—that is, before Christmas—too early to give any indication of our list of development districts, as they are now to be called.
    Hon. Members will have in mind that the districts to benefit are those in which
    "…in the opinion of the Board of Trade …a high rate of unemployment exists or is to be expected …"
    We have to look, not only at actual figures of unemployment but also at the prospects of change either way—on the one hand, of further unemployment and, on the other, of new jobs coming to the area. We cannot, therefore, say what our opinion will be several months ahead, but if the Bill passes through its remaining Parliamentary stages without serious delays, we intend to bring it into force on 1st April, now less than two months away.
    In these circumstances, the time has come when we can properly consider which are the places which should benefit under the new Bill. The Government are accordingly doing this,
    1134
    and my right hon. Friend has asked me to tell the House tonight that he proposes early next week to announce what he expects the list of development districts to be. This will not be an alteration of the D.A.T.A.C. list, on which we are at present working; it will be a list of the districts which we expect will benefit when this Bill becomes law.
    The Government hope that this advance intimation will be of help both to industry in the areas mentioned in my right hon. Friend's statement, in that it will enable them to get ahead with new projects, and also to firms in congested areas, in that it will let them know the places in which they can look for help if they expand there. We also have to arrange for a smooth transition from the present D.A.T.A.C. arrangements to the time when the Board of Trade will become responsible for operating the financial provisions of the Bill.
    I have already paid tribute to the excellent work which D.A.T.A.C. has done over the last 15 years, and have said how glad I am that the present members of the Committee are willing to go on in the future without break of continuity. Hon. Members will appreciate that it takes some time—normally two months or more—for D.A.T.A.C. to examine applications for assistance. It has to get a technical report on the project, which involves almost always a visit to the site, and there has to be a full and detailed report by accountants in order that the Committee may be satisfied about finances.
    The Committee has, at present, some months' work in hand, more in fact than it can possibly dispose of before the new Bill comes into operation, which, as I have already said, we hope will be on the 1st April. In these circumstances my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary, has agreed with my right hon. Friend that it would serve no useful purpose to put more cases to D.A.T.A.C. for consideration under the present legislation. The Committee will, of course, continue to deal with the cases they now have before them until the new Act comes into force. We hope that, in the intervening period, D.A.T.A.C. will be able to deal with a large number of the outstanding applications from other places on the present list.

    1135
    This need not hold up consideration of new cases for districts that are in the new list which my right hon. Friend will announce at the beginning of next week. The firms which have projects for those districts can prepare their applications for financial assistance and, if they like, send them to D.A.T.A.C. When the Bill comes into effect D.A.T.A.C. will pass the applications to the new Committee, B.O.T.A.C., which will be advising the Board of Trade. The new Committee will deal with them as soon as possible.
    The Bill has been fully debated and I do not think that I need refer specifically to any other provisions than those I have already mentioned. I confidently commend the Bill to the House as one which meets the social and human needs of the community and what is perhaps the most important problem a man can face, that of having a livelihood which will give him both security and dignity.
    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: I thought that for once the Parliamentary Secretary did himself rather less than justice in saying that practically no improvements had been made in the course of our discussions. On the initiative of my hon. Friends, a number of substantial improvements have been made. Nevertheless, it is our opinion that all that need have been done in distribution of industry policy could have been done under the 1945 Act if the Government had extended the development areas. We go through this vast legislative process and, at the end of it all, we have changed D.A.T.A.C. to B.O.T.A.C. There is not very much more than that to say about it.
    The only possible argument which the Government could advance for our having got any new power is the 85 per cent. building grant, which is not 85 per cent. of the value of the factory. but 85 per cent. of the difference between the cost and the alleged marked value. The Government have admitted that in the form of an annual grant that could have been done already under D.A.T.A.C. When it is analysed, the only extension in the Bill is the tiny difference between an annual and an outright grant for this purpose.
    Against that, in at least four important respects the powers we now have will
    1136
    be narrower than the powers we had under the previous Act. The first and most important is that the Government will apply the powers to a very much smaller part of the country than was previously eligible for them. The Development Areas, as they still stand at this moment, cover 19 per cent. of the population and the D.A.T.A.C. areas cover another portion. Therefore, over 20 per cent., perhaps 25 per cent., is covered at present. We have been told by the President of the Board of Trade that the new list which is now to be published covers only 14 per cent. of the population. Therefore, there will be a substantial narrowing of the areas which will be helped.
    Secondly, we now have a Bill which will entirely expire at the end of seven years, unless something is done to continue it. That is totally unjustifiable. The previous powers were permanent. The Parliamentary Secretary has not yet answered the requests addressed to him yesterday—I hope that the President of the Board of Trade still may—to explain what will be the position of the management corporations if the Bill were simply to lapse at the end of seven years, as it would if unaltered. Apparently they will remain in existence but will have no powers to carry out any of their functions, even though they will be the owners of a very large amount of public property. We should be told before we part with the Bill tonight what will be their position in that situation.
    Thirdly, the powers of the President of the Board of Trade for declaring areas development districts, as they will now be, will also be less flexible than they were under the previous Act. Under the previous Act they could be made Development Areas if the distribution of industry was such as to give rise to a danger of unemployment. In the Bill there is no such provision. In that respect also the power is narrower.
    Fourthly, Parliament is still deprived of its right to examine the list and say which areas are to be included in it. The Parliamentary Secretary tonight made the extraordinary statement that the list, which he has refused to disclose throughout the Bill's proceedings in this House, is to be published next week, so that it is obvious that he knows what it is and must have known for some time. He

    1137
    has been afraid to entrust the House of Commons with the information until we have parted with the Bill. That is an extraordinary procedure. He is willing that the House of Lords should discuss the Bill with full information about the areas before it, but he has consistently withheld that information from the House of Commons. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the former Member for Bishop Auckland, Lord Dalton, has this very week taken his place in the Upper House—
    Mr. James Callaghan: This very day.
    Mr. Jay: —this very day—and one reason for publishing the list may be so that he can discuss it in the proceedings on the Bill in the Upper House. In spite of that, it was an extraordinary decision to withhold the list from the House of Commons and then make it available for subsequent proceedings. Nothing the hon. Gentleman has said has convinced us that that decision was justified.
    I fully agree with him, as we have said all along, that it is not the powers but the policy which matters. For that reason, I was a little disquieted by two remarks which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made. First, he said that he was to terminate the rent concessions altogether. That is a step backwards. Although we are very glad that only seventeen factories are now empty, it is in itself an argument for advance factories if the total is going down and there are seventeen factories empty My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has a factory in his constituency which has been unlet for two years
    The hon. Member is to take another step backwards, for he told us that there was to be an embargo on D.A.T.A.C,. or B.O.T.A.C., applications for the next month. That is not very encouraging and I hope that it does not mean that, as soon as the Bill leaves the House, the right hon. Gentleman will retrace all the steps he has taken.
    Nevertheless, we should say how much we all welcome what has been achieved in the expansion of the motor industry. I regard the announcements of the last few weeks as a great success for the campaign on the distribution of industry
    1138
    policy which my hon. Friends have been running throughout the past year. Indeed, if Government policy were still what it was a year ago and by agitation and argument my hon. Friends have not altered it, I am afraid that we would have seen all that expansion in the Midlands and London areas.
    We are to have three major expansions, that of the British Motor Corporation, that of Rootes in Paisley and I have heard a rumour that the Ford Company is planning a major expansion on Merseyside. I hope that that rumour proves to be the truth. However, it is notable that in these motor expansions there has not so far been anything said about Lanarkshire, which is the worst unemployment area in Scotland and is yet the area where steel sheet is to be produced. It is also significant that the North East Coast has been so far entirely omitted from the list of these expansions. I hope that the Government will keep the other motor firms up to the mark.
    Incidentally, we have heard nothing from the Vauxhall Company. It is notable that the Vauxhall Company is one of the very few major companies in British manufacturing industry which has so far made almost no contribution to the Development Areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that with the help of these powers the firm is made to make its due contribution.
    We have had a lot of talk tonight about the play of competition and economic forces, and so on. I believe that that is a distorted view of the problem. On the whole, now that the Government have come to our way, to some extent, I hope that they will not think that in every case where a firm is steered to one of these development districts it is necessarily operating on higher economic costs to set against social costs. If it were, it would still be worth while, but I do not believe that that is true in practice. About half the products of the motor industry are exported, and that industry uses steel sheet, which is now produced in North Wales, at Shotton, and near to Clydeside. The most economic place to produce motor cars for export is therefore near the estuaries where the sheet steel is produced. It really cannot be economic to do what the motor industry has been

    1139
    doing, to carry sheet from Shotton to Birmingham and then send the cars for export from the London docks.
    I hope the Government will not work on the basis of the facile assumption which, I know, comes from the academic economists but which is very seldom true. I address this argument seriously to the President of the Board of Trade. If he will talk to the people who actually discuss these extensions with many companies—this is not a party point—he will find that there are usually many alternative sites to which an extension could go between which there is very little difference in economic cost; but in the case of one site a great contribution to employment would be made whereas in other cases there would be all sorts of social difficulties. He ought to look at the matter in that light.
    We welcome the motor car industry extensions and we extend congratulations to the companies as well as to the Government for the co-operation which has led to them. But we are not satisfied yet with the efforts the Government are making to restrain the extensions of new employment both in factories and offices in the greatest congested area of all, namely, London. In answer to a Question last week, the Parliamentary Secretary gave me some figures which work out in this way. During the period of the Labour Government, the London and South-Eastern Region had only about 12 per cent. of the total new factory space. The percentage rose to over 20 in the period until a year ago when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had more or less abandoned distribution of industry policy altogether.
    In 1958, the figure was 21 per cent. for the London area. In 1959, it had come down to 17·6, but that was not a great reduction after all the talk we had heard. In the successive quarters of 1959, it was about 16 or 18 per cent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make up his mind about this. He wants us to think that he is doing his best. We will take it on trust from him, but the results in terms of figures are still far from impressive.
    Office development has been the real cause of the huge extension of employment in London during the last five years. According to the London County
    1140
    Council's figures, total employment in Central London is increasing by 15,000 persons per year. If that is happening, then the Government really have not proper control of distribution of industry policy. We were very disappointed at the replies we received late last night to the suggestions we made about achieving greater control over office employment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he wants to do something but he really does not know how to do it. He then said that it was not a distribution of industry problem but it was a planning problem, by which he meant town planning.
    This is not really true. It is both a town planning issue and an employment policy issue. Indeed, if the major reason for further growth of employment in London is office work rather than factory work, then this is clearly a matter of employment policy as well as planning. He seemed to argue that it was not possible for new office work to be dispersed out of London; but he answered that argument himself because he said he thought it was a pity that the Egg Marketing Board had come to London and it should have gone somewhere else.
    The Government know perfectly well that the Ministry of National Insurance was induced to go to Newcastle and the Inland Revenue went to Cardiff. I should think that the Prudential Assurance Company could do equally well what the Ministry of National Insurance did. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that the efficiency of private enterprise is so much lower than that of a Government Department that the Prudential and other great companies could not organise their affairs as effectively in this matter as the Ministry.
    Finally, on the subject of offices, I hope that, under the existing rather defective machinery by which office development is under the control of local authorities and distribution of industry policy is under the control of the Board of Trade, there will, at least, be practical consultation, even if there is nothing statutory, so that where there is an application for an office block to employ 3,000 or 5,000 people in the London area, that application will go through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Board of Trade before a decision is taken. If that is not done, I do not see how we can have control in this affair at all.

    1141
    Finally, if the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary will stick to their present protestations, both in stimulating new employment in the areas that need it and also in restraining it where it is not needed and where it is creating so many social problems, they will continue to have our support. We do not believe that the Bill is really necessary or that the job could not have been done under previous legislation, but now, having got it, we hope that it will he used. We shall support the hon. Member if he uses it, because, when all is said and done, it is the policy and not the powers that matter.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. Gower: Many hon. Members on this side will feel that the Bill, which we hope will shortly become an Act, is in many ways a much more suitable and appropriate instrument for dealing with the present problem than previous legislation. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) reiterated many of the arguments adduced throughout our debates, and I do not think that he made a stronger case tonight than he has made on previous occasions. Among his criticisms was the fact that under this Bill only 14 per cent. of the country is likely to benefit. The right hon. Gentleman regarded that as a criticism of the Bill. I should have thought that, on consideration, he might agree that in the old Development Areas there are still today some districts still in need of assistance. On the other hand, in those areas there are districts no longer in need of help. For that reason, I think that it is an advantage in this Bill that the aid which will be given will be concentrated in districts, often smaller than those in the old areas, where help is most needed.
    The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that the Bill does little apart from changing the form of one of the grants. He completely omitted to refer to the strengthening of my right hon. Friend's powers in the matter of applications for development certificates. I regard this as of considerable importance. He also did not refer to the fact that under the Bill the applications which can be made cover a much wider field. He also appropriated or arrogated to the Opposition most of the credit for the very definite achievements made in recent
    1142
    months by my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary in implementing this sort of policy without some of the powers which they needed and which they will obtain under this Bill if it is enacted.
    In recent months, in Wales—I can, perhaps, speak with greater knowledge about Wales than other parts of the country—and also, I believe, in Scotland a good deal of progress has been made along the lines which we want to pursue. We have noted with approval how my right hon. Friend, following the influence which he brought to bear upon some of the motor manufacturers not to develop in areas where they wished to develop originally, has followed up his success by persuading them to go to other areas in Scotland and South-West Wales. That has come about largely by my right hon. Friend's exertions, with the help in Wales of the Minister for Welsh Affairs and in Scotland, no doubt, with the help of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that the energy which my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends have shown in recent months will also be used in implementing the powers of this Bill.
    With regard to the list which is to be published next week, it is inevitable that many districts will be disappointed, but the Bill is in that respect much more flexible than previous legislation. In previous legislation, we had for long periods rather large and somewhat inflexible Development Areas, whereas under the new Bill areas in which unemployment either increases or shows definite signs of increasing may qualify for the benefits of the Bill.
    I conclude my comparatively brief remarks, by saying that we on this side feel that this is a most appropriate and flexible Measure for dealing with the problems which we face today and which are different from the problems which we faced at the end of the war
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. Peart: I expressed my dislike of the Bill on Second Reading and throughout Committee. Even now, at this late stage, I still dislike the Bill and the fact that we are to end local initiative by the creation of a large corporation. There is still vagueness about its duration in the sense that the Bill caters only for a seven-year period. In Committee, we

    1143
    pressed for more reasons from the Minister why this should be.
    I would have thought that in Committee more hon. Members opposite would have expressed their dislike of a large bureaucracy, which is what it could well be—a large organisation responsible for planning in England—instead of the old estate companies which we had, such as, for example, in my area, the West Cumberland Industrial Development Company. I dislike its ending and, for this reason, I have expressed concern. I am glad, however, that in Committee the Minister said that there would be, particularly in my area, consultation with bodies like the Cumberland Development Council. Although this has not been written into the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) and I put down an Amendment and we have had that assurance.
    Whilst I dislike the Bill, which will end local initiative and destroy something which has been created over the years, we must make it work. I only wish that
    1144
    there had been a statement earlier about the list. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has said, that another place will be debating the Bill and will have an opportunity to study the list. That is the key to administration. I assure the Minister that if west Cumberland is not on the list or if our area of west Cumberland is fragmented, we will oppose it strongly.
    I agree that what matters about the Bill is how it is administered and the will of the Government behind it. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary are anxious that the Bill should succeed—I think they are sincere when they say that; I am afraid, however, that I have no confidence in the broad commercial and economic policy of the Government. However, we shall wait and see, examine and probe. If areas are neglected, we will certainly criticise and if the corporations for England, for Scotland and for Wales do not do their job, certainly we will be vigilant and critical at every opportunity.
    10.28 p.m.
    Dame Irene Ward: I sincerely hope that, in giving my support to the Bill, I am serving the interests of the whole of the country and of the North-East Coast in particular. [Interruption.] Having gone through the 1930s, when in part of the constituency which I then represented in the House of Commons 84 per cent. of the employable population were unemployed, I hope that all Members of the House will do me the honour of believing that I am doing the right thing in supporting this new Bill without knowing what the list comprises. I must take that on trust, and I do so with some misgiving, because I know how difficult it will be if the list, when it is published, does not measure up to the hopes of those of us who want employment to be properly distributed.
    No one would do other than congratulate those areas which have been fortunate to get the expansion of the motor car industry. I am delighted. I think we want prosperity in the whole of the British Isles. However, as my hon. Friend has laid a great deal of emphasis on the way in which the Bill will be administered, I want to point out that, as we have had the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and the Cabinet interested in this whole expansion of the motor car industry in the parts of the country which require a stimulus to employment, I should have thought that it would have been possible, and at least psychologically desirable, for the President of the Board of Trade to have seen that some of the outstanding requests of the North-East Coast were met at the same time. Deep down in the hearts of those who live on the North-East Coast is the ghastly fear, which has been handed down from grandfather through father to grandson, that our interests are not being quite as well looked after, because we have neither a Secretary of State nor a Minister particularly looking after them.
    I feel bound to say this because my hon. Friend suddenly gets up and shoots off a lot of statements about the position of those projects which come under the old D.A.T.A.C. till the appointed day, 1st April, and we have had no chance of hearing about them before. There
    1146
    has been no real opportunity of discussing whether these matters are being wisely dealt with. I should have had much greater confidence if I had been able to do what I was unable to do, to get in touch with the President of the Board of Trade while that policy was being built up and while the Cabinet and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Welsh Affairs were busy dealing with the expansion of the motor car industry. In that way the interests of the North-East Coast have not, I think, been served. We have not been able to get the answer to the question, what is going to happen to the outstanding projects for a decision on which we are waiting.
    I want for a moment or two to develop another aspect of the situation. When one has been in political life as long as I have one becomes rather suspicious. A great deal is said: I take it with a grain of salt. I refer to Clause 3, which says:
    "For the purposes of this Part of this Act the Board may with the consent of the Treasury …"
    With the consent of the Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend tell me, if I want to ask Questions, can I address them to the Treasury? Have we to take exactly the word of my right hon. Friend? Or, as the Treasury is involved in this, shall be able to raise matters with the Treasury as well?
    I would ask my right hon. Friend a further question. I refer to the industrial development of all kinds and the expansion of industry and the need for industry in areas which are threatened, possibly, with unemployment through pit closures or the slackening off of demand for ships, and the like. Will these Treasury people, who are specifically referred to in the Bill, take any steps to inform themselves about how industry operates?
    As I say, I have been in political life for a long time, and I have seen my area and other parts of the country which have been hit by heavy unemployment dealt with in varying ways. In the wanderings about that I have done and the inquiries that I have made from time to time I have never met a Treasury official in the areas looking into the problems affecting them. That is a great weakness.

    1147
    My hon. Friend has laid great stress on how the Bill is to be administered. We have had visits by the Minister for Welsh Affairs, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Labour—I am delighted to pay tribute to him— to the North-East Coast looking at our unemployment problem. But we have had no visit from a senior Minister at the Board of Trade.
    I am deeply suspicious that when people go to the Board of Trade to ascertain the best place for an expanding industry, my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend who have not been to the North-East Coast are not in a very good position to give information about my area. They do not know how absolutely grand our labour is. All who have developed industry on the North-East Coast under previous legislation have spoken of the happy relations which they have had with the workers, employers and local authorities. It is right that we should pay tribute to those who have made the North-East Coast the virile, vital place that it is.
    When representatives of the motor car industry visit the Secretary of State for Scotland they find that he knows everything about Scotland. But as neither my right hon. Friend nor my hon. Friend has been to the North-East Coast, how can they paint to inquirers a picture of the North-East Coast in the glowing fashion in which it should be painted? I feel that in that respect we have not had the attention that we ought to have had.
    I have listened to people talking about Scotland, Wales and Merseyside. I would just mention in passing that when the North-East Coast and Wales were suffering severe unemployment in the 30s the Midlands and Lancashire were relatively prosperous areas. My area, unfortunately, has a long tradition of unemployment, and the fact that we have had so little attention paid to us does not make us particularly hopeful that the Bill will do for us what we should like it to do.
    I do not want to say anything against my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary because I know that he will visit us. He is always very polite and I am sure that he is a very competent Minister, but as a junior Minister, having been in the Government for a very short time
    1148
    and not very long in the House, he cannot have on the Treasury anything like the effect that the Secretary of State for Scotland has. I see my right hon. Friend patting my hon. Friend on the back; my hon. Friend needs it. I do not think that the North-East Coast ought to be served by somebody who cannot dictate to the Treasury. I have had enough experience to know that in the hierarchy of the Government weight is one of the means by which one obtains favours from the powers that be. It is rather like the difference between a fly and an elephant. One really needs an elephant to do something about getting favours and dealing with matters of this kind.
    I hope that in supporting this Bill I shall not be offering a hostage to fortune, because I should regret that very much indeed. I hope also that people in those parts of the country where there is satisfaction over the policy of the Government will not object if I say that I consider a little more attention should be paid to the North-East Coast, which has provided great inventive genius over a wide sphere. The Government and the country owe a great debt of gratitude to the late Sir Claud Gibb, managing director of Parsons marine engineering works, whose death was a great loss to the North-East Coast. I should like an assurance that our part of the world will have the support of the Minister to make up for the fact that we have not a Minister of our own.
    10.41 p.m.
    Mr. John Morris: I wish to comment on the announcement by the Minister that the concessionary rents for Board of Trade factories will cease from 31st January. Reference has been made to the fact that I have one of these factories in my constituency. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there are 17 such factories still unlet. I welcome the fact that that is a reduction on the previous figure of unlet factories, but it is still 17 too many.
    During the past fortnight I have been trying to obtain information from the Parliamentary Secretary about what would happen when the concession ends. I have written to him but so far have failed to get that information. It is a serious matter. We who have these factories in our constituencies consider that the rents asked for them by the Board

    1149
    of Trade is a major stumbling block to obtaining tenants. If there are still 17 factories unlet, I consider it a restrictive step to end the concessionary rents. The period should be extended and the concession improved. We have in my constituency a large and beautiful factory built by the Board of Trade where until two years ago 800 men were employed. Today there are none. A large amount of public money was spent on this factory. Now the property is deteriorating.
    10.43 p.m.
    Mr. Page: I am sure that the increased flexibility provided by this Bill will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but, as has been said, it depends on the administration of the provisions contained in the Bill and the policy which is applied to it. It would be entirely wrong to think that unemployment can be mopped up merely by building a factory in a district and letting it cheap.
    I do not feel that in my area on Merseyside the lack of factory space is a problem. One cannot mop up unemployment among dock workers and ship repairers by providing a factory. But Government contracts could be provided to give work to ship repairers. In my area, a considerable amount of factory space has been closed and there is redundancy due to a decline in the number of Government contracts. I hope that the provision in the Bill for making loans and grants will be operated in conjunction with an intelligent use of Government contracts for regional work. It may not be satisfactory if a loan or grant is made to build a factory and if the undertaking is then left to fend for itself. After all, the Government are the largest single buyer in the country. A quarter of the goods and services of the country are purchased by Government Departments.
    Regional purchases must affect regional employment. As hon. Members will recollect, there is a Government Contracts Preference Scheme. The Board of Trade Journal of 22nd May last year stated:
    "Government Departments and the nationalized industries when awarding contracts by competitive tender are normally prepared to give preference to firms in the Development Areas and other areas of high
    1150
    unemployment (i.e. areas which have included in the list of places where Government assistance is available under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958), provided that price, specification, delivery, etc., are equal."
    If under the previous legislation, this Government Contracts Preference Scheme was applied, may I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that it will be applied to those areas which will come in the list which he intends to publish? In my experience, the Government Contracts Preference Scheme has not operated as described in that paragraph. It may have been operated by some Government Departments in that way, but there is certainly lack of enthusiasm for it in the nationalised industries. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it will operate under this new legislation in conjunction with loans and grants?
    It is no good sitting down to a beautifully laid table if no food is going to be served. It is no good our giving industry tools to do a job if there is no job there to do. I am sure that by combining this Government Contracts Preference Scheme and making it really operative, with the loans and grants and building of factories, this Bill will be a real success.
    10.47 p.m.
    Mr. Edward Short: I do not think very much of this Bill, but I hope it will be of some help in the north-east of England. As the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) said, the problems there are getting worse day by day. I think this Bill will be a very blunt instrument for the job it has to do. The problem is how to cure regional unemployment in specific limited areas when there are almost boom conditions in the rest of the country. Those are areas which are not necessarily affected by a rise in incomes elsewhere.
    The Government's remedy in this Bill is to encourage industry to go to those areas by offering financial inducement to them. When I was a boy I used to watch my mother at the wash-tub. I have a clear picture of the big bubbles made by the sheets in the water. I always remember distinctly as a small boy pushing down a bubble with my finger only to see it appear somewhere else. I cannot help feeling that this policy of the Government will do that—

    1151
    when there is a pocket of unemployment in X town and a firm is established there to produce, say, nylon stockings in order to provide employment, it will have the effect of making an unemployment "bubble" pop up somewhere else.
    There seems to be no one in the Board of Trade, or in the universities where we might expect to find such persons, giving any real study to the question of regional unemployment. The last issue of Lloyds Bank Review had a well-informed article on the subject, but I believe no one is doing such work thoroughly. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to regional purchase, but I do not think anyone has gone into the question of regional purchase in this context.
    In the North-East the problem is that the two basic industries of coalmining and shipbuilding are contracting very rapidly. They are basic industries which are not affected by a rise in incomes elsewhere. The coal industry is contracting very rapidly, and we have also to face the fact that shipbuilding and ship-repairing will contract, too. The capacity of the world's shipyards is far too big. All the world's merchant shipping could be replaced in twelve to fourteen years, but the life of a ship is twenty-five years. We must face the fact that our shipbuilding and ship-repairing capacity will never be used to the full again. On the Tyne, as well as elsewhere, we must face that.
    No analysis is being made of these trends in the North-East. How far will these industries contract? At what stage will the contraction stop? What type of labour needs absorbing? Hon. Members on both sides of the House press for anything that is going. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and I are almost in a state of open warfare about the Cunarders.
    Mr. Bence: I am a pacifist.
    Mr. Short: Such is the position in our areas that we press for everything that is going— motor-car manufacture, Cunarders and anything else. We do this without any sound information about the causes of unemployment in the areas which we represent. That is one of the grave weaknesses in the Government's industrial policy.
    1152
    Another weakness is that no attempt whatever is made to integrate the social planning and social development of our region with the industrial development. In my area all the local authorities are building their great housing estates, educational facilities and so on. They are pushing ahead with slum clearance, although the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whom I am glad to see in the Chamber, is not helping us very much at the moment because of his delays with C.P.Os. All this development is taking place without any knowledge of what the future industrial pattern of the area will be. We do not know. There is no long-term planning of the way in which those industries will contract, nor do we know what will replace them when they have contracted.
    I believe that it would be much better to tackle industries instead of tackling areas. For example, if the Government had an integrated and properly worked-out fuel policy it would bring some stability to the coal industry. If the Government made up their mind about shipping and put before us some shipping policy, that would help. Rather than tackling the problem by regions, there is much to be said for tackling industries.
    Our long-term problem in the North-East is how to develop our industries and our social planning, too, in the face of our two contracting industries. I emphasise to the President of the Board of Trade the seriousness of the position. In the short term we have heavy unemployment. As I said in the House at Question Time today, we have the highest unemployment in the country in shipbuilding and ship-repairing. About 30 per cent. of our boiler makers are unemployed. The second oldest engineering works in the country, Stephenson Hawthorn, in Newcastle, which employs a large number of boiler makers, is being closed. The factory, which has a six-acre site in the middle of Newcastle—a well-equipped factory with railway sidings, buildings, drawing offices and other offices—will be vacated in March or shortly afterwards. This is private enterprise at its worst. This old firm, of Robert Stephenson and Hawthorn, which still bears Robert Stephenson's name—the Rocket was made there and hundreds and hundreds

    1153
    of other locomotives have been made there and sent all over the world—was purchased three years ago by English Electric. Three years later it is being closed down.
    The name, which is a household word in engineering throughout the world, is being retained by English Electric and used elsewhere. It is a name which has been made famous by generations of Tyneside engineers. It is being taken away from us by English Electric and used elsewhere. I think that that is private enterprise at its worst. I hope to see the President of the Board of Trade about this in the near future, and I hope that he will help in this problem.
    My point is that, in addition to the slump in shipbuilding and ship-repairing, the closing of this factory makes the position very much worse for our Tyneside boilermakers. The situation is extremely urgent, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will do his utmost to get some industry to the North-East. I am not so sure about getting Ministers to visit us. As far as I can see, every time a Minister comes to see us the unemployment figures go up. But I hope that the Minister will inform himself of our position, and do what he can to help us.
    10.55 p.m.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: Many of my hon. Friends have said that they do not like the Bill, but we have also said that we welcome it, and hope that its provisions will be carried out in the spirit of the speeches already made on behalf of the Government. I sincerely hope that many of the promises we have heard will be carried out. As one who was a member of a recent deputation, I should like to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North. (Mr. Jay) in congratulating the Government on their recent assistance in the expansion of industry, particularly in West Wales. I would be less than generous if I did not also acknowledge the assistance given by the Minister for Welsh Affairs, whom I am glad to see is with us now.
    I also want to draw attention to the purpose of the Bill, which is stated to be the promotion of employment in areas of high and persistent unemployment. In this connection, I acknowledge that in parts of my constituency the unemployment figures are slowly decreasing, not
    1154
    because of the presence in that area—and I refer particularly to the Swansea Valley—of new factories, but because a very large number of people are now obliged to travel long distances to employment obtained outside these areas.
    That poses a very serious problem, to which I should like to draw the particular attention of the Minister for Welsh Affairs. The Swansea Valley has suffered grievously from the closure of pits and obsolete mills and, bearing in mind the establishment of a motor-car factory in close proximity to my constituency, I am pressing for Government assistance in securing ancillary industries, particularly to the Swansea Valley. I ask, because the local authority has suffered greatly from diminution of rateable value as a result of the closure of the older industries.
    The Bill also refers to assistance for the clearing of derelict land. The need for this in my constituency is also well known to Ministers from their various visits to Wales. Following his visit to Swansea, the Minister for Welsh Affairs will well remember also the derelict land on the immediate approach to the station. I hope I am not pleading in vain, but that, in the spirit of the Bill, we shall receive the support of the Government in this connection also.
    I therefore welcome the Bill as it now is, in the sense that I hope that we shall receive Government help in response to our pleas on behalf of these areas which have been so grievously affected in recent years by the loss of their traditional industries.
    10.58 p.m.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: Like my hon. Friends, I welcome this small Measure. It is a small Measure, and I think that it will be totally inadequate to deal with the problem facing us in the next year or so. If, at a time when unemployment is going up, the Bank Rate is also going up, it is an indication of the nature and size of the problem that we shall have to face shortly.
    I do not believe that this Bill will do for the North-East any more than could have been done by the Government with their existing powers The problem facing my constituency has faced it now for five or six years, and

    1155
    no matter how many Ministers come to see us, no matter how many deputations come to London, no matter how many questions are asked, in the House of Commons, nothing appears to happen at all.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that 12 months ago there were 28 factories unoccupied and there were now only 17, but I can tell him that for two years there has been a large factory unoccupied on the Bede Trading Estate and that last week another firm announced that it would leave that trading estate and transfer its activities to the South. I think the right hon. Gentleman has known about the empty factory and about the firm which intends to leave, but nothing has been done.
    The right hon. Gentleman must know that the problem in the North-East, especially in my constituency, gets more acute week by week. Efforts must now be made enough in the North-East to stabilise the position, because we already have to face the closure of further pits and a considerable contraction in shipbuilding and ship-repairing work seems inevitable. No Government could deal with the problems of the contraction of coal mining and shipbuilding with a miserable Bill like this. Something much more substantial is needed. Much more determination than the Government have so far shown will be required if the problems of constituencies like mine are to be solved.
    Throughout our discussions we have been unable to get any idea from the Minister of how much the Government think these provisions will cost—£5–10 million, £15 million, £50 million, or £150 million. The Government are so sure about the outcome of the Bill that they are unable to say what it will cost. Unless more is spent under this legislation than the Tory Governments since 1951 spent under the 1945 legislation, and the 1958 Act constituencies like mine will continue to face a growing unemployment problem.
    I put this to hon. Members opposite as much as to my hon. Friends; whatever the difference between us. we all believe in democracy and democratic institutions. Men's support of democracy and democratic institutions is tried
    1156
    to the limit if week by week, month by month and year by year they are denied a place in society. Men who are unemployed feel outcasts and not wanted and can easily become the apostles of all kinds of philosophies to which we do not subscribe. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said that the world challenge now lies in the social and economic struggle. The test of democracy in this country will be whether it can provide work for men able and capable of working. I make no apology for not believing that that is possible under the existing system. I do not believe that capitalism can, in the last analysis—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss capitalism and alternative systems because there is nothing about them in the Bill. Perhaps we could on some other occasion, but not now.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Then I will merely say that I do not believe that the economic and social policies which this Government will pursue under the Bill can answer our problems. And if they cannot, the time will come when the Government will have to give way to people who will find an answer.
    The President of the Board of Trade said that it would not be possible under the Bill for any money to be spent on aesthetic projects without them showing an economic return. Why in the name of fortune should not the slag heaps in the north-east area be removed whether that makes an economic return or not? Why should the north-east and other parts of the country, and South Wales, be despoiled by slag heaps, while the Minister says, in the year 1960, that these eyesores cannot be removed unless someone is able to make a profit out of it? So much wealth has been created in these areas that these eyesores ought to be removed, and many able and skilled men wanting work would be glad even to do that, provided it would give them the dignity of earning their daily bread. I hope that on this aspect the Minister will not be so niggardly.
    I hope I am proved wrong. I hope this Bill fulfils the purpose which the Government hope it will. I hope the Government will be able to prove that they can plan for and provide full employment, because I know what that

    1157
    means to ordinary men and women. If they do, I shall be the first to shout their praises, but I do not believe that when the Government's tenure of office comes to an end I shall be able to do that. I believe the old industrial areas at the next General Election will be facing the same problems as now.
    11.7 p.m.
    Mr. Ross: The purposes of this Bill are of supreme importance, because the Bill deals not with localities or districts, as the new name is, but with people who are presently unemployed or likely to be unemployed. The purpose is to build up the industrial health of Britain and to improve the economic strength of Britain. I cannot imagine any purpose being more important than that.
    The question arises whether or not this Bill in its present form will be able to do what it seeks. Even if we had added all sorts of additional powers to the Bill, it would not have guaranteed its success. In its present form, the Bill gives a tremendous responsibility to the President of the Board of Trade, a greater responsibility free from Parliamentary control than he has had in past legislation. With his advisers, he can decide which areas under Clause I are to get the benefit of help under these powers.
    One of the strangest things is that wile we have been discussing all this in relation to various areas, we have not had the slightest idea what areas are going to be covered. We hear about new projects going to Scotland, but we do not even now know the areas that are going to be specified. The President of the Board of Trade has not been very fair to the House in this respect. If he can announce this for the greater enlightenment of another place, he might have speeded matters up and enabled us to conduct Report and Third Reading knowing whether certain areas are to be included or excluded. It depends entirely on the right hon. Gentleman.
    Decisions concerning building grants, loans, derelict land and all the rest of it rest with the right hon. Gentleman. He has a serious job. The history of the problem right back from the old designated areas, the fact that it has been so intractable and so far has not been solved despite many Acts of Parliament and many Presidents of the Board of Trade. I hope will make the right
    1158
    hon. Gentleman appreciate just how important it is and how continuous must his attention be if he is to make any impact upon it.
    I have not the slightest doubt that after the Bill is passed the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to the Outer Seven or to some other aspect of trade. If this were his only job, it would take all his time, but this is only one of his many jobs. It is one of the weaknesses of the Bill that we are not getting the full attention of one Department to this problem. It is not a question of one area, but many areas with different problems. I doubt whether we shall be satisfied by the Bill as it is at present.
    In Scotland, we have a national tradition that we look gift horses in the mouth. When we were discussing some matter relating to Scotland yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was to be a development employing 3,500 workers in a part of the motor car industry. Whatever else that is, it is not to be done under the Bill, but under the existing powers. Not one of those jobs is to be provided for three years. Despite this transfer of part of the B.M.C. interests to Scotland and all that has been said about restricting development in presently over-industrialised areas, the main development of B.M.C. will go on in the present areas.
    Mr. Maudling: The entire increase in the employing capacity of B.M.C. will take place outside the existing area.
    Mr. Ross: Scotland will get a transfer of what is being presently done, but there will be a considerable expansion in the present area. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will deny that. The build-up in relation to employing labour in Scotland will not start for about two years. At present there are 100,000 unemployed in Scotland, and the situation is worsening. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind about keeping the word "imminent." We now have in Clause 1 a much better definition of the time within which he can take action to meet expected unemployment. Where is the action which will lead to the necessary 20,000 jobs per year in Scotland, starting this year? Was it taken three years ago, two years ago or last year? It is not in the Bill

    1159
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that Scotland will be fobbed off with a few headlines, a few new factories, some expansions and bits and pieces of this and that when we are faced with the present problem and there is no indication that the Government will meet it properly.
    Mr. Short: They have not started on it.
    Mr. Ross: Even with what we have got in relation to the expansion of the motor car industry, Scotland has a pretty poor share. We welcome it, but we are certainly not satisfied that it will meet all Scotland's difficulties. I sincerely hope that in the decision still to be taken concerning Vauxhall, the needs of Lanarkshire, of Ayrshire and of Scotland will be properly considered.
    The Bill is simply meeting a commitment that was entered into during the General Election when itinerant Tory statesmen discovered that there was unemployment in Scotland and they had to do something about it. Here is their major Bill. It is a bit of temporary Tory tinkering. What is being done, and what is being headlined, could be done under existing legislation. The Bill tinkers with that existing legislation. Members were not sufficiently persuaded last night why the Government must stick in the business of seven years. The result is this temporary Measure.
    The outcome will depend upon the will and the power of the President of the Board of Trade to use his powers. I assure him that Scotland will be watching and will be anxious to ensure that no opportunity is missed to impress upon him the continuing need, month by month and year by year, to attend to the problems of Scotland and to overtake the time lag in relation to industrial development.
    The right hon. Gentleman's hand has been strengthened to a certain extent by the granting of industrial development certificates. If he looks through his files to see what has been done in the past. I think he will admit that opportunities have been let slip. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his powers and that if ever there is any question that the person behind him is in any way obstructing him in getting on with the
    1160
    job, he will give the House of Commons an opportunity of coming to his assistance. I refer, of course, to the Treasury. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward was right.
    When the Bill is implemented, we may well need to spend an awful lot more money than we have been spending. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset. South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) complained about grants and I gave him the figure about grants in relation to Scotland for over a year—just a few thousand pounds, which meant only about 500 jobs. I hope that hon. Members opposite will be as vigilant as we are to ensure that for the well-being of our country, with its persistent high rate of unemployment, with which our people—it is no use the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) smiling. We have had to live with this problem for many years in Scotland and unemployment at the rate at which we have had it—and it is getting worse—causes considerable worry and insecurity. I wish I was as sure as the hon. Member that something will be done. The passing of the Bill alone will not get it done. Whether anything is done depends on the use that is made of the powers and on the Treasury, the Board of Trade and Members of Parliament here. We must keep on to ensure that something is done.
    Hon. Members opposite should realise that the existence of the Bill points to the failure of what they were proclaiming to the people of Scotland as the salvation of Scotland—private enterprise. If private enterprise was fulfilling its job and meeting the needs of the country, the Bill would not be necessary. It is because it does not meet the needs of the nation that we must resort to the bribery of loan, the inducement of grants and the persuasive powers of negative control, added to all the rest, to try to steer undertakings into areas where, for the well-being of the community, industry is needed. That is really the job which the President of the Board of Trade has got to start on after this Bill is through.
    I can assure him that we from Scotland shall not slacken in our vigilance, because this is just about his last chance in this business. If we in Scotland continue to have mounting unemployment, of which the figures have doubled since

    1161
    the Tories came to power in 1951, I can assure him that at the next election it will not only be a question of more Conservatives being defeated: let him not be surprised if Scotland turns to nationalism—that has happened before—if we see that our just demands are being neglected by an English-dominated Parliament. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth knows quite well that when she went to support her point of view in the Lobby tonight, along with me, we were voted down by a majority of Members from English constituencies, most of whom do not properly appreciate the effect of unemployment in these areas.
    I give the President of the Board of Trade this warning. Let him not weary of well doing. I am satisfied that after his visit to Scotland he appreciates the problems of Scotland, but it will take continuous and persistent efforts on his part to ensure that sufficient industries are steered there, or sufficient Scottish industries are encouraged in growth to fulfil the need of the people of Scotland.
    11.22 p.m.
    Mr. Bence: In all the speeches I have heard from that side of the House, I have not yet heard one which was enthusiastic in support of the Bill. I have spent a good deal of time in the Chamber, in Commitee, on Second Reading, and now on Third Reading, and I have not heard one speech from that side of the House enthusiastic in support of the Bill. From every northern part of the Kingdom and even from the South Coast there have been expressed fears that this Bill will not really be effective.
    However, my main reason for rising tonight is that I was interested in the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). I assume that under the Bill the President of the Board of Trade, in consultation with his advisory committee and the Treasury, will have power to use discrimination as between types of industrial enterprise which he may choose to encourage to move from one area to another. This Bill deals, presumably, only with financing any sort of industry which will give employment in moving from a densely industrialised area into areas like Scotland, the North-East
    1162
    Coast or Wales where unemployment is heavy mainly because the mainspring of economic activity in the past has been a group of capital-producing industries.
    I believe that there is something in this and that it ought to be considered. I believe it is very important. Taking the whole of Scotland, it might be desirable in the interests not only of the economy but of Scotland to induce into Scotland industries which produce those consumer durable goods which enter regularly into the domestic market.
    Mr. Ross: Not too durable.
    Mr. Bence: Not too durable, I agree. I have been in the motor car industry all my working life. Let my hon. Friend be assured that I am well inculcated with the idea that eighteen months is about long enough for a car to last. I will not mention a particular make of car. We can make them last a good time more. However, I appreciate the point.
    This employment problem is a frightful one, and it is difficult for any Government to try to ease the pressure on labour in certain areas and to stimulate employment in other areas. In trying to solve it, we might consider not only geographical areas but also types of industry.
    If I might support that point of view by—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may if he can relate it to the terms of the Bill. I am listening with much attention.
    Mr. Bence: I suggested—I thought I saw the President of the Board of Trade nod—that the Minister would have powers within the Bill, in consultation with his advisory committee and the Treasury, to make the inducement perhaps a little better to certain types of industry which would more favour his purpose in that they would provide more employment. I believe that he has the power to make a choice between industries. Will he assure me that he has power to discriminate? If he has not, then I cannot deal with the point. As the Minister makes no reply, I assume that he has the power. The point is that in Scotland—
    Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is very relevant to

    1163
    the Bill, because the whole point is that this is the type of industry that we want in these areas, industries producing durable consumer goods which will benefit from an increase in income elsewhere, and not the old basic industries which do not necessarily benefit appreciably from a rise in income elsewhere? This is the only way to ensure that these areas share in the general prosperity of the country.
    Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend has helped me considerably and made the point I was about to make, on the assumption that the Minister can discriminate, that it would be advisable to place industries of the type he mentioned in Scotland. When B.M.C. commercial vehicle production comes to Scotland, that will not be further diversification. In Scotstoun we already have a huge commercial vehicle plant, Albion Motor Co. Ltd., now controlled by Ley-lands, and it produces the same capital goods as B.M.C. will do. It is not diversification in the sense that we shall be producing goods which will skim off purchasing power from other parts of the country. If we had industries producing consumer durable goods such as electric fires, kettles and saucepans and other articles for the general domestic market and for export as well, it would help us to get away from the frightful dependence on the production of merely capital goods. The Scottish position is that much of the extra purchasing power generated will be plunged down to the Midlands market where all the consumer durable goods are produced. It would be good economic policy to differentiate between different types of industries when dealing with certain regions.
    The B.M.C. factory will, it is estimated, employ 3,000–4,000 men. By the end of March a factory in Dunbartonshire employing 6,000–7,000 men will be closing down, so that the effect of the B.M.C. factory is nullified already. Unemployment is now in the region of 98,000, having gone up about 2,000 in the last few months, and it is likely to continue rising. When the Rootes Group and B.M.C., on their own figures, come into operation they will employ only 7,000 men between them.
    I shall be very much surprised if when B.M.C. has laid down the plant and is
    1164
    ready to go into production the toolmakers and production engineers have not so designed the production techniques that they increase the output per man-hour as a result of new technology, so that it may well be that the estimate of 3,000–4,000 men being employed in three years' time may be reduced to below 3,000. Because the capacity of the industry to progress technologically is terrific, especially after moving to a new site and getting a factory built with the maximum functional design. Anyone who knows the Renault plant in Paris and has seen its techniques will know that it is the most modern and the fastest producing plant in the world.
    Mr. Fernyhough: It is State-owned.
    Mr. Bence: Of course it is State-owned.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether State-owned or not, there is nothing about the Renault plant in this Bill. I must ask the hon. Member to assist me in keeping the rules of order.
    Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. We were dealing with the movement of the motor industry to Scotland, and I have been connected with the industry all my working life. My hon. Friend led me astray, but I will try to stick strictly to the terms of this Bill.
    The point I am trying to stress is that we should move more manufacture of consumer durable goods into Scotland. Another point was made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who is now asleep.
    Mr. Page: I am wide awake
    Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman referred to the placing of regional contracts by the Government. In this Bill there are powers to enable the Government to assist those enterprises which are already in existence. In Kirkintilloch, in my constituency, there are several boundaries where for years before the war castings were made. In the last five years they have lost their contracts for the Post Office. The Government have placed those contracts somewhere in England. Surely the Government could play their part in this matter by ensuring that contracts are places where there are resources and equipment capable of producing what Government Departments require,

    1165
    whether it is on the North-East Coast or in Scotland. Surely it is reasonable to expect that from a Government whose purpose it is to try to solve the terrible problem which has existed for the past 30 or 40 years.
    There is a sort of schizophrenia among hon. Members opposite. We have had three Measures designed to solve this problem and failed, and this one may fail for the same reason—the fear of State intervention and State planning. Let us be honest about this, for goodness sake. No group of business men can be expected to solve a social problem which is essentially the responsibility of the Government. A motor car manufacturer cannot be expected to solve a social problem. It is his job to study the conditions under which he employs his workers and to see that he pays them decent wages and that his equipment is good. He has no power to solve a social problem. His bank manager would not allow him to do so. If he were successful in solving a social problem, and his bank overdraft went up by £1 million every year, he would soon he out of business. Private enterprise cannot be expected to do this. Hon. Members opposite know that, so they bring in a Bill to utilise the taxpayers' money to finance him to do a bit towards solving this social problem. That is what the Bill is doing.
    I believe every hon and right hon. Member opposite is really anxious to get rid of this top-heaviness in our social structure. A great friend of mine is just as sincere when he says he does not want to drink, but someone has only to take him in and buy him a couple of drinks to start him off again.
    The financial conditions laid down by the laws of commerce must be adhered to by those who engage in the productive process, and this Bill cannot fill the gap. Very often the gap gets wider. I do not believe that within ten years this Bill will solve the problem of the disparity between employment conditions in Scotland and conditions in the Midlands and the South. If in five years we reach full employment in Scotland there will be twenty jobs vacant here and one man looking for them. The B.M.C. is coming to Scotland, but the space vacated in Birmingham will be occupied and developed for a further spurt in production at that
    1166
    point. The labour is going to be retained there; it is not coming to Scotland, except for selected skilled labour. We shall not reduce the pressure here, but maintain employment here. There will not be a movement of population as well as absorption of unemployment in Scotland. I do not believe the problem can be solved unless there is relief of the pressure here and an increase of pressure in Scotland.
    I hope the President of the Board of Trade can assure us that when he is considering an area like the North-East Coast, Wales or Scotland, where there is terrific dependence on industries which are entirely capital producing, in making his various contacts and moves to induce industries to go to those areas he will do what he can to look for industries which are not in their nature producers of capital goods but producers of all the smaller merchandise and consumer durables which enter the domestic market and the export market. If he can do that there is a greater chance of a more equitable distribution of economic activity in the country than if we rely entirely on producer-consumer industries.
    11.39 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley McMaster: I should like to say a few words of welcome for the Bill. I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I think this Bill may well be successful in its inspiration of spreading employment throughout the areas of the United Kingdom which are experiencing and have experienced persistent high unemployment.
    In their economic planning and in their decision to introduce the Bill—perhaps the most important Bill in the present Parliament—the Government are making a brave attempt to solve this terrible problem, which is a social as well as an economic problem. What greater wastage can there be than to have trained and skilled men in various parts of the country, where the pattern of employment is changing, who cannot find other work when their industries contract? This method of combating unemployment and of spending public money in encouraging industry to go to these areas is perhaps the most sensible way in which the taxpayers' money can be spent.

    1167
    In exercising his powers under Clause 18 and in granting industrial development certificates, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will remember the high unemployment in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will remember that unemployment there has recently risen to 8 per cent. I have had the unpleasant news that in my constituency 1,200 skilled engineers who are working in the aircraft factory of Short and Harland are to be laid off. With 8 per cent. unemployed, it will be very difficult for these men to find other work in Northern Ireland. I hope that in exercising his powers under Clause 18, which allow him in granting industrial development certificates to pay particular regard
    "to the need for providing appropriate employment in the localities mentioned"
    in Clause 2—which unfortunately is restricted to Great Britain—the Minister will not forget the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that he will not forget Northern Ireland. In our shipbuilding and aircraft industry we are very vulnerable to this scourge and this great wastage.
    I wish my right hon. Friend every success in this attempt to deal with the problem. I hope that the economic planning of the whole country, which our party has accepted, will be successful in making the maximum use of the available resources throughout the United Kingdom in order to raise the general standard of living and the prosperity of the country.
    11.43 p.m.
    Mr. Dempsey: It can be said that since the Bill was introduced into the House there have been some material improvements in it. I have attended practically every sitting on the Bill, because my constituency is deeply concerned about the operation of the Bill.
    I was happy to see that Minister introduce the word "diversification," for unless we have diversification of industry it will become impossible to provide adequate employment prospects for both the male and female insured population on the register. In most of our areas the old basic industries are contracting, and it will be necessary to replace them with diversified industries to compensate for this loss of employment. If the
    1168
    Minister is anxious to apply the principles which he outlined to us and which he mas incorporated in the Bill, he will find that the inclusion of the word "diversification" will assist greatly in his efforts.
    I was also delighted to notice that he still defended the need to provide for both grants and loans to be included of the Bill. Only when living in an area of considerable unemployment can one really appreciate the tremendous difficulty of inducing industrialists to move from the South to such areas. In some circumstances, it can be accomplished by loans; in other circumstances, it can not possibly be done without grants. I am glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has insisted on retaining provision for both loans and grants as a working element in ensuring that the Bill has some measure of success.
    I am also glad that the President of the Board of Trade is very keen on the Clause 5, which deals with the clearance of derelict sites. The underlying intention of Clause 5 (1) is that work can be done with a view to improving amenities in the neighbourhood. That is the purpose of Clause 5 (1). As requested, I intend to be really optimistic about this provision. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman could use that provision very effectively to assist communities in the elimination of eyesores.
    I hope that one of the first results of his generosity will be the tackling of the Monkland Canal at Coatbridge; that we will receive a substantial grant to remove what is not only physically unsightly and obnoxious to the nostrils, but an obscenity which is a menace to the community's health. That objectionable stretch of disused waterway passes through a community of 53,000 people. In being optimistic about this, I say to the President of the Board of Trade, "I am sure that your intentions are good and your desires honourable. By making a substantial grant towards the removal of this nuisance you will make a name for yourself, and your Bill in my constituency.
    It is also good to know that, according to the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, we are to tackle the unemployment problem really

    1169
    earnestly. I am not unmindful of the good news that was recently proclaimed for one part of Scotland. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his co-operation in this respect, but I ask him to remember that we are looking for 90,000 jobs in Scotland—not 4,500. I know it is a tall order, but it is indicative of the nature of our problem.
    The County of Lanark is looking for 10,000 jobs. North Lanark is the hardest hit place in West Scotland, at intervals unemployment there being as high as between 11 per cent. and 12 per cent. of the insured population. If the President of the Board of Trade could, through the operation of the appropriate Clauses of this Bill, steer a car industry into North Lanark to give employment for 4,000 to 5,000 workers, and could also create the prerequisites for attracting ancillary industries, I can assure him that in those parts both he and this Bill would go clown in the annals of our history for having achieved such a remarkable record of success.
    I appeal to him to ensure that the provisions of this Measure will be operated irrespective of whether there is likely to be any obstreperousness from other sections of the Government. That is a very important qualification. Quite apart from the financial machinations that arise—and they will be many—I have no doubt that when we make application for certain grants we will be told by the Treasury that the country is in a state of poverty, that the Treasury itself is on the verge of bankruptcy—and, eventually, that we have never really had it so bad. After hearing the right hon. Gentleman's promises and his arguments for the Bill, I think that he will be prepared to fight against any obstacles or difficulties put in his way by the Treasury.
    I return to a plea which I made to the Parliamentary Secretary and to which he did not reply. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance, which he refused to give earlier, about the activity of other Departments with their own responsibility and authority—that such Departments will ensure that other aspects of industrial development for which they are responsible will be fully effected. I refer to the need for someone to speak on behalf of the Scottish Department of Health. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to undertake
    1170
    to acquaint the Secretary of State for Scotland with the terms of the Bill, so that that right hon. Gentleman will know what we have been doing, in order that when we make our representations for houses for industrial workers, he will be able to approve them immediately, understanding that such is the intention of Parliament. I am not trying to be facetious, insulting, or in any way offensive to the Secretary of State, but we have bitter experience of the operations of the Scottish Office North of the Border.
    The President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary have said that the powers provided by the Bill will be sufficiently effective to enable them to deal once and for all with the sad and tragic problem of unemployment. We have discussed the Bill for several days and I am very glad to have had the opportunity to participate in these discussions, because I come from an area which suffers bitterly from this problem and, though lacking in Parliamentary experience, I understand the unemployment problem and hope that I have been able to make useful contributions to the discussions. I am concerned always with policies and not with personalities, but the Bill puts the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend on trial. I hope that they will acquit themselves well and ensure the success of an admitted effort to eliminate this serious social problem from our midst.
    11.53 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: We are very near to the end of our House of Commons consideration of what right hon. Gentlemen opposite have described as the major Bill of this Session. It is a Bill which many hon. Members opposite have regarded as giving the President of the Board of Trade power which he had hitherto not possessed to assist areas which he could not hitherto assist. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that his supporters are gravely mistaken in their assumptions.
    The Bill does not provide the right hon. Gentleman with additional powers. He was just as free under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, to give areas not scheduled under the 1945 legislation all the financial assistance which he could give for the promotion of industrial activity leading to increased employment. In earlier

    1171
    debates, the right hon. Gentleman himself made it clear that the proportion of the population which he expects will be included in the list which he is to publish will be broadly similar to the proportion of the population covered by the now existing D.A.T.A.C. list.
    The new list which, we are told, will come out next week and which, according to the Parliamentary Secretary will be the B.O.T.A.C. list, is surely the D.A.T.A.C. list of this week. We shall be very surprised if it is different. It will be different only inasmuch as the level of unemployment has moved a little between one area and another since then. Of course, there are development districts, but they may not then be B.O.T.A.C. areas. Development districts, according to the definition given by the President of the Board of Trade in an earlier discussion of districts that are to be assisted by him, will, in fact, be those parts of the country which he has listed under the Act of 1958. some of them inside and some outside the areas scheduled as Development Areas under the 1945 Act. So that all that is new in this major Bill—this bit of revolutionary legislation—is that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give to an industrialist in one of these listed areas a grant of 85 per cent. of the difference between the cost of building his factory and the value put upon it by the district valuer at the time the application for the grant was made, which is some time before the district valuer is able to have a look at the factory, because obviously it is long before the factory is built.
    One is bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman as we conclude our deliberations that it is a pity that he should have kept us in the dark about his list until a week after the Bill leaves this House. Members of another place will have the list before them, but they do not represent constituencies or have constituents as we do. It is a pity that they are given a facility that has been denied to Members of this House by a Minister, one is bound to believe, who considered it impolitic to let us have the information we should properly have had in considering whether or not to allow him to scrap all the distribution of industry legislation passed since 1945, with all the provision for scheduling, and to give us this Bill in its place.
    1172
    However, if the President feels that he would rather solve the problem of local unemployment by this Bill then we must defer to his wish. If he is determined to solve the problem and would prefer to do so under this Bill than under existing legislation, we cannot object. The important thing is that he should have this determination.
    The Parliamentary Secretary uttered some words about the new policy on rents. He told us this evening that as from Monday of this week, 1st February, the rents concession announced more than a year ago was withdrawn. That means that as from Monday the rents to be determined for factories owned by the Government in those areas listed for special assistance because of the high level of unemployment will be the market value rents as determined by the district valuer. I think that is true.
    I hope that hon. Gentlemen realise what the position is and how much Government finance has gone into the alleviation of unemployment in those socially distressed areas. The biggest of them is Scotland. The Board of Trade has invested in all the Government factories in the Scottish Development Areas £25 million over twenty-five years. This is not taxpayers' money given away. Over twenty-five years £25 million has been invested in industrial buildings, every one of which is making a return in rent to the Government. By charging the market value rent today for many of those factories the right hon. Gentleman is making a substantial profit on the investment.
    That should be borne in mind when hon. Gentlemen talk about the expenditure involved in taking industry to parts of the country where it does not want to go. No one can conceivably compare this kind of investment with the granting of £30 million or £50 million to re-organise the cotton industry. This is an investment all along the line which, by the policy announced by the Parliamentary Secretary in moving Third Reading, is calculated to return a profit to the President of the Board of Trade as the owner of the factories.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: It is not an economic rent.
    Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman will not make a profit on the factories that he built last year, but he will make a substantial profit on the factories built before the war and he will make a very substantial annual profit on those factories built by other Government Departments for war purposes and then handed over to the Board of Trade after the war for the purpose of the Distribution of Industry Act.
    We should get this matter into perspective. A large amount of taxpayers' money has been spent on the implementation of distribution of industry policy. There is much misunderstanding about this. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that I am wrong in any of my figures, particularly about the figure of £25 million spent in Scotland over twenty-five years, I hope that he will correct me later. I must warn him that if he does he will be contradicting the figures I obtained from Scottish Industrial Estates Limited a little while ago.
    The right hon. Gentleman has a big job to do. I will not labour Scotland's problem too much, because we have heard much about it. It is serious. We still have 98,000 unemployed, and the figure is rising. I have said much about the industrial parts of Scotland.
    I will now say a word about the parts of Scotland which were by-passed by the Industrial Revolution. I mean the northern part of Scotland, the Highlands, the far north, the part of the country represented by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who is not with us at this late hour but who has been with us most of the time we have been considering the Bill. In Caithness at the Wick Employment Exchange 12·9 per cent. of the insured population are registered as unemployed. In Sutherland at the Thurso Employment Exchange 8·6 per cent. of the insured population are registered as unemployed. This is the part of the country that has suffered more depopulation than any other part in recent years. People have been pouring out of the area for a long time, and yet it still shows these high figures of unemployment. Although the powers that the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the Bill are a repetition of existing powers, I hope he will feel that the powers he
    1174
    now has will enable him to deal with an area like that.
    I should like to give another two figures to show the difference between the position in Scotland and the position elsewhere. We are concerned about the opportunity of employment for young people. It is bad enough for a middle-aged man, a man of 45, 50 or 55, to be out of a job and to find difficulty in getting another—
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: I appreciate my hon. Friend's wish to detail his examination of the position in Scotland, but we are dealing with a Bill which applies to other parts of the country with equally bad unemployment problems. Is he concerned solely with Scotland, or is he concerned with the Bill as it applies throughout the whole of the country?
    Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend has sat through a lot of the consideration of the Bill and he has heard me make a number of speeches on it. I would have thought that by this time he realised that I was interested in unemployment anywhere. Just as I should not be surprised that my hon. Friend should mention Gloucestershire in the course of one of his speeches, he must not be surprised if I mention Scotland. I have not mentioned my constituency, but I have mentioned the area that has 10 per cent. of the population and over 20 per cent. of the unemployment.
    It is serious enough for the middle-aged man to be out of a job and to find it exceedingly difficult to get another, but it is much worse for the school leavers to find that they have no prospect of employment in the areas in which they live. Their only hope of getting a job is to leave home.
    Mr. Bence: And leave Scotland.
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, but they have to leave their homes and their parents and go away. That, unfortunately, is the position.
    I take the figures that one finds in the Ministry of Labour Gazette and in the Digest of Statistics published by the Board of Trade. One cannot take every small part of the country, because they are not all listed, but I compare the region of Scotland with the region called the Midlands, with, broadly

    1175
    speaking, the same population, although the size of population does not matter for this comparison. In Scotland, in December, there were 22 notified vacancies for every 100 unemployed boys under 18 years of age; there were five unemployed boys for every job. In the Midlands, however, there were 1,700 vacancies for every 100 unemployed boys. So that in Scotland there were five unemployed boys chasing every available job, whereas in the Midlands seventeen jobs were chasing every available boy.
    That is the difference between two parts of the country. That is why I should be failing in my responsibility if I had not called attention to the need for the powers given in the Bill to be vigorously implemented in favour of an area such as that. And in this area where there are seventeen jobs chasing every unemployed boy we have, despite what the B.M.C. is putting into other parts of the country, new capital investment by B.M.C., according to newspaper reports, of £26 million. Is that not right? The President of the Board of Trade says, "A jolly good thing." I say that in this area where seventeen jobs are chasing every unemployed boy there is still now to be a further £26 million of capital investment, and the President of the Board of Trade says, "A jolly good thing." He was inviting us yesterday to throw our hate into the air because we should be delighted because in Scotland, where there are 98,000 unemployed, and five unemployed boys chasing every job, there will be £9 million of capital investment.
    Mr. Maudling: May I add once again that the new jobs being created by the B.M.C. scheme will be outside the Birmingham area, and that the new investment in the Birmingham area will greatly increase the productivity of the existing labour force? Surely to goodness that is in the interest of the whole nation, including Scotland.
    Mr. Fraser: I am not disagreeing with capital investment in any part of the country, but the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he sounded very much yesterday as though the only capital investment that was being made at this time by B.M.C. was in Scotland and that we ought to be jolly pleased it was
    1176
    there. All I am saying now is that according to Press reports there will be some £9 million of capital investment in Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, we were not on Third Reading. We are now. Whether or not capital investment is going on in those companies in the Midlands has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. If the hon. Member relates what he is saying to the Bill, then I do not mind his saying it, but at the moment it seems to me he is not.
    Mr. Fraser: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Part I of the Bill deals with positive steps which the President of the Board of Trade can take to assist areas where there is a high and persistent rate of unemployment and that Part II deals with the steps which he can take to discourage, or refuse assistance to, industrial development which will permit of further employment and further capital investment in those areas which are already congested.
    But I leave this matter there now. In any case, we have had a long debate. There is not much point in our continuing it further; at least, I do not feel that there is any point in my continuing it further at this time of night.
    There have been one or two pleas from both sides of the House to the President of the Board of Trade that he should influence his colleagues in the Government to secure that Government Departments will give some preference to development districts in the placing of contracts. I hope he has listened with sympathy to those pleas. I believe that Government Departments could do very much more than they do at present. It is the declared policy, and has been for some time, that they should give some preference. We do not want improperly to give support to incompetence and inefficiency, but I believe that a good deal more could be done than is being done. I believe that the nationalised industries could follow suit. I believe that they have not played the part they could in supporting industry in the difficult areas. I believe that local authorities, too, could do a great deal more than they do at present.
    We are delighted to give to the President of the Board of Trade the powers which are contained in the 1945 Act of nearly fifteen years ago, albeit

    1177
    he has insisted in having them dressed up in new clothing. The important thing, however, is that he should use the powers.
    Despite the exchange we had just a moment ago, let me say this as I sit down. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to use the powers. I believe that there is a far better chance of those powers being exercised now than there was, a better chance now that he occupies his present office than ever there was when his predecessor was in the job. I never had any hope then whatsoever. The right hon. Gentleman who then held the office knew that very well indeed. However, I think a great many of us believe that the right hon. Gentleman really does wish to make a large contribution towards the solving of the problems that have been so very much in our minds during the consideration of the Bill. I can safely say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we wish him well in this task, and we therefore give our blessing to the Bill as it leaves us.
    12.16 a.m.
    Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) for the blessing that he has given to the Bill, though I expect that in his view it is still inadequate. Once again, I will certainly accept that the test of the Bill is not so much the text of it but the effect it has when the powers are implemented.
    I shall try to deal as briefly as I can with the various points which have been raised in the course of the debate. A number of hon. Members have referred to the fact that many Government Departments are concerned in this problem. That is perfectly true. That is one of the reasons why the Bill, though presented by the Board of Trade, is supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs and other members of the Government; and, of course, in all these matters the Government act as one.
    To my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who was concerned about the shadow of the Treasury falling over my shoulder, perhaps I can speak as gamekeeper turned poacher in these matters; I can tell her that if she is asking questions about the
    1178
    carrying out of the Bill she should direct them to the Board of Trade because it is our responsibility not only to take action but to obtain the necessary consent of the Treasury to the carrying out of that action. If she has any rocks to throw, we are the target.
    The question of the concessionary rates was raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Hamilton. This is not a new announcement. I should point out that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced the creation of the concessionary rates over a year ago he then said specifically that this was a special arrangement only to last for twelve months. What he said this afternoon merely confirmed what was said at that time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to the question of Government contracts. I should particularly like to take this opportunity of confirming that the Government preference scheme, to which he referred, will continue in its present form and apply to the districts which will be specified under the Bill.
    The hon. Members for Gower (Mr. I. Davies), Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr Dempsey) referred to the powers for dealing with derelict areas. We certainly believe that the new form of the Bill will widen our powers in this regard which so far have been restricted by the legal definition of "derelict" as being "ownerless and abandoned". I should make it clear once again that as this is a Bill to deal with local unemployment it does not give us powers to remove slagheaps and so on simply for the sake of amenity but only where doing so will contribute to the basic purpose of the Bill, namely to make the area more attractive to industrialists to go into it and create employment. I share the views of hon Members that there may well be cases—I will not refer to any particular example—where the use of these powers may be of considerable value.
    I have one or two words to say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He and the hon. Member for Hamilton referred to the B.M.C. scheme I must pay tribute to the British Motor Corporation for what I think is the very public spirited attitude which it has

    1179
    adopted. Its new big expansion is being spread over the country as a whole, taking place in Birmingham, Scotland, South Wales, Merseyside and Swynnerton.
    The real thing that we are concerned about is the creation of employment. The scheme which the Corporation put forward, on the basis of which we have granted it I.D.C.s, provides that all new employment will be created outside the Birmingham area. At the same time we have given the Corporation I.D.C.s for expansion in Birmingham which will mean the creation of greater amenities and the reduction of overcrowding in its Birmingham premises without increasing the existing labour force, and, secondly will mean that with the existing labour force the Corporation will be able to make a great increase in productivity. Therefore, there will be a great strengthening of its competitive position particularly in the overseas markets. I should have thought that satisfactory both from the point of view of the country as a whole and the areas where employment is required. On the one hand, the country will get the benefit of the increased competitive power of the Corporation and on the other, all the new employment which is created will be outside the crowded Birmingham area. I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Hamilton was, possibly, a little grudging about it.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I think I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we were delighted about the B.M.C. development in Scotland. The thing which has annoyed us a little is the impression we got that the Minister, and certainly the supporters of the Government, felt that because this thing has happened, Scotland's worries are over. That is not the position.
    Mr. Maudling: Certainly I agree that any such impression would be nonsense. This is just a beginning. I hope that ancillary firms and the makers of components will follow and, in so far as the hon. Member for Hamilton is expressing that hope, I accept his point of view.
    I was not so surprised at the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and I should like to address a word or two to the hon. Gentleman. Having listened to
    1180
    many of his speeches during the passage of this Bill, I cannot think of any series of speeches more calculated to damage the true interests of Scotland. It seems to me that any non-Scot foolish enough to attach importance to the mixture of threats and discourtesy that comes from the hon. Gentleman would think not only twice, but three times, before going near Scotland with his enterprise.
    I assure the House that the Government will continue to base their policy in these matters on what the hon. Member for Hamilton so rightly said about the very high level of unemployment in Scotland, because it is the motive of the Government to try to cure this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) raised an important point. I should like to confirm, whatever is said in the Bill—and he was right on the narrow point of what is in the Bill—that in operating the I.D.C. system we shall certainly bear in mind not only the unemployment requirements in Great Britain but in Northern Ireland as well, and I am glad to have the opportunity of confirming that.
    As has been announced by my hon. Friend, we shall shortly be publishing an initial list of districts. There will be room to add more if conditions require because we have not yet finalised it. But, in any case, it would not have been appropriate to publish the list before this Bill had completed its passage through the House of Commons, because there is here a change of conception. Under the earlier legislation the House of Commons determined that certain areas should be given special treatment. This Bill changes the conception to saying that any area qualifying by certain criteria shall be entitled to certain benefits and those areas therefore will change from time to time This is not Parliamentary determination of special areas, it is Parliamentary determination on a general principle to be applied administratively.
    I hope very much that in dealing with these matters we shall try to avoid controversy between one district and another but I am quite certain that in practice we shall not be able entirely to do so. In recent weeks I have become aware of the great difficulty which arises here. Clearly, there are fewer companies coming forward, which are available to

    1181
    be guided into these areas of unemployment, than we require to satisfy the needs of everyone. Therefore there is competition between Merseyside, the North East Coast, Scotland, and Wales for the available new enterprises. We shall do our best to avoid any discrimination all round. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that although there is no Secretary of State for England—I sympathise with her point of view in this matten—I have taken great pains in discussions with industrialists to point out the importance of the North East Coast and particularly the availability of skilled labour in that area. The fact is that we must recognise that we cannot direct people to go to particular places. I think that is accepted on both sides of the House. If industrialists are prepared to go to an area where there is a really serious problem of unemployment, I do not see how we can refuse to give them the support to which they are entitled under the Bill for doing so.
    We must be careful not to take decisions on the basis of whether a place is in Scotland, England or Wales. It is true that there is a special problem in Scotland, but it is a special problem, not a Scottish problem, special because of the remoteness and the figures of unemployment there. Probably Anglesey could produce similar figures. I make the plea again that we should treat it as a special
    1182
    problem and not as a Scottish problem. If we do that I think we shall reach the desired conclusion.
    I do not think there is anything more I need add. On many occasions in the House and in Committee I have explained the basic purpose the Government have in the Bill. I know that members of the party opposite do not feel that it contributes very much to the legislation of the country. I accept that they feel that, but the point is that we now have the powers to do the job and we wish to do it.
    Mr. Dan Jones: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade a question in relation to Clause 3 (1). which deals with building grants? Will that apply to old cotton mills which may be suitable for new industries? Would the financial grants apply to reconditioning to get a new form of industry?
    Mr. Maudling: It would depend whether the process could be related to the words in the Statute as
    "providing in the locality buildings or extension of buildings".
    I should have thought not. On the whole I am rather doubtful, but I should not like to be dogmatic about it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  CARAVAN SITES
  Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Col. J. H. Harrison.]
  12.27 a.m.
  Mr. John Parker: I wish at this late hour to raise the problem of caravans in the country. The problem arises in two forms. One is that of the holiday caravan. There it is an alternative to a tent, but a tent has the big advantage that it can be taken down and moved away easily whereas a caravan cannot. Secondly, the holiday caravan is an increasing danger on the roads. Anyone who, at week-ends or in August, has travelled in many parts of the country following a caravan pulled as a trailer behind a car and has found difficulty in passing it, knows that a large increase in the use of caravans would increase the dangers on the roads.
  There is a need for caravan sites at the seaside and at beauty spots. They should be properly located to prevent the amenities of the countryside being destroyed and to ensure that reasonable facilities, such as toilets, water supply and so on, are provided for the people using them. It is a serious problem to preserve the amenities and to provide reasonable facilities on the site.
  The great difficulty about the caravan site is that it tends to become permanent. After the holiday season, people tend to remain in the caravans, and some caravans gradually become permanent dwellings. The difficulty about a permanent caravan site is that the law does not differentiate between the caravan site as a temporary holiday place and the caravan site which has become a permanent dwelling place.
  The problem of the permanent caravan site is becoming very serious for all planning authorities in the country. The recent Arton Wilson Report shows that 150,000 people are dwelling in caravans at present, which means about 60,000 households, and that it is a growing problem, because the number of caravans is increasing year by year. The Report shows that most people living in caravans are young married couples, who usually have work available in the neighbourhood but who do not have a house available near their work. They
  1184
  hope to get a house at some time in the future, and most of them ultimately succeed, but they are replaced in the caravan or on the site by someone else. Most of these people collect around areas where work is available but houses are not available.
  The problem is most acute, therefore, in the Greater London area and the Midlands, where there are prosperity and boom conditions. The problem is particularly serious to planning authorities in Surrey and my own county, Essex, but is generally a problem in all areas where industry is booming.
  In Essex the problem has become so serious that last year the county planning committee set up a special sub-committee to consider and report on the problems arising from the caravan sites in Essex and to make recommendations. They have not been able to find a solution to their problems locally but they have made a number of suggestions to the Ministry on the matter.
  It is basically a problem of housing and the location of industry. We do not find these colonies of caravans in areas where there is unemployment, and therefore—bearing in mind the discussions earlier this evening—in so far as we can direct industry into areas where there is unemployment and where houses are available, to that extent we relieve the need of people to have caravans in other areas. In so far as we can persuade development to take place either in new towns away from the developed industrial areas such as greater London or in developing towns such as Thetford and Ashford, which are out of the Greater London area but fairly near it; and in so far as we can bring new development to such places, both in industry and in houses, to that extent we reduce the pressure of those people who create caravan colonies and build up a problem in the Home Counties and other boom areas.
  This is a way of dealing with the background of the problem as part of a way of dealing with the problem itself, but even when one has dealt with the background there remains a very serious problem. I do not think we can say that the caravan problem will disappear. It is a permanent feature. Some people pine for the caravan as a way of living at a certain period of their lives. We must accept the fact that

  1185
  some people want to live in that way and will live in that way.
  In providing an opportunity for them to do so we must see that it does not create other serious problems. In providing sites for caravans we must deal satisfactorily with the problems of sanitation and health and with amenities both for the residents on the caravan sites and the remainder—the major part—of the population, who do not want to see the countryside destroyed, or made ugly, by a litter of caravans all over the place. If we are to deal with the problem we must see that sites for caravans are satisfactory from the point of view of both the people dwelling in the caravans and the community as a whole. That means that one does not have the caravan sites in the green belts. It is most important that we should not allow intrusion of odd caravans on any of the green belts round our industrial centres.
  There is a strong case for putting these caravan sites near industrial areas on land intended for development for either industrial or housing purposes in the fairly near future. If the land is to be developed in that way then, temporarily, at any rate, it does no harm for it to be developed as a suitable caravan site.
  When one comes to the open country and the seaside, it is very important that very careful selection of the sites should be made on a long-term basis—on a reasonable lease—so that the necessary hygienic amenities, shelter belts and the like can be provided, in order that the sites do not intrude on the public amenities as a whole. However, if we are to solve this satisfactorily, the local authorities must have adequate powers to control selection, and to prevent sudden development in the wrong places where satisfactory facilities cannot be provided, or where the caravans will annoy the general public. Under the present law there are very great difficulties and, particularly, delays in dealing with the matter.
  The Essex County Council has drawn up an interesting programme of the sort of dates that arise in trying to prevent seasonal caravan camps coming into being. In giving these dates, the authority has assumed that the planning authority has moved at the earliest possible time all the way through.
  1186
  However, human nature being as it is, that is not always the case.
  It is assumed that the operator brings caravans on to his site on 1st April. Under the general development order, he has 28 days' use. On 29th April the local planning authority, having ascertained that the operator is continuing to use the site, serves an enforcement notice in advance. The said notice is served by post on 30th April. The notice cannot become effective until 28th May. On 27th May the operator applies for planning permission.
  On 1st June, the planning authority decides to refuse permission. Notice of that decision is served on the operator, who then has 28 days in which to appeal to the Minister. On 27th June, the operator appeals to the Minister for a local inquiry, and that local inquiry cannot be held before mid-August. The Minister rarely issues his decision before the expiration of two months from the
  date of the local inquiry. In mid-October, the Minister dismisses the appeal.
  The enforcement notice then becomes effective and the second period specified—probably about a fortnight—begins to run. On 31st October, the site is cleared—at exactly the time that the seasonal planning permission ends. Therefore, to prevent such a site coming into being the whole period from 1st April to 31st October might pass and, of course, the same thing might happen again the next year if the same person again seeks to operate a seasonal caravan site.
  I agree that some relief is furnished by Section 38 of the 1959 Town and Country Planning Act, which makes it possible to take enforcement action in respect of unauthorised use of land for the siting of caravans. That does not remove the difficulties created by the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. In many cases it can be proved that caravans have been on a site before 1947. They may have been there occasionally since then, and suddenly the site is developed with a large number of caravans. It may be argued that there has been change of user, but if it can be proved that caravans were there before 1947 nothing can be done about it.
  I would have thought that it was reasonable to give compensation for any

  1187
  capital sunk into development of a possible site, but the value of the site itself is largely created by the planning authority agreeing to that site and ruling out other possible sites. There should not be compensation for the site, therefore, but it would be reasonable to pay compensation for any capital sunk into the project.
  I very much welcome the announcement yesterday that it was proposed to introduce legislation on this matter. I hope that it will be possible to bring in legislation which local authorities will agree to be facing up to the problem, but I hope that it will insist on the same planning and accommodation standards which one normally expects from council housing estates. Many caravans are slums on wheels, although, of course, there are many which are not. We want to see those bad caravan sites ruled out.
  I also hope that, in dealing with the problem, the Government will not forget the background problems which I have mentioned—the question of the location of industry and the provision of housing to remedy the pressure to create these caravan sites in the areas around the boom areas. I have pleasure in welcoming the legislation to deal with these various problems.
  12.42 a.m.
  Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I had not anticipated that at this late hour the House would have the benefit of hearing from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) about caravans. I had stayed to hear him talking, as I thought he would, about the development of Tower Hill in the City of London. He has spoken about caravans and as a caravanner, although I do not take strong exception to anything he has said, I do not think that he has sufficiently differentiated between two distinct types of caravan user.
  On the one hand, there are those who are compelled, or prefer for their own private reasons, permanently to live in a caravan on a permanent residential caravan site. On the other hand, there are those, perhaps strange people, who, like myself, have their own caravan and like to go away into the country and spend their holidays on sites such as the hon. Member mentioned, on farms
  1188
  or other places where they are allowed to stay and enjoy a caravaning or camping holiday, living in the fresh air and so on. There are problems connected with both users.
  On the question of the seasonal as opposed to the residential site, I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that legislation is required.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but that is the one thing which cannot be proposed on this Motion. That is the difficulty.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I must ask you to excuse me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour. I should have said that administrative action was required to prevent the kind of thing of which the hon. Member has reminded the House—site operators, whom no one would defend, seeking permission for temporary use of land for holiday caravans and using all the loopholes the law and lack of administrative action allow to extend the profitability of letting sites for caravans right through the season, then starting again the next year. I would not defend that for a moment and I hope that some sort of action will be possible to prevent it in future.
  I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member about permanent caravan sites not being in the green belt around our cities. I think that for seasonal caravan sites it is perfectly possible in a green belt to ensure the amenities if the sites are properly selected and the caravan is so placed under trees that it may be almost out of sight and without detriment to the amenities of the countryside.
  The Minister is aware that a great deal of work has been done recently by an organisation of which I have been a member for many years and on the executive committee of which I sat for a long time. I am a member of its council at present. I refer to the Caravan Club, which is working in the closest harmony with planning officers of the counties, selecting sites for seasonal, mobile, caravaning, and awarding, as it were, a badge or sign approved by the Council for Industrial Design, which may be displayed only at sites which are approved by the planning authorities and by the Club, which is a large organisation, equivalent to the R.A.C. or A.A., and which has its site inspectors who

  1189
  make sure that it does not suggest to a planning authority that any site should be licensed unless it has full services and that the amenities are preserved.
  12.47 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I must once again, as on Monday, walk with great verbal delicacy in your sight, Mr. Speaker, because, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has already indicated, my right hon. Friend told the House on Tuesday of his intention to legislate on this subject. I hope that the two hon. Members who have spoken will not think me discourteous if I say that I found their speeches most interesting, and I will read them with care. But I must be very cautious what I say about them.
  May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) on his facility and ability to talk equally spontaneously on Tower Hill or caravans. Of course, we are much indebted to Sir Arton Wilson for setting out so clearly the facts about caravans as homes and the problems arising from the use of caravans as homes. It was my right hon. Friend who invited Sir Arton Wilson to write the Report because he was so aware of the problems, and one of the lessons we can learn from the Report is that caravans tend to
  1190
  cluster where employment exceeds housing accommodation.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham rightly drew the conclusion that the Government's policy, which has been discussed this week, to take employment to places of more than average unemployment, will as a by-product, help to solve this very problem. It is one which we are most aware of, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to leave it at that.
  It also arises from any reading of the Report that caravans must now be accepted as part of our national life, and a place must be found for them—a right place in each area—and if the right place is to be found, as has been said, local authorities must have proper planning and enforcement weapons in their power. Here I come back to where I began, and I hope I will not be thought discourteous if I deny myself the pleasure of discussing exactly how the present controls operate, and take refuge in my right hon. Friend's statement, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Dagenham when he said:
  "My consultations have disclosed a wide measure of agreement on the need for remedying defects in the existing law, and I hope to introduce legislation for this purpose in the present Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 103.]
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to One o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Motor Cars, Central London
  Motor Cars, Central London
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Breathalyser Apparatus
  Breathalyser Apparatus
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Scottish Deputation
  Scottish Deputation
  Road and Rail Transport
  Road and Rail Transport
  Street Parking (Lights)
  Street Parking (Lights)
  Bicycles (Taxation)
  Bicycles (Taxation)
  Railway Strikes (Transport Problems)
  Railway Strikes (Transport Problems)
  Driving Offences
  Driving Offences
ROADS
  M.1 (Anti-dazzle Fence)
  M.1 (Anti-dazzle Fence)
  Road and Bridge Programmes
  Road and Bridge Programmes
  Inner Ring Road, Bristol
  Inner Ring Road, Bristol
  Ross Spur Road
  Ross Spur Road
  Bristol
  Bristol
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Stafford-Leek Road (Cellarhead Cross-roads)
  Stafford-Leek Road (Cellarhead Cross-roads)
  Pink Zone
  Pink Zone
  Accidents, Feltham
  Accidents, Feltham
  A.38 (Plymouth-Exeter)
  A.38 (Plymouth-Exeter)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
SHIPPING
  Cunard Liners (Replacement)
  Cunard Liners (Replacement)
  Scottish Waters (Maintenance of Moorings)
  Scottish Waters (Maintenance of Moorings)
  Nuclear Propulsion
  Nuclear Propulsion
  Tyne and Wear Shipyards
  Tyne and Wear Shipyards
RAILWAYS
  Capital Liability and Deficits
  Capital Liability and Deficits
  British Transport Commission (Finance)
  British Transport Commission (Finance)
  Canonbury Station
  Canonbury Station
  Victoria Line
  Victoria Line
  Modernisation Plan
  Modernisation Plan
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Arms and Equipment (Standardisation)
  Arms and Equipment (Standardisation)
  West German Defence Minister (Discussions)
  West German Defence Minister (Discussions)
  THE HAUD (INCIDENTS)
  THE HAUD (INCIDENTS)
  COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
  COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
  CYPRUS (LONDON CONFERENCE)
  CYPRUS (LONDON CONFERENCE)
  SOVIET AMBASSADOR (APPOINTMENT)
  SOVIET AMBASSADOR (APPOINTMENT)
  TEN-POWER DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
  TEN-POWER DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
  WORLD REFUGEE YEAR
  WORLD REFUGEE YEAR
  DISARMAMENT (SOVIET APPEAL)
  DISARMAMENT (SOVIET APPEAL)
  LAW OF THE SEA (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
  LAW OF THE SEA (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
EMPLOYMENT
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Office, Llanwrtyd Wells
  Office, Llanwrtyd Wells
  West Fife
  West Fife
BRITISH ARMY
  Hilsea Depot, Portsmouth
  Hilsea Depot, Portsmouth
  Recruitment (Miners)
  Recruitment (Miners)
  Military Medal (Benefits)
  Military Medal (Benefits)
POST OFFICE
  Sub-Office, Birmingham (Weoley Castle)
  Sub-Office, Birmingham (Weoley Castle)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  I.T.A. (Welsh Programmes)
  I.T.A. (Welsh Programmes)
  Television Service for Wales (Discussions)
  Television Service for Wales (Discussions)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Aden
  Aden
  United States Air Force (Transferred Aircraft)
  United States Air Force (Transferred Aircraft)
  Mr. A. M. Wraight
  Mr. A. M. Wraight
EDUCATION
  All-age Schools, Cornwall
  All-age Schools, Cornwall
  U.N.E.S.C.O.
  U.N.E.S.C.O.
  Sub-normal Children
  Sub-normal Children
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Scientific Attachés
  Scientific Attachés
MALTA
  Police (Promotion)
  Police (Promotion)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Ministry of Transport Offices, London
  Ministry of Transport Offices, London
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Local Employment Bill
  Local Employment Bill
SCOTLAND
  Steamer Services (Skye and Raasay)
  Steamer Services (Skye and Raasay)
  Teachers
  Teachers

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers read by the Lord Bishop of Ely

The Lord Bishop of Norwich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD DALTON
The Right Honourable Edward Hugh John Neale Dalton, having been created Baron Dalton, of Forest and Frith in the County Palatine of Durham, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Wemyss (E. Wemyss)—Took the Oath.

DISPOSAL OF HERR KRUPP'S ASSETS
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in reference to the verdict of the 1948 Military Court, whether they are aware that Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach has offered to pay £500,000 compensation to the remaining 12,000 of the Jews who were slave labourers in his armament factories during the 1939–45 war, and that his personal fortune is valued at not less than £14,000,000; and whether the Mixed Committee set up to consider applications for the disposal of certain of his assets under the 1953 Deconcentration Agreement has arrived at any decision as regards an extension of the date beyond January 31, 1960.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the Answer
866
to the first part of the Question is, Yes. The Answer to the second part of the Question is that the Committee announced on January 25 that it had granted an extension up to January 31, 1961.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. Could he inform us what the position is in regard to the publication of the report and deliberations of the Committee in this matter? Further, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will vigorously press for the publication both of the report and of the deliberations so that the British nation, which will eventually, through its economy, have to pay the piper for this infamous employer of slave labour getting away with his ill-gotten gains, may know exactly what the position is and precisely on what grounds he has been granted this extension of time for a year?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think I have in fact answered this question on a previous occasion. The Bonn Settlement Convention does not oblige the Committee to make a report. I understand, however, that a report is under consideration, and I hope that it may be ready in a few weeks' time. Until the report is received, naturally I cannot comment at all on the Committee's decision. Whether this report will or will not be published is, as I have told your Lordships on more than one occasion, a matter for the Governments concerned.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in view of the agreement of the noble Marquess with the first part of my noble friend's Question, may I ask him whether the £14 million mentioned as being the fortune of Herr Krupp is not a gross underestimate? Is it not the fact that, due to Allied and West German policy, Herr Krupp, the slave labour user, has become the richest man in Europe?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in regard to the first part of the question, that figure was supplied by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. As regards the second part of the question, I have no comment to make.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask how our representative voted in this Committee?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Technically, my Lords, no; but the vote was, in fact, unanimous.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask this further question of the noble Marquess? When he referred, in his main Answer, to the report, did he mean the report of the finding of the Committee or the report of its deliberations? What I want is the report of the deliberations of the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made that clear. There is no obligation under the Bonn Convention for a report on the deliberations to be issued at all.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, will not the noble Marquess, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, press for a report (it is open to the Committee to issue a report if it wants to) so that the British nation may know on what grounds this extension has been granted?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the Committee is an autonomous body. It is not proper for Her Majesty's Government to press the Committee to do anything.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, first, whether this Committee has ever, in the case of making previous postponements, issued a report? Secondly, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government now agree with and concur in the decision of the Committee?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, this is the first postponement that has been made by this Committee: I think that should be clear. So far as the question of whether Her Majesty's Government agree or not is concerned, that really is not a question that I can answer. We accept the opinion of this Committee which has been set up with the agreement of four Governments.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does that mean that we are a party to the reinstitution of the Krupp armament factories which were one of the most dangerous things we had to face in the last war?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: With great respect, that is quite beyond the terms of the original Question.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps I can pursue a point raised by my noble Leader. Can the noble Marquess say whether Her Majesty's Government accept that an average of £40 per head is appropriate compensation to the Jews who have suffered as slave labourers under this man, whose personal fortune is now estimated at a minimum of some £14 million?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it is really not for Her Majesty's Government to pass judgment on a gesture that is made voluntarily by a citizen of another country.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that in fact the original offer was raised to 10 million marks, which is nearly double the original offer, if such a sum was necessary? Would Her Majesty's Government not feel that it would be a little more generous and hopeful and constructive not to ridicule this offer, but to welcome it?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he would agree that this is not the first occasion on which my noble friend Lord Elibank has put a question on this matter; and would he agree that the reason for his repeated questions is presumably that he has not been able to get a very definite answer from the Government? And is that not because the Committee is called a"Mixed Committee"?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask, on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, whether any compensation is sufficient to meet the dreadful things that these people had to go through?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Marquess know what happened when 60,000 women were taken out of Auschwitz, and sent without shoes—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the noble Viscount must not make a speech and say what happened. My noble friend has given a definite answer. If the noble Viscount wants to make a speech he must put down a Motion, and we can then debate it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Surely the amount of compensation offered must be related to the suffering.

SILK IMPORTS FROM CHINA
2.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) whether representations were received from the trade associations concerned requesting an early increase in the"Board of Trade Notice to Importers No. 921" quota for silk from China;

(2) what increases have so far been made in the quota; and

(3) whether they can give an assurance that the full quota granted is intended to be additional to any amounts importers had contracted to purchase before the present import restrictions were imposed.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, after consultation with the trade interests concerned, it has been decided to increase the quota for Chinese silk piece goods from £250,000 to £380,000 for the current year. In reply to the third part of the Question, licences have been issued to cover firm orders placed before the control was announced, in addition to those issued in respect of the increased quota.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer, but does it not show that the original quota of £250,000 was restrictive and totally out of relation to the needs of the trade? Can the noble Earl give us this assurance: that it is not Her Majesty's Government's policy to restrict trade with China?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is our policy to increase trade. With regard to the size of the quota fixed in November, since then there has been a rather sudden and unexpected increase in the demand for silk.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, was not that due to pressure put upon the Government by the trade? Is that not the reason the quota was increased?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords. I do not think there has been any pressure put upon the Government by the trade, but the Government have consulted the trade interests about which the noble Viscount asked in the first part of his Question. The demand for silk to which I referred is a world demand which has increased very rapidly indeed in the last month or two.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, would the noble Earl feel able to give an indication to the House whether the balance of trade with China, after these revised arrangements, will still remain strongly in favour of Britain?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that is likely to happen, my Lords. The greater part of our trade with China is not restricted. The commodities which are subject to quota are not in fact, a very great proportion of the whole.
LORD BARNBY: I do not want to press the noble Earl, but the general question of trade with China is so important. As he is aware, many representations have been made about it. I raise it because by far the largest export to China is from the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I raise this point on the question of employment. I am sure the noble Earl will see the justification of this point—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, we must not get into the habit, when answers are given to Questions, of expressing our views on a wider question, or we shall get into debate. I am sorry, but as Leader of the House I must protect its interests.

BRITISH RAILWAYS' SITES
3.2 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will impress upon the British Transport Commission the desirability of putting on the market the

871
large number of sites held by the British Railways for which no operational use can be envisaged.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the British Transport Commission are already very much alive to this. The bulk of railway property surplus to foreseeable operational requirements has been sold. The balance is producing a useful revenue yield.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. May I take it that when these marshalling yards which are rendered out of date by being replaced by modern ones cease to be used, they will be put on the market for factory sites, and so on?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend should take that for granted at all, and I do not think I am justified in adding anything to what I have already said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the Commission ought not to be forced in any way to get rid of their assets in such a manner as they had to do, by Parliament's will, over road transport, but should retain the assets to use to the best of their judgment to the ultimate success of the whole organisation?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that, of course, would be desirable, I would agree with the noble Viscount. But as he well knows, the Commission are at the moment inhibited by the provisions of the Act of 1947 from making the best use of their assets. They have, however, applied to see whether something could be done, and that application is receiving attention at the present time.
LORD REA: My Lords, I do not ask for an answer now, but will the noble Lord bear in mind that much the same point applies in relation to the Ministry of Supply? There are a large number of buildings in similar positions.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think this would be quite the moment, in any case, for an answer to that question.

THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY
3.4 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to call attention to the state of the shipping industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I should first of all like to declare an interest in the shipping industry, and then I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the serious position in which the shipping industry finds itself to-day. In the past we have always known cycles in this industry, both good and bad, and in course of time the good has always succeeded the bad, but at the present time so many factors are operating against recovery that I feel that there is a great need for a new shipping policy. I need hardly add that the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry is largely dependent on shipping policy generally, and that we should, of course, consider the whole together.
The outlook for shipping and shipbuilding is indeed black, in spite of the fact that trade is booming and exports at a high level. In the past, prosperity in shipping has gone hand in hand with trade, but that is certainly not the case to-day. What are the factors which are operating against our mercantile marine? They are many and varied, and some of them are such that they cannot be dealt with by the industry themselves. If we are to have a new shipping policy, I suggest that Her Majesty's Government must be a party to it. British shipping cannot alone combat flag discrimination; it cannot combat the arbitrary action of foreign Governments, and it may even become necessary to consider acts of retaliation rather than let the industry become permanently weakened. Whatever happens, we cannot and we must not be left behind in our maritime race, and if other countries cannot be persuaded to cease flag discrimination and the provision of heavy subsidies, we may well be driven to do the same.
It is, of course, a platitude to say that shipping is a vital industry to us, but with some countries who own ships this is not by any means the case but is largely a question of national prestige, and the industry is subsidised accordingly. I maintain that we in this country on the basis of fair competition can provide the most economic shipping service in the world, but we cannot combat

873
foreign Government interference in shipping which is so prevalent at the present time. I repeat that we must have Government co-operation for a new shipping policy which must be realistic and able to produce results. An efficient industry should and can cope successfully with ordinary commercial competition, but I would say that it becomes a different matter when commercial factors are disturbed by political interference which is so prevalent at the present time.
Perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships of two flagrant and unconcealed cases of flag discrimination which have recently arisen. The Brazilian Government, despite no fewer than six formal protests about it, has recently issued a decree to ensure that 70 per cent. of Brazilian imports are carried in Brazilian flag ships. Again, the Guatemalan Government has decided to waive the 100 per cent. customs surcharge levied on imports into Guatemala, provided they are shipped in vessels of the national flag. There is no doubt that this type of cargo preference discrimination has by far the most damaging effect on international shipping. It applies not only to Brazil and Guatemala, but also to the Argentine, India, Chile and, of course, the United States.
It will be clear to your Lordships that the problems which face the shipping industry to-day are largely due to the fact that it cannot now trade on level terms with its competitors, owing to foreign Government interference. I think it is true to say that one of the root causes of difficulties in the shipping industry is the problem of finance related to taxation. The fact is that since the war it has been possible for foreign shipowners to borrow in the New York market most of the money for the purchase of new ships, and the finance houses who handle these matters know full well that they will get their money back quickly because taxation is so light and many of the vessels trade under flags of convenience.
On the other hand, the British owner, under heavy taxation, has to look on and watch the foreign owner forge ahead and expand his fleet with modern ships. I cannot help feeling that the shipping industry is heading for a first-class crisis when the tonnage at present building has been completed. It is, of course, true
874
that one of the answers is to speed up a policy of scrapping old ships. This is an excellent plan, provided the owner can replace his old ships with new ones, but some relief in taxation must be given to provide for it. I hope Her Majesty's Government will encourage the scrapping of old ships. If they are sold for trading they will almost certainly get into the hands of foreign operators who will compete against us and maintain the surplus world tonnage which exists to-day.
I believe a"scrap and build" policy was worked out some time ago but it was not proceeded with, but that is no reason why we should not try again. It is a fact that although we still lead the world as a maritime nation, our percentage in the world fleet ownership is dwindling year by year, and it is now down to 17 per cent. It is well worth remembering that 60 years ago it was as high as 50 per cent. Cannot we get Government co-operation among the nations of the world to induce owners to scrap all ships which are 20 years old and over? This would make a very marked difference in the shipping climate and we might begin to see a permanent improvement in the industry. Although many wartime ships are still in service most of those laid up, I expect, will not come back again.
I do not think it is generally realised what a curious, and one might almost say chaotic, state the shipping industry has got into. For example, difficulties to the dry cargo vessels have been greatly increased by the intrusion of oil tankers into the grain trade. Large new tankers are being employed to move grain cargoes, a duty for which they were never intended. I believe some 75 per cent. of the grain shipped out of United States ports to the Continent and India in the past twelve months was carried by tankers. In fact, since last August over one million tons of grain has been fixed in tankers.
There is one other point. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it has sometimes happened that Government Departments like the Board of Trade, the Treasury and the Commonwealth Relations Office, have acted, I would say quite unwittingly, in a manner which has not been in the best interests of shipping. I hope Her Majesty's Government will bear these factors in

875
mind. I wonder whether it is generally realised that at the present time no less than 6¼ million tons of world shipping are laid up. I am certain that this problem can be tackled only at international level. Cannot Her Majesty's Government take steps to renew the recent American talks on flags of convenience, discrimination and subsidies? I still feel that something could be done in that direction. I understand that the Minister of Transport during his recent visit to the United States to study road conditions did in fact have a conversation on shipping matters, and I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government can indicate to us what results, if any, were arrived at from those discussions. I believe an International Conference on safety of life at sea is to be held in this country in May. Could not this Conference be extended to cover international shipping practices which are harmful to this country and other nations of the world?
It is interesting to note the reasons which lie behind the policy of the United States in shipping. They claim that they must subsidise not only the building of ships but also their operations under their own flag because of high labour and operating costs. Again, it is for this reason that they support the registration of ships in almost tax-free countries. And last, but not least, a preference is given for the carriage of certain cargoes by United States ships.
It is certainly not a very happy picture for international shipping, and until something is done to alleviate these difficulties little improvement, I feel, can be expected. As I said before, we may have to consider protecting our own interests in the best way we can. We certainly cannot just let matters take their course; the problem is far too serious, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to indicate the policy they propose to pursue.
As regards taxation, might not a scheme be worked out which would permit shipowners to put aside a portion of their profits solely for the purpose of fleet replacement? The sum perhaps could be on loan to Her Majesty's Government and if not used for rebuilding it could be released after deduction of tax. It is high time that there should
876
be some entirely new re-thinking by the Treasury about the shipping industry, and time is running out. I suggest it is well to remember that the amount of foreign exchange earned for this country by United Kingdom shipping in 1952 amounted to £221 million and for 1958 it was down to £135 million. I would again repeat that there has been a steady and continuing fall in the relative share of United Kingdom shipping in world tonnage, and the writing on the wall is for everyone to see. There is no doubt that the industry is facing a deadly menace under present conditions, and I earnestly ask Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to promote a new shipping policy by all the means in their power. I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, on bringing forward this Motion, which deals with one of the most serious questions facing the Government at the present moment. I hope that when the Government do look at what confronts the shipping industry, they will first of all consider the competion which that industry has to face today, and will then consider the contribution which the shipping industry has made to our invisible exports in times gone by. And I hope the Government will ask themselves whether they can afford to neglect the shipping industry, with the possible serious loss of those invisible exports. It is quite clear that, if things go on as they are at present, with our shipping industry having to face the competition which at present confronts it, there will be a serious loss of those invisible exports which we cannot afford.
The prospect before the shipping industry at the moment is very unsatisfactory. The industry is confronted with a serious slump, and there is a very dangerous growth in flags of convenience (which are now called in America flags of necessity) and a great growth in what I think is even more dangerous than the flag of convenience; that is, the flag of discrimination. Also, of course, there is the question of subsidised shipping, subsidies for building ships and subsidies for operating ships. The expectations for the immediate future are certainly not bright, so that the introduction of this Motion to-day is very timely.

877
At the beginning of January this year there was a slight improvement in the situation: there were 127 ships laid up, with a tonnage of 784,000 tons, as against 135 ships at the beginning of December—just a slight improvement, but nothing very great. Of the ships laid up, 59 were dry cargo ships and 66 tankers. Together they represented 5 per cent. of Britain's merchant fleet. So that 5 per cent. of our fleet is laid up to-day. That is against a world average of 7 per cent. laid up, so we are just a little ahead of the world, though it is nothing to congratulate ourselves about. Even liner companies have had to take ships out of service, and the profits of many companies have slumped. For instance, the Cunard Company paid no dividend in 1959. The last report of Furness Withy showed that a profit of just under £4 million, £3,976,000, had come down to £2,157,000. Reardon Smith, another big company, in the first quarter of 1958 showed that their profit was down from £3 million-odd to £1,133,000.
Those are very significant and serious figures. The serious thing about them is that, even if world trade greatly improves, not all the laid-up tonnage will even again find employment; some of it will most certainly have to be scrapped. Although 751,000 tons of our Merchant Navy is of pre-1934 construction, it is a fact that five tankers built in 1958 and 1959, and two dry cargo ships, are to-day standing idle—new ships are standing idle while so much of the old tonnage is laid up and cannot find employment. World trade decreased by 3 per cent. in 1958, but world tonnage increased by 7 per cent. That is a serious thing—more new tonnage is coming to hand although world trade is decreasing. There are too many ships for the trade offering; that is the trouble which confronts us to-day. The Financial Times put it clearly and well in an article which read:
"The mounting total of tonnage has far outpaced any expansion one can expect in the near future in world trade. With new ships coming from the shipyards in large numbers and owners reluctant to scrap even elderly ships, this state is bound to continue unless shipowners can reach some agreement on a plan of control."
Freights have been rising, it is true, but they are still 17 per cent. below what they were in 1952, and the reports issued by the shipowners' organisations indicate
878
little or no anticipation of an early improvement.
Another side of this business of the slump is that the strength of the Merchant Navy fell in March, 1959, to 141,891 officers and men. That is the lowest figure ever shown since these figures were first issued. The strength of the Merchant Navy has been falling for nineteen consecutive months, a reduction of over 11,000 officers. I am told that parents now say that they do not want their boys to go to sea. While you have"never had it so good" ashore, the Government will find difficulty in getting 140,000 men prepared to give up better homes, cars and television. The British Merchant Navy is the largest in the world, and yet only 1 in 275 of the population go to sea—a remarkably low figure. Ships have got larger and faster, but the proportion of the population which goes to sea tends to decrease.
Shipowners do all they can to improve amenities afloat and to keep the wages they pay in step with shore wages, although they have also to keep in step with foreign competitors who are paying lower wages. Amenities afloat now are very good. There are single rooms for nearly all the crew, recreation spaces, air-conditioning, cinemas, swimming pools, libraries and television while in harbour. But life at sea must always be very different from life ashore, and its appeal to the population must inevitably be limited. What life at sea means is separation from wife and family. It is true that many, if not all, the tanker companies allow their masters' and chief engineers' wives to go to sea. But wives do not want to live at sea. It is not a life which appeals to the wife, certainly after the first trip or two. For one thing, it is not a life in which to bring up children. Leave, too, is a great problem. To-day, shipowners give good leave, but it has to be given at certain times. It may be that a man spends nine months at sea and three months at home. The three months at home are far too much—the average sailor wants to be back at sea again long before the three months are up. Of course, engineers find no difficulty whatever to-day in getting shore jobs. There is a great difficulty about seagoing engineers at the moment.

879
The prospects for tankers are rather brighter, although there are to-day far too many ships for the trade currently available. During 1959 new tankers for delivery totalled 8 million tons. During 1957 oil consumption increased by 9 per cent., but tanker carrying capacity increased by 14 per cent. So there were far more new tankers coming into service than the increased oil consumption required. It is the same thing again—too many ships are competing for too little trade. Trade may improve: indeed, it is improving in some directions. But it will not improve to such an extent as to mean employment for all existing ships and the new ships which are coming in steadily from the shipbuilding yards. In 1958 7 million tons were laid up while 9 million tons were launched, and in 1959 there were 10 million tons under construction. That is the position under the slump. The owners of old ships are in for a bad time. It is unprofitable to operate them, yet scrap prices have slumped from £10 to £12 a ton to as little as £5 to £5 10s. a ton.
The British shipping industry has always shown itself able to meet fair competition, but it is now facing competition which is unfair, uneconomic and uncommercial. Many countries to-day want a merchant navy for prestige, and for no other reason. For it has become an affair of prestige. Many such fleets which exist to-day could not possibly exist on an economic or commercial basis. These prestige fleets lead to building in excess of world trade requirements. World tonnage went up by 6,900,000 tons in 1959, and tanker tonnage went up by 4,300,000 in 1958; and there was not the trade to justify those developments. Pushed to extreme these practices could reach a point where normal operations become impossible. They are the negation of efforts to expand international trade, foster international friendship and improve standards of living.
To-day there are 15 million tons of flags of convenience shipping. During the past five years flag discrimination has been developed and practised by 40 of the 64 countries with which we were trading in 1957, so that those markets are lost to us. The discrimination takes
880
various forms. Its main form is that a Government stipulates that goods must be carried in national bottoms, regardless of what that may cost. Subsidies may be given to cover building and operating costs. In the next ten years 250 ships are to be built for American owners. Their cost, which will be 2½ billion dollars, will be subsidised to the extent of no less than one-half; that is to say, £400 million. That amount will be found by the Government towards the cost of building those ships. In 1957 16 American companies operating 300 ships received £50 million in operating subsidies. Germany has given shipowners interest-free loans. France is to pay 25 per cent. of the cost of the new liner"France", and Greece, Italy and Japan give special tax bonuses to shipping.
My Lords, how can our shipping industry be expected to compete in view of those difficulties? Surely it must be obvious to Her Majesty's Government that an altogether unfair handicap is being placed upon our shipping industry and that something should be done to help them. An attempt was made (if it can be called an attempt) at the Washington Conference last year. I remember that Conference very well, because—I will not say there was pressure, but at any rate it was suggested to me that I should postpone the Motion about the Merchant Navy which I had on the Order Paper in view of this wonderful Washington Conference which, apparently, was going to solve many of our problems. It appeared that it was desirable to wait and see what happened. I can tell your Lordships what happened—nothing. The Conference was a complete and absolute washout.
I believe that British shipowners are fairly reasonable people and what they were after at Washington was proposals for establishing machinery for examining the matters in dispute, so that world trade might be economically covered by international shipping. The organs of the American Press, from the very start of the Conference, represented it as, in the words of one newspaper:
"an out-and-out attack aimed at destroying the American Merchant Marine."
The fact, of course, was very different: it was an attempt to prevent the American Merchant Marine from destroying

881
some other merchant navies. It was also called:
"A broadside assault on the very foundation of our maritime policy as it exists today."
The truth is that subsidies are considered absolutely essential to enable America to compete with lower-cost foreign vessels, which are cheaper to build and to operate. It is true that last January President Eisenhower called for a reappraisal of maritime policies. Up to the time of the Conference, however, little had been heard from the State Department of any result from the President's call. Since the Conference I have not heard of anything more, and I think we may say that, so far, the President's call has yielded no result at all. Yet the American Press says—and I quote again:
"We do not want to hurt our allies' shipping, neither do we wish to hamstring our own fleet."
The two aims, however, are largely, if not entirely, incompatible. It is impossible to do both things. It is impossible to avoid hurting their allies' shipping and not hamstring their own fleet.
The fact is that on an even footing the American mercantile marine cannot compete with ours. In case I seem to have spoken rather harshly about the Washington Conference, let us have a look at the communiqué issued by the countries which took part—Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Federal Germany, Italy, Holland, Norway, Sweden and the U.S.A. The communiqué said:
"Very difficult and technical problems … require further study, so arrangements will be made to set up continuing informal machinery for this task."
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who is to reply, whether these"arrangements" have so far taken any shape whatsoever? I should also like to ask why there has to be"informal machinery". I do not see any need for it to be informal; but the main point is: has that informal machinery taken any shape whatsoever? The right honourable gentleman the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Watkinson, said at a Press conference:
"I am satisfied that we have made some useful progress at Washington."
Again, may I ask the noble Lord what the progress was? If some progress was made, surely by now it should have been
882
possible to say at once what the progress was. All we were told in the communiqué was that the
"full and frank exchange of views had been helpful towards establishing a closer harmony between their shipping policies."
Our old friends"full and frank" appear in every communiqué now, whatever it is about. They are words which have become quite meaningless. The communiqué continued:
"The representatives reaffirmed the general objective of their Governments to promote so far as practicable freedom of opportunity for all nations to compete in world trade and thus provide the most efficient service in the interest of the general economy of the free world."
Why cannot we be told what they did at this Conference to promote all these admirable objectives? It was also said:
"The representatives welcomed assurances by the United States that its subsidies are so administered as not to give subsidised operators an advantage over foreign competitors."
That, I think, is the gem in the communiqué. After all, if the subsidies are administered so as not to give any advantage, why on earth are they given? What is the point of giving them? I notice that the Conference lasted only four out of the scheduled five days, yet it was said:
"It was not possible to examine all the complex problems. They were agreed there was need for further exploration. They agreed to recommend informal arrangements to facilitate consideration of these problems."
My Lords, what has happened since the Washington Conference? What has been done to facilitate further consideration of these problems? It is fair to say, and I have no hesitation in saying, that nothing substantial was achieved at Washington. Mr. Watkinson may have been satisfied that useful progress was made, but who else was satisfied, and is the shipping industry of this country, to say nothing about other countries, as satisfied as was Mr. Watkinson that useful progress was made? The Conference seems to me to have agreed to the American national-flag policy and nothing was settled on subsidies and flags of convenience. Actually the communiqué accepted the American statement that subsidies are not given to effect an advantage over competitors.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, mentioned that Mr. Marples, when he was

883
recently in America, had had some conversations with the State Department arising out of the Washington Conference, and asked whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, could tell us what was the result of those conversations. Lord Teynham need not wait for the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to tell him. Exactly and precisely nothing whatever came out of those conversations between Mr. Morse (I believe it is) and Mr. Marples. The U.S.A. have refused the European proposal for a committee at ambassadorial level to investigate, to examine, shipping practices. They say it is putting the question too high altogether to push it up to ambassadorial level; that that would be making it far too important a matter. I do not think that our shipping industry regards Ambassadors as too important people to discuss the evils which are afflicting their industry at the present moment. As regards flags of convenience, that question has been very fully discussed in previous debates. I will only mention that last March a friend of mine saw at the Cape a 63,000-ton tanker and two 83,000-ton tankers able to load oil or minerals. They were built in a Japanese yard, leased to an American firm, and flying the Liberian flag. That is what is going on at the present moment.
My Lords, I should like to end by saying a word or two about shipbuilding. There are so many urgent matters that require discussion about the Merchant Navy at the present moment that it would take far too long to deal with all of them and I do not want to detain your Lordships unduly. But certainly one of these days we shall have to discuss replacements for the"Queens", which is a most important matter. However, on shipbuilding, I hope there may not be a building slump when the current order book is completed, but the outlook is very unfavourable. The Financial Times has cited orders lost to our shipbuilding industry because British shipyards quoted prices 10 per cent. to 40 per cent. higher than Continental prices, showing that Britain is being out-paced by her competitors while British shipbuilding output has remained static now for many years. In spite of new techniques which have been coming along, production has been well below capacity. For some time our prices have
884
been higher than those of our competitors, and delivery times very much slower. Competition in shipbuilding is keen, and orders go to the most attractive quotations for quality, price, credit terms, delivery dates and so on.
British shipyards have only few orders coming in for big ships. Output is being maintained, in fact, by working off a backlog of orders. I see that the President of the Shipbuilding Conference has said that the present order book of 4 million tons could include ships which may be cancelled if trade depression continues. The President called on the shipbuilding industry and its suppliers to examine production methods with a view to reducing costs and so enabling us to meet competition. The outlook for 1960 is very unfavourable for the shipbuilding industry for want of new orders; some yards may stop working. Believe me, good times are not just around the corner.
The present situation is due to the fact that between 1948 and 1958, in ten years, world shipyard output quadrupled from 2,300,000 to 9,300,000 tons. The expansion was overdone, wildly overdone, and contraction, of course, has followed. The history of our shipbuilding industry gives us a good place in the race, but not so good that it cannot be squandered by managements and men who refuse to put their house in order. All that has been built up could be lost in that way. My Lords, I hope that I have not wearied you by quoting figures, but it is really necessary to quote them to bring the seriousness of the present situation before you.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who I was delighted to see had been visiting the shipyards of the North-East Coast, congratulated those concerned on the fact of their having quite a number of new orders. But they were not really a very large number of orders. Anything is welcome, but two or three swallows do not make a summer, and something very drastic indeed is required to put shipbuilding and the shipping industry on its feet. A director of the Blythswood Shipping Company has suggested Government aid to eliminate out-of-date tonnage, a"scrap and build" scheme, or exemption from taxation if profits are reinvested in new ships. Something of that sort

885
is what is wanted. Although £4½ million worth of orders for North-East Coast builders is welcome, it does not amount to a revival, for several yards already have empty berths. My Lords, I hope that the Government will not resent-I am sure they will not—the facts I have tried to bring before them, because the present state of our shipbuilding industry is most serious and depressing for those who know the history of our shipbuilding and shipping industry, and how much the economy of this country has been built up through shipping. It is very depressing indeed to see so many ships laid up, freights not remunerative, and men leaving the sea. It is a very sad story, and I hope that the noble Lord will impress these facts, as I am sure he will, upon his right honourable friend, and will ask for these matters to be seriously considered and something done to restore our Mercantile Marine to the proud position it has occupied for so many long years in the past.

YOUTH SERVICE: THE ALBEMARLE REPORT
3.51 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not know, but I think that perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I repeated to your Lordships a statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Education is in process of making in another place. I will quote the statement in the actual words in which it is being made. My right honourable friend says:
"In November, 1958, my predecessor appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Lady Albemarle to review the contribution which the Youth Service of England and Wales can make in assisting young people to play their part in the life of the community, in the light of changing social and industrial conditions and of current trends in other branches of the education service. The Committee's Report has been published as a Command Paper to-day, and was available to honourable Members"—as it will be to your Lordships—
"in the Vote Office this morning. It makes valuable and timely proposals
886
for dealing with the changing needs of young people about which Parliament has shown that it is greatly concerned. On behalf of the Government I should like to thank Lady Albermarle and her colleagues for the speed and excellence of the work they have done.
"We accept in principle all the main recommendations for Government action. The Youth Service to-day is an alliance, without adequate resources, between the Ministry of Education, the local education authorities and the voluntary youth organisations. We have therefore much to discuss with our partners before deciding precisely how to act on the Albemarle recommendations. The necessary discussions will take place urgently. The Youth Service requires more voluntary and paid workers, more buildings and facilities for sport, more money and more enthusiasm. The Government have decided that these deficiencies must be made good, though everything cannot be done at once, and the will to succeed must come from the local areas at least as much as from the centre.
"The following are the important steps that we shall take. The Committee recommended that the present strength of 700 full-time youth leaders should be increased to 1,300 by 1966. The Government will finance most of this expansion in training facilities by Exchequer grant, and I hope an emergency training college will be open by January 1, 1961. The recruitment of leaders will turn on the salaries offered and the opportunities for transfer to other careers after a period in the service. I shall ask the interested parties to examine with me how we can carry out the Committee's recommendation on this matter. The need for new buildings is urgent and in the next two years 'starts' will be authorised for building by the local authorities and voluntary organisations up to £3 million. Grants to voluntary projects will be increased. Much of the accommodation used by the Youth Service to-day is shared with other forms of educational activity; given proper design and planning this can be a considerable advantage and will be encouraged.

887
"Turning to current finance, grants will be increased for the headquarters' expenditure of the voluntary organisations and also for approved experiments in attracting young people now not using the Youth Service. Some organisations will get larger grants, others will receive grants for the first time. The Committee recommended that a Youth Service Development Council should be appointed of some 12 persons chosen for their special qualities and experience. A Council of this nature will have to work very closely with the Minister, if only because the job to be done is urgent and largely experimental. To begin with, the work will be most easily planned and executed if I take the chair of this Council myself".
That, of course, is in my right honourable friend's words.
"The Government believe that as these proposals are translated into action enthusiasm for the Service will grow. We look forward to full co-operation with the local education authorities and believe that volunteers and voluntary funds will increase on a scale that will ensure the success of the drive for expansion".
My Lords, that is the statement which has just been made by my right honourable friend.
3.57 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sure that all of us on this side—and it may be that I am speaking for other noble Lords also—will wish to thank the Government for making the statement so early in the day in this House, as in another place. I am sure that everyone in the House will wish to join in paying tribute to the noble Lady, Lady Albemarle, and her colleagues for their devoted work. The House will remember that about a year ago we held a full debate on the Youth Service which I think was regarded as being a debate of the first importance. So far as can be traced, it was the only time that this House had ever debated the Youth Service, and I am not aware that in another place they have ever debated the subject: all of which was perhaps symptomatic of the fact that in recent years the Youth Service has not received
888
as much attention in our national thinking as was desirable. In that debate very severe criticisms were made of the handling by the authorities of the Youth Service in recent years—criticisms which, so far as I can judge after a hasty glance at the Albemarle Report, are well supported by the Report itself.
I do not think that the House or the noble Viscount will wish me to offer some hasty—and probably therefore illjudged—comments about the character of the Report. I am extremely glad to see that the Government are accepting in principle all the main recommendations. That is certainly good news; but I think it would be very premature, without having read the Report, to say that we consider it a good Report or a very good Report, though both phrases may well apply to it. I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount; I repeat our tribute to the noble Lady, Lady Albemarle, and her colleagues; and I feel sure that the House will wish to debate this historic Report at an early date.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to endorse everything that has fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. We in this House are all indebted to Lady Albemarle. All who are interested in the youth movement—and, ultimately, even those who are not interested in the youth movement—will, I am sure, feel a debt of gratitude to her and her Committee. I must confess a certain interest in this matter, being connected with one of these movements, which is known as the Outward Bound Trust: but, having said that, I should like to say that I welcome the fact that money is coming along to help those trying to get this movement going. Finally, I particularly welcome the fact that the Minister himself is taking such an interest in the matter and is associating his Ministry with the progress which it is hoped will be made.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to both noble Lords for what they have said. I think that most of us who are interested in educational matters have felt for some while that the time would come for an advance in the Youth Service. That certainly was my impression as a result of the debate last year; and I am very glad that it has fallen

889
to my right honourable friend to announce that advance. I am sure that the noble Lady who is responsible for the Report will be glad to know that both noble Lords have endorsed the gratitude which has been expressed by the Government, so that she may be sure that her devoted public work is appreciated in every political quarter.

THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY
4.0 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, may I also start by declaring an interest, in that I, too, am a director of a shipping company. I do not propose to touch on many of the points which have already been mentioned this afternoon, but it is so important that there should be no misunderstanding about the present state of the shipping industry that on this subject I would ask your Lordships' indulgence if, in different words, I again emphasise the gravity of the position. In the recent past, one has seen articles in the Press from which it might be possible to believe that the shipping industry is well on its way towards recovery from the slump of the last couple of years, but the facts are that this is only partially true for parts of the industry.
There has been some revival in the demand for tramp shipping and some improvement in rates, but on January 1 of this year there were laid up for lack of employment in the world over 500 dry cargo ships and over 300 tankers, with a combined gross tonnage considerably in excess of 6 million. Moreover, at that date, in order to avoid lay-up, there were also ships steaming at half-speed and routed, for example, round Africa instead of through Suez. Taken as a whole, the picture can scarcely be described as prosperous and the owner of the tramp, and more particularly the owner of the tanker, has little hope today of a profitable charter and must only decide whether continued trading will be less costly than lay-up.
When, first under the influence of Korea and then of Suez, the volume of ocean traffic continued to rise, in association with a rapid rise in freights, the tonnage ordered from the world's shipyards vastly exceeded what even then might
890
have been foreseen to be, and now clearly is, the maximum required. Apart from the melancholy picture of over 6 million gross tons of shipping swinging idly at its moorings, the turn of the tide is still some time ahead, for the committed output of the world's shipyards can only aggravate that position for the next several years. Not only were too many ships ordered, but under the influence of these orders the shipbuilders of the world expanded their facilities to such an extent that now it is broadly true to say that the world has capacity to build per annum approximately twice the tonnage which seems likely to be required to meet increasing trade and the retirement of obsolete ships.
I do not propose to speak of the problems which are facing the shipbuilding industry, except in so far as those problems bear on the shipping industry itself. In the shipbuilding industry, there can be no escape from the prospect that some capacity must lie idle for a long time—and indeed there are already empty berths in British yards—and the yards which remain active will be those Which can do the best job cheapest and can be relied upon in all circumstances to meet delivery dates. It is true that through traditional loyalty, and to some extent through convenience, some shipowners may continue to place orders in their own countries and with builders not necessarily meeting the criteria to which I have referred, but those orders will be at best the bread, and the butter—let alone the jam—will be missing unless those shipyards are fully competitive with others throughout the world.
In the last war, the shipyards of Great Britain did not suffer the wholesale destruction experienced by their competitors on the Continent and in the Far East, and while at the time this appeared to be fortunate, the fact now is that only with great difficulty and at great expense have they been able to modernise to compete with shipyards totally rebuilt in devastated ports. To that extent already they are at a disadvantage. But a further and more serious disadvantage exists. Historically, the pioneer ultimately suffers because his unit is too small. I refer in this case to the history and present structure of the trade unions. Your Lordships will recollect that in almost every country with which our shipyards must compete there is now the system that there is only one union per

891
shipyard; and if, for example, a boilermaker is asked to do a small electrical job, he is required to do it even though he may not be so skilled at it as the electrician. This has not only the obvious advantage to the shipyard that it avoids such ludicrous disputes as that about the chalk lines, which for many weeks virtually immobilised one of our greatest shipyards, but also the greater advantage that labour can be more efficiently deployed and that the costly delays while waiting for someone else to do part of a job can be eliminated.
While these are problems primarily facing the shipbuilding industry, they have a very direct bearing on the shipping industry, for even after the unwanted ships of 1960 and 1961 have been added to the existing surplus, there will remain the excess building capacity, constantly ready and anxious again to build more ships than the world can possibly employ. In such an economic blizzard I submit that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything possible to ensure that the British Merchant Navy bears, at worst, no more than its share of the disaster.
In the fulfilment of this duty, Her Majesty's Government seem likely to be faced with the dilemma of helping the shipbuilding industry without, on the other hand, adding ships to the existing surplus. Clearly, much of the older and less efficient tonnage will need to be scrapped, and this applies at least as much to British ships as it does to our competitors. It may well be that Her Majesty's Government will soon have to consider how to encourage the scrapping of old ships, and in this connection surely the time has come to grant to the ship-breakers unlimited licence to sell their scrap wherever they will for the best price it can fetch, to bring to an end the controls still operative in this industry. And scrapping may need to be linked to some sensible arrangement for the building of the new tonnage which, taking the long-term view, will ultimately be required. Meanwhile, it may be that this is the time, with the increased prosperity of the country, for the Admiralty to increase the expenditure on craft for anti-submarine defence.
And on this subject of scrapping, a further point arises. Both the Admiralty
892
and the Ministry of Transport own merchant ships. Recently, some tankers belonging to the Admiralty, being no longer required, were sold to foreign owners, and reportedly at very low prices. Surely Her Majesty's Government could give a lead in such a case and dispose of such ships for scrap rather than put them into competition with the industry. The case of the tankers is water over the dam, but there is another similar case which is about to arise. An old German passenger ship, the"Potsdam", built almost a quarter of a century ago, was taken over at the end of the war and since that time has been operating as a troopship under the name,"Empire Fowey.". She is now surplus to trooping requirements. To sell her foreign and into competition with the British Merchant Navy might realise a trifling sum in excess of her scrap value. Would Her Majesty's Government not give a lead in this case by withdrawing her permanently from the seas, either into reserve or preferably for scrap?
This brings me to the question of the competitive background of the operations of British shipping. On the credit side, no one has suggested, nor—and I say this without fear of contradiction—can it be suggested that British ships and the men who sail them are inferior to those of any nation in the world. Perhaps it is even because of this truth that there have developed in other countries the now all too familiar three evils, of flag discrimination, of flags of convenience and of wholesale subsidies. Of these there can be little doubt that the most vicious, because it is the most insidious, is the evil of flag discrimination whereby, through the medium of trade treaties and otherwise, traffic is withdrawn from international competition and is restricted, regardless of cost, in whole or in part to ships of the countries concerned. It is to the credit of Her Majesty's Government that steps have been taken to demonstrate, particularly in the United States, the grave dangers of this practice.
It has been suggested that the United States' administration is conducted in such watertight compartments that one branch might be ignorant of the effect of its policy on that pursued by another branch. But, my Lords, that is not a peculiarity of the United States Government; indeed one sees the same thing

893
happening here in London. The praiseworthy enthusiasm to press the export drive seems to be developing a pattern whereby our exports are sold f.o.b. the British the port and our imports purchased c.i.f.; and moreover, there have been cases where the exports have been sold f.o.b. any British port, leaving it to the buyer to nominate the port, and one has seen the absurdity of Scottish manufactures being hauled by our overloaded inland transport system to English ports, rather than shipped direct from Scotland. Far be it from us, my Lords, to suggest that we should engage in flag discrimination, and while I would not suggest that all, or even a fixed proportion, of our exports should be sold c.i.f., I do suggest that Her Majesty's Government should take the greatest care never to agree to a condition that sales should be made f.o.b., or purchases c.i.f. Let it be left free.
With regard to the second evil, of flags of convenience, much has already been said. Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to recognise the unique position of the shipping industry and to grant the investment allowance, which is valuable, so far as it goes; but it does not go far enough to enable the British owner to compete on equal terms with the Liberian. In the case of a new enterprise it is possible for British shipping to obtain the advantage of colonial ownership, but surely it is illogical that this should be granted to a new enterprise yet be withheld from the shipping companies upon whom this country has depended, and will again depend, for its very life. I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will not again consider the possibility of allowing existing shipping enterprises the same latitude in colonial ownership as is allowed to new enterprises.
Finally, my Lords, I come to the evil of subsidies. These are likewise insidious, but they are probably the only method whereby a high-cost country can maintain both the shipyards and the shipping which it requires and by which, in most exceptional circumstances, specialised ships can be brought into being. Subsidies can, however, get out of control. In some cases this has already happened, and there are signs of increasing use of subsidies which, in the end, is bound to lead to an increased burden on the taxpayer. There is talk
894
of the use of subsidies to chase this will-of-the-wisp prestige. But what is prestige? The dictionary says that prestige is"influence or reputation derived from past achievements"; and in this context achievement can scarcely be limited to the building of something very big or very fast. Achievement means the doing of something well, taking all factors, including economics, into consideration. It follows that subsidised prestige is almost a contradiction in terms, for it is influence or reputation without regard to economies, and, therefore, without regard to achievement; and I submit that the taxpayer should be asked to subsidise prestige only when there is a real chance of achievement. Here I refer not only to the possible use of public funds to purchase shipping prestige, particularly in the North Atlantic, but also, and much more important, to its purchase in the air.
The prevalence of subsidies, either direct and open, or hidden in the form of excessive payments for the carriage of mail, or of aircraft provided by Governments at nominal cost, or the expenditure of vast and increasing sums on research and development, or the provision and servicing by Governments of increasingly elaborate and expensive airports, makes it well-nigh impossible to arrive at a sound assessment of the economics of air transport; but there can be few who believe that the price of many air transport services bears any relation to the true cost of their provision. To this extent the present system is imposing upon world transport in general an artificial element which is not in the best general interest. Hitherto there have been recognised commercial considerations which have enabled sound business enterprises to decide whether they can secure finance to enable them to build a factory, to dig a mine or construct a railroad. Are these considerations to be different, and is the path of development to be for ever artificially smoothed for air transport? In the hunt for this will-of-the-wisp prestige it is estimated that within the next five years several thousand perfectly good propeller aircraft will be declared redundant and placed on the market at prices far below those to which they could have been written down out of their own true earnings.
My Lords, I suggest that if shipping is to thrive the aircraft industry must be

895
brought to a healthier condition, and this will not be achieved if this will-of-the-wisp continues to be hunted at the expense of the taxpayer. Here I refer particularly to the recent proposal that uneconomic air fares should be even further reduced. I suggest that, before further public funds are channelled into the aircraft industry and the airlines, we should stop and think what we are doing to one of our most important industries.
4.15 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must declare two interests. The first is a bread-and-butter one, in that I am a director of a shipping company. The second is one of blood, in that a good deal of salt water flows in my veins from both sides of my family. However, as befits a landlubber, I hope this afternoon to keep pretty close inshore. Wishing to avoid deep water, I should like to make it clear that the views which I am about to express are very personal indeed. The shipping industry is faced with grave and profound problems which have been diagnosed by previous speakers in this debate far more ably than I could diagnose them. The last thing I wish to do is to try to teach my marine grandfathers or their descendants how to suck eggs. Rather, therefore, than try to suggest how the industry should conduct its affairs, I should like to outline certain ways in which I feel the Government could help it to help itself. However, before trotting out my ideas I should like to refer briefly to one particular aspect of the general problem. It concerns our trade with the O.E.E.C. countries, our neighbours in Europe.
Successive Government White Papers on the balance of payments indicate that, while in our trade with all other regions of the world our shipping services produce a substantial credit balance, in our trade with Europe these services are very much in the red. In 1957 the debit was well over £100 million, and although there has been an upswing since then the debit for the first half of 1959 was running at a rate of £50 million annually. Save for that, the already very great reinforcement which British shipping brings to our balance of payments would have been substantially greater. It may be that there is some simple statistical explanation for this curious break in
896
the pattern of the earnings of our shipping industry. If so, I should be glad to receive it. If not, I suggest that it is a matter at which the Government and the industry should look rather closely. I am sure that there is no quick or easy answer to the industry's problems. But much, I believe, turns on the approach which animates those responsible for the industry, whether they be in Government or in the industry itself.
Put simply, I believe that that approach should have two main ingredients. The first should be the recognition that, as with most modern complex industries, there is an increasing need for a real and fruitful partnership between industry and Government. Both (and this is increasingly recognised by all maritime countries) have their part to play, and those parts are becoming increasingly interdependent. Secondly, I believe that all those responsible—and this very much includes Government—should regard the present as a moment of opportunity. Very often the foundations of prosperity are laid through vigour and imagination in times of difficulty. Never was this more true than today, given the pace of technical development and the quick swings in the economic pendulum. Believing this, I should like to suggest certain areas in which Government and the two industries, shipping and shipbuilding, should in partnership pursue forward-looking policies—in fleet modernisation and operation, which entails a thoroughgoing application of modern technology to the industry, and in what I should like to term shipping diplomacy.
First, fleet modernisation. It is vital that the British merchant marine, whatever its size, should be as efficient as possible, in order to weather the present storms and to be in a position to take full advantage of what we hope will be calmer weather ahead. Now I know that youth is only one yardstick of efficiency, and one which in your Lordships' House it would perhaps be unwise unduly to labour. But with ships, if not with Peers, youth has a direct bearing on efficiency, and if one compares the age of our merchant fleet with those of some of its rivals the results are not altogether reassuring. I have looked at the comparative figures for the percentage of the main world fleets under five years old. At the top of the league is Liberia, with

897
nearly 6 million tons of new shipping, representing 49 per cent. of the Liberian fleet. Given the flag, perhaps this is not surprising. But second, with 42 per cent. of new shipping, is our old friend Norway. We are fourteenth on the table, with only sonic 26 per cent. of our tonnage under live years old.
That is not all. First of all, our comparative position is at the moment getting worse rather than better. Secondly—and I know that what I am about to say may be contentious, and perhaps may land me in deeper or hotter water than I had wished to navigate in—I believe that, by and large, ship for ship, year for year, type for type, it is broadly speaking true to say that until very recently the Norwegian fleet, at least, was in quality and design ahead of us. For the premier shipping nation of the world I frankly do not believe that that is good enough. I believe, on the contrary, that it should be our considered objective, and a national objective, to ensure that in age and design our merchant fleet is as young and as good as that of any of the traditional maritime nations. I am certain myself that, given the necessary will and an effective partnership between industry and Government, this can be achieved. Ships now are a little cheaper to build than they have been until quite recently. Nevertheless, of course, it needs courage, and encouragement, to embark on big building programmes at the present time.
I know that many schemes are being canvassed at present to encourage new construction. I should like in that context to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, with his great authority, has said about scrapping and scrap prices. I should also like to endorse the reference which he made to the investment allowance. Finally in that context, I should like to make a small suggestion which perhaps concerns the British shipbuilder; rather than the British shipowner. I have visited a number of yards recently, and I have received, I suppose like anybody who visits that highly individualistic industry, a wide variety of replies to my questions as to the sort of aid which the shipbuilding industry might wish the Government, in this time of difficulty, to furnish. But one and all were unanimous in pointing to the challenge presented by the credit facilities which foreign yards are now offering.
898
I gather that 30 per cent. down on delivery, and repayment of the remaining 70 per cent. over, say, seven years, is now fairly common practice abroad; and with their present credit facilities that type of credit competition is difficult, if not impossible, for British yards to meet. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to examine with the two industries what can best be done to reinforce the existing credit facilities for new construction.
Modernisation implies not only new ships but also new methods. It means that the fruits of modern technology should be systematically channelled back into the industry as a whole. And, given the pace of modern scientific and technological development, it means that British shipping and shipbuilding must run very fast indeed if they are to outdistance their rivals. There is, I am sure, a growing awareness of all this throughout the industry. But I am inclined to doubt whether that awareness is yet sufficient. For example, on the ship-owning side, I doubt whether there is yet sufficient realisation of the need for a greater extension of scientific management and trade promotion methods. On the shipbuilding side, to take one of a number of possible examples, I doubt whether in this country at present there is a sufficient research and development effort being directed towards the marine diesel engine.
In my view, this whole field is preeminently one for partnership between industry and Government. But I am also inclined to doubt whether in Whitehall there is yet sufficient general realisation of the part which Government could possibly play in this matter. I have at hand the 1958 Annual Report of the United States Federal Maritime Board. In it one reads of the establishment of a joint Industry-Government research development programme, with considerable public funds at its disposal, aimed at placing the American merchant marine—I now quote the words of the Report—
"In the forefront of world-wide shipping."
We know that public funds are made available in this country to assist marine research, but it is all on a modest scale—very modest indeed compared with the support which the aircraft industry has enjoyed in the past, and to which the

899
noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred. However, given a positive approach there are any number of fields which a broadly based and adequately financed Industry-Government programme could, in my view, cover.
Just as examples, there are already in hand studies in a number of crucial fields of marine research like the relationship between the age and performance of a vessel, the relationship between hull smoothness and its performance, and various anti-fouling techniques—perhaps rather humdrum but vitally important. More funds in this sort of sphere would produce quicker results. A further example is nuclear propulsion. It seems clear, even given the likely fall in the price of uranium, that a nuclear-powered merchant vessel will not be an economic proposition for some time to come. Yet there is a need, in my view, for a real sense of urgency in our research and development in this field if we are not to be left far behind by the Americans and Russians.
I therefore welcome the Government's decision to call for tenders for two propulsion systems and also the establishment of a shipowners' consortium. Nevertheless, I must admit to certain reservations. The"Savannah" will be visiting European ports this year, I gather. We ourselves must get a nuclear-powered merchant vessel or vessels to sea before too long, because it is only with practical seagoing experience that one will get the kinks out. I sincerely hope that there will not be another long delay after tenders are received and before contracts are placed. I also hope that the Government will not adopt a cheeseparing attitude towards the owners' consortium, because it seems clear that with this type of research—fundamental, expensive, and with no promise of early economic return, yet nevertheless vital—the necessary financing should come largely, if not exclusively, from public funds. Finally, I hope that the decision to call for tenders for these two systems means that further Government-supported research and development in this field will not be restricted merely to these two systems. Other less developed systems may ultimately prove better for marine propulsion. I trust, therefore, that research,
900
at least, if not development, will be pushed over a broad front.
My Lords, modern ships are meaningless without modern ports. I believe that by and large our major ports to-day compare unfavourably with those of our Western European trade rivals; that Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp are, broadly speaking, better equipped and more efficient than Liverpool or London. I have some personal experience of Birkenhead, through which a large amount of export tonnage from Merseyside and the Midlands flows. In many ways Birkenhead is still a part of what one might call the China Clipper era, and that in an age of containerised cargo. Cramped and constricted quaysides. A lack of cranes. Gloomy Victorian sheds. And then, as a symbol that after all this is 1960, a vast queue of lorries waiting to unload their cargoes. What this sort of thing spells in terms of ships' turn-round times, of low productivity, of bad labour relations possibly, of higher export costs—in short, of inefficiency—I shudder to think.
Here again, in helping to give our ports and our cargo-handling techniques a real face lift I feel that Government, in partnership with industry, could bring about, if we were all so minded, a really dramatic improvement. May I suggest some possibilities? First, I believe that the time has come for a further high-level review of our port facilities, with particular reference to the best European and American practice. Secondly, I believe that, should such a review disclose a clear need for major improvement schemes beyond the resources of the existing port authorities, the Government should be prepared to give financial backing. There is a precedent there—to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, perhaps tossing the penny from the reverse side, referred—and that is the financial support which Government give to airport development. Thirdly, I hope that where the Government have a more direct responsibility, as with the Transport Commission ports, they will set the pace by way of rapid port improvements. Fourthly, I trust that improved rail and, above all, road access to ports, especially in urban areas, will receive priority in our road and rail programmes. Finally, I feel that Government and industry, and indeed labour, could well co-operate in

901
inaugurating pilot schemes for testing improved cargo-handling techniques.
The other area in which the Government could make its partnership with the shipping industry more effective is the diplomatic field, that of intergovernmental consultation. It is an odd paradox that when the general trend in world trading relations is towards more collaboration and less discrimination, with shipping, the most international of trades and on which modern trade is almost exclusively dependent, precisely the reverse is the case. There the jungle of discrimination grows thicker every day. Unfortunately, as we have again heard emphasised, quite rightly, this afternoon, the position is intractable, since it stems in great measure from the understandable desire of the United States to have, against an emergency, a large pool of merchant shipping directly or indirectly under its control. But the solution is made all the more difficult since discrimination is again the natural, if not always economically justifiable, weapon of new countries who want their flags to fly upon the oceans of the world. For them the national shipping line and the national airline are just as much the marks of independence as the anthem or the flag.
The roots of discrimination in shipping therefore go very deep. It is, in my view, vain to suppose that we shall ever entirely eradicate them, and perhaps we are slowly but surely moving towards the logical but absurd result of discrimination where ships will travel one way full and one way empty. In this age of emergent nationalism it is easy to be pessimistic about this process, and the difficulties of getting effective international consultation under way, even with our American friends and allies, has been shown by the barrenness of last year's shipping discussions in Washington, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred in such harsh terms.
Nevertheless, I am inclined to wonder whether the time may not be ripe for a renewed effort. At a time when there is a growing concern in America over the American balance of payments position, the American taxpayer may be more inclined to question the economic justification for the large subsidies which he provides for the American Merchant
902
Marine. Moreover, if we and the Americans are edging away from the doctrine of broken-backed naval warfare after the initial nuclear exchange, the strategic argument for a large reserve of merchant shipping is that much weaker. Again, as the Americans become more conscious of the dangers of European discrimination against American trade they may be more receptive to European sensitivity to American discrimination against European shipping.
In any event, my Lords, there seems to be a growing realisation on both sides of the Atlantic that the hest way of harmonising European and North American economic policies may lie in some extension of the North Atlantic concept, in the proposition, as Sir Oliver Franks recently put it, that 6 plus 7 equals 15. The O.E.E.C. has had an effective Maritime Consultative Committee, and there now appears a possibility of enlarging O.E.E.C. into an Organisation for Atlantic Economic Co-operation. As a result of American initiative, a high-level official group are now studying the possibilities in Paris. Could it not now be proposed, as a result of British initiative, that a maritime committee should form an integral part of any new international organisation they may hatch up? As I understand it, the function of any new international organisation of this sort would be to harmonise the economic policies of its member States and to co-ordinate the aid policies of the industrialised countries towards the less developed countries.
But are not shipping policies part and parcel of economic policies? And might not this new body prove a useful forum for frank consultation between the industrialised and the less developed countries designed to ensure that aid is used as productively as possible and that, to this end, the most economical and mutually beneficial use is made of available shipping services? I hope that the Government may be prepared to examine the possibility of such an initiative, which would, I am sure, commend itself to our friends in Europe.
My Lords, having spoken for far too long, I believe I could have said what I have to say in two sentences. They are these. This is, I believe, not only a time of present difficulty but also one of potential opportunity for British shipping. In my view, it offers for this

903
unique industry real possibilities, given a really effective partnership between vigorous private and progressive public enterprise, both inspired with at least a dash of what I should like to term the"Jackie Fisher" spirit.
4.40 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I am sure that the House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for putting down this Motion on the British shipping industry this afternoon. Noble Lords seem to have generated an atmosphere of extreme gloom, although I think I detected a little more optimism in the speech of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I hope to strike a note of slightly greater encouragement than some noble Lords who have spoken to-day. I think I should declare an interest like other noble Lords, as I am a director of a company which owns and operates tankers and bulk carriers under the British flag; and I have also been concerned in recent years in finding substantial sums of capital for British shipping, particularly for tankers.
There is no doubt that the shipping industry is in a state of decline and that this fact is serious for the nation in view of the important position which the industry has occupied in our national economy up to now; but the more so because of the tremendous scope which there is for the future. The extent and rate of decline can be seen all too clearly in the statistics. To my mind, it does not matter so much that the United States has by now overtaken us as the greatest maritime Power in the world, as that we are almost stagnating while other nations are forging ahead with considerable success. Table 3 of the recently published booklet by P.E.P. on the British shipping industry shows that in the last ten years world tonnage has increased by about 50 per cent., and during this time the defeated nations of the last war, together with a number of the Western European countries that were occupied during the war, such as the Netherlands and Norway, have added greatly to their fleets and to their share of the sea-borne trade; whereas ours has virtually stagnated and we have made almost no progress at all.
I should like to suggest to your Lordships three reasons why we have not been competing successfully with other
904
countries—three reasons which I believe are not normally given sufficient prominence when these matters are discussed. Before doing so, I should like to add that I think that the slack time in the shipping industry at the moment should be seen in its proper perspective—that is, as a levelling off or a pause in what is otherwise an expanding and growing industry in the world. The first reason which I believe has caused us to fall behind some other countries in the last ten years is the failure of British shipping companies fully to appreciate the change in the trend of the pattern of world trade. With the rise of nationalism all over the world there has been an increasing desire to establish local manufacturing industries. This, in turn, has usually led to an increase in the import of raw materials and sources of energy.
The move towards nationalism has also speeded up the demand for higher standards of living, which has also been accompanied in many areas by an increase in the import of food and raw materials and, again, sources of energy, particularly oil. At the same time, the older industrial communities in North America and in Western Europe, in order to sustain their expanding economies, have also increased their import of raw materials and energy. Conversely, the volume of manufactured goods moving over the long trade routes of the world has not expanded to the extent which might have been expected in view of the tremendous expansion in the world economy during the post-war years. As a result, the volume of general dry-cargo traffic has not increased greatly from year to year during the post-war period—in fact, in 1958 it actually fell back a little.
This has resulted in tankers and bulk carriers becoming of predominant importance in the expansion of ocean going fleets. In fact, if you look back over the last twenty years, whereas the tonnage of dry cargo and passenger ships in the world fleets has increased by about 50 per cent., the tonnage of tankers has increased by no less than 300 per cent. The British shipping industry has not really seized the opportunity of getting its fair share of this section of expansion of the world shipping industry, which, after all, was there really for the taking. The second reason why we are not competing successfully is, in my

905
view, that there has been a revolution in the size of ships, and in this matter, too, we are lagging behind more enterprising countries. The reason for the absolute necessity for the increase in the size of ships is that the capital cost per ton decreases as the size of the ship increases, and on the long voyages running costs and fuel consumption are also less with big ships. It should always be borne in mind that the depreciation of the original capital cost far outweighs all other operating costs with ships.
Thirdly, but perhaps of greatest importance, we have failed to provide the necessary finance for new tonnage. Here, some part of the blame, I think, must be attached to Her Majesty's Government, because the investment allowances which reduced the burden of taxation were introduced too late and, in the first instance in 1954, were too little. However, I do not believe that this in any way absolves the shipping companies and the financial institutions from a really singular lack of enterprise in seeking ways of competing with other nations for this growing trade. It was always open to the shipping companies to base operations in Bermuda or in the Bahamas, and thereby to put themselves in a position to compete on absolutely equal terms with the Scandinavian owners who had their own tax concessions, or American and Greek owners who use flags of convenience or, as they prefer to call them, flags of necessity.
There was a period when the Exchange Control regulations in this country made it difficult for British owners to order ships abroad. However, of greater importance either than the question of taxation or the Exchange Control difficulties, and indeed after both these impediments had been removed, was the fact that the United Kingdom financial institutions were most reluctant to advance money on ships unless they were built in United Kingdom yards, although at that time—I am speaking of the period up to the beginning of last year, the post-war period—it was difficult for owners to get ships in British yards at satisfactory prices and with reliable delivery dates. So all these factors combined to make it very difficult for British shipowners to compete successfully with owners abroad who could build in, say, Sweden or Japan, get prompt and reliable delivery dates and
906
enter into charters with major oil companies, when British owners had to deliver the ship or possibly lose the benefit of a seven-year contract; and also foreign owners were able to get the necessary financial backing.
The question of lack of finance in this country, however, went even deeper than that. While the New York banks and life insurance companies were doing magnificent business in lending money secured on mortgage, together with a charter from one of the great international oil or steel companies, and, in some cases, lending as much as 100 per cent. of the cost of new vessels, it was quite impossible, until recently, to place even the highest class of that type of business in London. That was a severe impediment for anyone wishing to finance ships under the British flag.
If anyone doubts the extent to which we have lagged behind in taking our share of this expansion of bulk-carrying in the post-war years, he need only look at the records of some of the great independent fleets built up by the American, Greek and Scandinavian owners, and the very fine record of size, speed of ships and profit to see the extent to which we have missed our opportunities. I mentioned earlier that the whole subject of shipping was of great importance now, not so much became the industry is in difficulties and in a state of decline but because of the tremendous opportunities which lie ahead. I believe the trend of the last ten years is going to continue and that there will be an increase in the demand for large, modern and efficient ships to carry the world's iron ore, oil and other bulk commodities, as well as, of course, passengers and dry cargo.
Ships flying the British flag are just as well placed in present conditions to compete for this trade as the fleets of any other nation. Taxation in the United Kingdom is not too burdensome now with the 40 per cent. investment allowance, and if it is essential there is nothing to stop shipping from being based in other parts of the Commonwealth where tax is lower. In the meantime, financial institutions in the City have at least"got their feet wet" and there is every indication that it may be possible to finance first-class business with less difficulty than in the past, although one must say that the London

907
institutions are still far less sophisticated and less flexible in their terms and attitude than their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic.
If there is scope for the future, there is also no doubt that competition is going to become more severe. I believe we can compete, but only if the British shipping industry makes an enormous effort to reorientate itself, modernise its methods, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has mentioned, and also to modernise some of its basic thinking. Large amounts of fresh capital are going to be required and personally I cannot see them being forthcoming—at any rate in competition with other demands for capital—unless the performance in terms of profits and growth in the next decade is very much better than it has been in the last decade.
Then, again, the next ten years will see greater changes in the transport industry and in shipping than there have been in the last ten years. Nuclear energy will be introduced in shipping propulsion. There will be specialised types of shipping, for example, for carrying methane gas at low temperatures; and new types of cargo-handling will be introduced with roll-on, roll-off techniques, palletisation and other modern developments. In all this, and in other things too, this country should be, and has a right to expect to be, in the lead.
On the passenger side, and in some types of light freight and mail, as my noble friend, Lord Geddes, has mentioned, competition from aircraft is already acute and will become more so as the new generation of jet aircraft come into operation all over the world. If one looks only at the North Atlantic as one section where there is a growing tourist traffic, it strikes one as absolutely staggering that we in this country have not produced more imaginative, prompt and informed proposals for competing for the future sea-passenger traffic, considering the predominance that we have had on the Atlantic in past years; and it is, of course, one place where the air competition is particularly great.
As I see it, the old-established shipping companies and managements must realise that they simply cannot afford not to employ all that is best in modern
908
industrial management technique. Properly trained economists, cost experts and men trained in the disciplines of the sciences must be recruited and given encouragement and the opportunity to use their initiative. In addition, the shipping companies themselves should be flexible in their own structure, in the way they approach new opportunities and new challenges. Many other industries have gone into partnership in other parts of the world, not only in the Commonwealth but in other countries, in order to put up manufacturing plants to serve local demands; and there will be tremendous opportunities in the shipping industry for co-operation abroad with other countries. If we do not seize those opportunities others will certainly do so, and in fact there are already many developments afoot.
I am afraid most of my remarks may have been a little on the critical side and may possibly be resented by those who know more about the shipping industry than I do, but I hope I have not been destructive. I am optimistic and tremendously enthusiastic about the future of the industry. It may be going through a period of decline now, but the difficulties are not unique to shipping or indeed to British shipping. What is needed is careful analysis of where we have failed, and missed opportunities, and a real determination to exploit new markets and new methods and to become efficient and, above all, enterprising.
4.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend, Lord Teynham, for bringing up this extremely important Motion. Like many of your Lordships I have to declare an interest in shipping, as I have been for some time a director of a small dry-cargo tramp shipping company with vessels of about 8,000 to 10,000 tons each; and, as your Lordships may well guess, I am not, therefore, in too happy a frame of mind. Your Lordships will have heard what shipowners have been aware of for a very long time—that the world merchant fleet has been growing appreciably faster than the cargoes available for it to carry. We have heard that in 1956 the tonnage of the world merchant fleet was 105 million tons. In the three preceding years it grew by 5 per cent., 7 per cent. and 6 per cent., making in all

909
an increase of 20 million tons. Of course, apart from that, we must also remember that these new ships are far larger and far faster, so the actual effect has been far greater in carrying capacity than these figures suggest.
Unfortunately, world trade has not grown at the same pace. In fact, we have heard that world trade last year dropped by, I believe, 3 per cent. We have had a slight increase in freight rates; but because of people like my noble friend Lord Melchett, with their bulk cargo carriers and tankers, laid up tankers are coming out of mothballs and they are taking the grain trade away from our dry cargo ships. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who said that 75 per cent. of the grain from the U.S.A. last year was carried in tankers. Of course, all shipowners are hoping for a boost in world trade, but I personally cannot foresee world trade ever sustaining the present growth of shipbuilding.
It is evident, as some noble Lords have said, that the rate of scrapping must be increased and the rate of ship-budding will have to slow down. The trouble is how to achieve this. The rate of scrapping has actually increased on its own to 3 million tons from 1 million tons two years ago. I believe it was 3 million tons this year. That alone will not be enough to bridge the gap of imbalance caused by too many ships for too few cargoes. The answer is, surely, as I have just said, a higher rate of scrapping. Shipowners, somewhat naturally, like to sell their old ships at the best price obtainable. They have therefore—as I have done so myself—sold ships for trading which perhaps in the national interest should have been scrapped. It is rather cutting off our nose to spite our face, because it puts these cheap ships into the hands of foreign competitors. Of course, it is all very well for the big shipowners to speak, but if you are a small shipowner you have to sell your ships at the best price obtainable if you want to acquire any capital with which to buy new ships. I ask Her Majesty's Government, to encourage the sale of all ships which are over fifteen years old, I personally would say—I do not know how it would be worked out—to grant some sort of subsidy on scrap from British ships. This
910
subsidy could perhaps be on a sliding scale according to the age of the ship: the younger the ship the greater the subsidy, and of course it would apply only, as I have said, to ships over fifteen years old. But I am quite convinced, as other noble Lords have said, that it is essential for the traditional maritime countries to embark on legislation to prevent their old ships from being sold abroad, except, of course, for scrap purposes.
I should like to say just a few words about a rather hackneyed subject. We have always heard a great deal about flags of convenience, but I think that that subject has been rather skated over in this debate, as I believe the majority of your Lordships quite rightly have thought that to-day flag discrimination is probably a greater danger. I understand that my noble friend Lord Melchett rather blamed British shipowners for not building after the war—perhaps I am wrong—these huge tankers and other cargo carriers that the flags of convenience fleets now have. As far as I remember, the major oil companies after the war gave British shipowners the first opportunity to build these ships. But, my Lords, how could they? Owing to the most crippling taxation and hamstrung by governmental red tape, they simply did not have the capital to build these cargo ships. These big ships require vast sums, which owing to taxation shipping owners in this country have not been able to accumulate.
Nor have the banks been keen on lending money to British shipowners, because owing to taxation they cannot be assured that they will have their money back as soon as if it were to come from flags-of-convenience shipowners. I agree that the increased tax allowances, the 40 per cent. allowance on the cost of building, have been a great help, as have been the other tax-free allowances such as the wear and tear allowances. But, my Lords, here again, it is chiefly the big owners, who have a replacement programme, who reap the benefit most. The small owner, like the company I am connected with, does not have a replacement programme.
I should also like to point out something which appears to have been overlooked, and that is that, in order to benefit from tax allowances, it is necessary that there should be profits.

911
In the last three years quite a few tramp shipping companies that I know have not had any profits at all. As has been pointed out, we cannot compete with the flags-of-convenience owners, with their tonnage, which has been built out of tax-free profits piled up in prosperous years. It has also been pointed out to-day, I think, that the flags-of-convenience fleets have a greater percentage of new tonnage than any other fleets in the world. How can a small company like my company afford to build new ships—a company which, after the war, has been taxed almost out of existence? A ship which before the war could have been built for £200,000 would to-day cost over £1 million. How can we get the capital? Interest rates are high, and the bank rate has just gone up. Bankers know that Governments can be more fickle than a three-year-old filly. There is even no guarantee that tax-free allowances will last. In contrast, Liberia, Honduras, and other such countries have guaranteed not to increase taxes—for over 20 years in the case of Liberia, for 25 years for Costa Rica, and 30 years for Honduras, from the date of registration of a ship.
I would ask Her Majesty's Government to make available to shipowners cheap money to enable them to build new ships. If they can have money on loan at 2 per cent. it would then be possible for us to renew our fleets, and would help shipbuilding into the bargain. Why not? Shipping and shipbuilding, as we have heard, is a unique industry; and, as your Lordships have also heard, it is responsible for a large share of our invisible exports. Three years ago the figure was about £250 million. In fact, shipping can be said to close the debit gap in our balance of payments, without which we could not maintain the exchange value of our currency. I think we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Winster, say that it was down to £138 million last year. My Lords, this is a very serious matter. We now have hire purchase on television and on cars, and we are even going to have it, I am told, on holidays. Surely we can have it on ships, because, if something is not done, we shall soon have redundancy in British yards.
We have heard how other countries subsidise their ships: how America sub
912
sidises almost half her shipping programme; how she insures 90 per cent. of privately-financed mortgage on ships, and how she grants huge operating subsidies. On a 10,000-ton ship it is up to £500 a day. Her Majesty's Government are pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into the mines and railways, and there is no hope of ever getting it back. Why can they not put something into the shipping industry, which pays its way and can make profits? After all, it makes its profits in foreign currency, which pays for so many necessary imports, such as tea, and similar commodities which we cannot do without—at least, I can personally, but some people cannot.
I also ask Her Majesty's Government to look into the question of credits which they grant to members of the Commonwealth. These credits sometimes appear to be utilised for the purpose of starting shipping lines to compete with British shipowners. I am at the moment thinking of India, which I know has acquired ships rapidly with British credits, to the detriment of our shipping services to and from that country. I do not think any British shipowners would object to fair competition, but it seems unwise to grant credits which do nothing but harm to the nation that grants them.
Before I conclude, I should like to say a few words about something that has not been mentioned to-day, and that is the question of the replacement of the two"Queens", the two Cunarders. I fully realise that the Chandos Committee is sitting on this question at the present time. I personally have nothing to do with liner traffic, so perhaps I should apologise for speaking about it at all; but I speak as a British citizen who has travelled on one of these ships, and who has often seen them at sea. I am convinced that these two ships are among the best ambassadors this country has ever had.
We have rather heard prestige decried to-day. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was one who rather took that view, though I do not want to take up the cudgels with him on that matter because he has a vast experience in shipping which I have not had. I agree that the economic aspect is most important, but surely on the Atlantic it is also important to uphold our prestige. The United States and France have both

913
subsidised their Atlantic liners, and I feel that it would be foolish for us to lose our prestige on the Atlantic. I should like to see the Government provide whatever subsidy is required for the replacement of these ships, in order to produce ships that will be advertisements for everything that is best in this country, in design, engineering and craftsmanship—ships that would make the liner,"United States", which now holds the Blue Riband, look like a floating prefab. We have always been most liberal with our expenditure on our social services—and quite rightly. But if we neglect the sources of world trade from which our wealth springs, our standard of living must surely decline and these social services become just a mockery.
5.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, when, periodically, in the last few years we have debated the state of the shipping industry we have repeatedly, almost monotonously, heard some account of the difficulties that face the industry as a result of flag discrimination, and of competition with subsidised and tax-free shipping. On this occasion I think that we have heard rather less of that, because the industry is under the cloud of a great recession and naturally immediate problems of survival in purely commercial terms dominate the scene. But the difficulty that arises from foreign competition in the forms that I have described is still, to my mind, the core of the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was at pains to tell us not to think that the present recession was nearing an end, and I am sure that, with his great experience, he is right about that. At the same time, taking a long view—and one must take a long view in considering shipping policy—we must assume that the swing will go the other way, and that in the years to come there will be a better balance between demand for shipping services and the supply.
So I think that to-day we must ask Her Majesty's Government, whatever else they do to alleviate the present position—and we have had some interesting suggestions put forward by speakers this afternoon—to explore the possibility of reaching some agreement with the other Governments concerned. I feel rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was so severe about the Washington Conference. It certainly appears—and
914
the communiqué rather bore this out—that no very striking results were achieved, but it seems to me that this is a specially difficult problem. We must appreciate that other countries do not approach the matter from the same attitude that we do; and if we are to find any way of living with other people, and of liberalising the shipping trade, we have first to understand what other people think about this. And I should have thought that it was immensely valuable to have these talks, even though we did not expect anything to come out of them, certainly not out of the first round.
I know that it has been said that one result of these talks, especially in America, is a better understanding of the problems of the traditional maritime nations of Europe. I hope that it is also true that the traditional maritime nations of Europe understand better the problems of America, because we cannot find a solution to this problem unless the two continents understand each other. It has to be a two way understanding. In discussing the development of shipping service in some of the newly developed countries that have been mentioned by two or three speakers this afternoon it is easy to explain it all in terms of prestige and nationalism. But I think that here again we have to look very carefully. Is there not an economic reason as well? I do not mean entirely the economic reason of achieving what we may call a reasonable balance of payments.
Take India as an example—and used to have a good deal to do with India at one time. India bases her expansionist plans largely on the balance of payments position, and quotes astronomical figures which I strongly suspect represent the total of the gross import freights in all non-Indian ships, and possibly throwing in, for good measure, the total of export freights. When we examine the problem we find that they have grossly over-stated this, because not only do non-Indian ships have substantial disbursements in that country but a great many of the non-Indian ships employ Indian crews, and there are large disbursements in that direction. And this is true not only of India but of nearly all these countries. Whatever the position is, payments are made by foreign ships in local currency; and, equally, the national ship with which it

915
is proposed to replace the non-Indian ship has large disbursements to pay in foreign currency. I venture to think that on purely balance of payments grounds the argument is not a very sound one.
There is another argument which I think we tend to forget and that is the experience of many of these countries during the war. They had been used to relying on the shipping services of the traditional maritime nations. When the war came those services were almost entirely withdrawn. I think that I should be right in saying—the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, would know much better than I—that in the early stages it was possible to make some allocation of shipping for providing supplies to countries outside the immediate war area; but as the struggle grew greater it was necessary to mobilise every ship for purposes of the war, and many countries found themselves in grave difficulties. And I cannot help feeling that that was one of the things which led them after the war to take the view that they must have some ships of their own. In a matter of this kind, I feel great sympathy with the noble Lord who is going to reply, and indeed with Her Majesty's Government, because it seems to me that all of us who bring these problems to their notice are really knocking at an open door. They realise, just as we all do in your Lordships' House, how serious these problems are. The difficulty is that, having knocked at the open door and walked in, does anybody know what we ought to do about it? My own feeling is that we must be prepared for very long and patient negotiations, and all we can hope is that during that time alleviatory measures can be taken to enable our industry to carry on.
Some people may think that too much is made of these problems. People outside this House, and perhaps even some of your Lordships, say:"Well, we have heard this story now year after year, yet in spite of the serious recession the British industry appears to be holding its own"—or, if not quite holding its own (that is an exaggeration), that at any rate disaster has not befallen it. It seems to me that this is like a very slow disease which is gradually sapping away the health of the industry. The industry is full of vigour and is fighting back, but, at the same time, unless steps can be
916
taken to stem the course of the disease the time will assuredly come when the crisis will be upon us.
There is one thing that I believe the Government can do, without waiting for any kind of international agreement and. if I may, I should like to bring up again the question about coastal shipping which I mentioned here when we were debating the railways. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, rather took me to task, and suggested that I was in favour of competition except when the shipowner lost. That was not the point I was trying to make, and I could not have put it very well. When the Transport Acts were passed it was part of the policy of Government—and I think Governments of both complexions were involved—that coastal shipping should be protected from the obvious power of the railways to take away their traffic, because with the enormous amount of business it would always be possible for the railways to pick upon the particular traffic which the coastal shipping was specially fitted to carry, and to give that traffic a cut rate.
I do not want to refer to the particular case I mentioned previously, because I think it is at present under reference to the Transport Tribunal; but there are traffics which coastal shipping is well fitted to carry and which I am quite convinced it will carry most economically in real terms of capital and labour employed. Those are the traffics which I feel it is the policy of the Government and of Parliament they should be be allowed to carry. What I would ask is that Her Majesty's Government should re-state the principle that the freedom given to the railways, which I personally welcome, to run their business on a proper business basis should not be used for the deliberate purpose of injuring the traffic which properly and normally goes to coastal shipping. I believe that if that principle were re-stated it would then be possible, in fact it would be certain, that the representatives of the Transport Commission and of coastal shipowners could sit round a table and discuss machinery. If the present machinery is not working satisfactorily—and that, I gather, is one of the pleas of the Transport Commission—then surely, with good will, the people concerned could sit round a table, and put it right.

917
I think we are all agreed—and this has been said by several noble Lords this afternoon—that the problems of the shipping industry are not to be solved by Governments alone: there are great responsibilities on the industry, too. As your Lordships know, I am in a minority in not declaring an interest on this occasion, but I had for a long time a close connection with the shipping industry. From my respectful distance now I think I can look at it in a fairly objective way. I have every confidence that the managements and directions of our shipping industry are full of enterprise. There are, of course, in every industry a certain number of people who are content to go along as their forbears did, but I think there is quite as much new thought and new advance going on in the shipping industry as there is in any other industry in this country. I too, like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, read the report from the P.E.P. I read it with interest, because that organisation has a great reputation for thorough analysis of the problems that are put before it. I thought that in this particular case the report did not perhaps come up quite to their usual high standard, and I felt that some of the statements made, and the arguments drawn from those statements, had possibly been picked up from rather shallow grounds.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred particularly to the enterprise of the Norwegians, and those of your Lordships who have read the Report will remember that this was also brought out by the P.E.P. It is worth recalling the conditions under which the Norwegians, who undoubtedly showed great enterprise, were able to do this. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to the problem of finance—of which his knowledge is much greater than mine—but I certainly thought it was the fact that during a large part of the time when the Norwegians were building up their fleet it was not only the attitude of the banks and other finance houses in this country but also the attitude of the Capital Issues Committee which made it extremely difficult for British shipowners to raise money for the purpose of building new ships at the time when money could be raised by Norwegian shipowners to build ships in this country. I think that perhaps the philosophy behind it was that the ship built for a Norwegian was an export.
918
But if so, I suggest that it is quite fallacious, because a ship built for a British owner would, in the ordinary way, in the course of its life earn more foreign exchange, than simply the first price of a ship sold to the Norwegians. Then the Norwegians had access to the New York market, and a great deal of money was lent in New York. So far as I know, during all that period it was not possible for British shipowners to raise money on the New York market.
There is another aspect of Norwegian shipowning which may well have a bearing on this. It is a surprising fact, until you find out about it, that the Norwegian shipping industry is still very largely in the hands of small family businesses. It is still possible in Norway, I understand, for a father who has, say, two or three ships to give a ship to each of his sons as a wedding present, and then they go on, and so on. That type of small business, as we all know, has been completely killed in this country by our system of taxation. I am not criticising this system; but that is the fact. That is the system under which we live, and small businesses of that kind have been driven out, particularly those that wanted a certain amount of capital—and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, made that point.
It seems to me that it is much easier to be enterprising with your own money than with the money of a large number of shareholders. A good deal of this enterprise (I will not call it speculative, because that may give it a wrong slant) is certainly taking a chance. It was a quite risky enterprise, and I think the Norwegians would be the first to admit that, but for two fortuitous circumstances, first, the Korean War and then the Suez Canal upset, the risk might not have come out quite so well as it did. Incidentally, while I am mentioning the question of family businesses in Norway, I was rather surprised that the P.E.P. Report implied that part of the trouble in the British shipping industry was due to family businesses. That seemed to me to be a curious observation to make, and I wondered upon what evidence it was based.
There are a number of these family businesses. My experience would show that they are among the most go-ahead of all the businesses in the country, and for

919
quite obvious reasons. First of all, there is the reason I have already mentioned: that people are looking after their own money. The second reason is that it is possible to have young executives; and it is a great thing in business to get the young people taking an interest early. In my experience—and I have met quite a number of people in this category—the young son coming into the business not only is full of keenness, not only (and this is an important point) in a good position in regard to staff relations, which I think are always extraordinarily good in family businesses, but has grown up among people in that business and thus has a background that nobody else can have. So I am surprised at that criticism in the P.E.P. Report, particularly having regard to the experience of Norway, which was quoted in the other sense.
Most of the other points I had thought of bringing forward have already been made by other speakers, and I will conclude by saying that on these three serious problems, which are quite apart from the present recession in industry, in dealing with flag discrimination, flags of convenience and subsidised shipping, I believe that we must ask Her Majesty's Government to exercise infinite patience and all their skill in negotiation. If they will do that, I believe that, in time, we may find a solution to our difficulties.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, I must join the majority of those noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon and declare my interest in an industry which appears, by common consent of your Lordships today, to be in a pretty bad way. I should be the last to say that it is not going through periods of very great difficulty, but I am reminded of the old adage in the manuals of seamanship, that when finding his ship in a position of great peril the master would do well to call his crew together and remind them that they and others have got out of worse dangers than this before now, and urge them in that way to greater efforts. I do not myself think that the present depression, though different in its way, is perhaps quite as painful as were those which immediately followed the First World War and which characterised the middle years of the 'thirties.
920
If I may, I would ask your Lordships for a minute or two to take stock of the situation in which British shipping finds itself, with an eye to the next, at any rate, five or ten years ahead, for if there is one thing about shipping as a business it is that it is a continuing business. If you look at it at any one moment of time, and then take your eyes away, you will almost inevitably see it out of perspective. Let us therefore for a moment consider how we stand, compared with the rest of the world, in the three main categories into which shipping falls.
If we start with the tanker and tramp trades, it is not because they are necessarily the most important but because they have the advantage of being rather easier to look at from the way in which they do their business. Normally speaking, a tanker runs full or not at all. The rate at which he may run will vary considerably, and when it gets so low that it is cheaper to lay up, he goes off the market and he is laid up. Therefore the figures give a fairly good picture—I do not say an extremely accurate picture, but accurate enough for general purposes. Tankers comprise in gross tonnage somewhere about one-third of the total fleets of the world. Incidentally, it is perhaps worth saying, since it has been suggested that this country is rather behind-hand in the tanker trade, that the proportion of tankers in the British fleet is just about the same as the proportion of tankers in the world fleet. Of those which are laid up, the British proportion is about 10 per cent., the Norwegian proportion about 14 per cent., the Greek proportion about 30 per cent.; and Liberia and Panama, the flags-of-convenience countries—which are, broadly speaking, if you go back far enough, two-thirds Greek and one-third United States—have something like 20 per cent. of their fleets laid up. Therefore, at any rate in that market, we are in a position which is, if you like to put it that way, rather better than twice as good as the worst.
I do not think that the tanker business is going to have a very easy time in the next two or three years, for reasons which have already been explained to your Lordships this afternoon. Indeed, such calculations as have been made suggest that the surplus of tanker tonnage is going to get worse in the next two

921
or three years, and may reach equilibrium only with the increase in the demand for the carriage of oil somewhere about 1965. I have no suggestion to make to your Lordships, except that they will have to do what is called, if you will pardon the phrase,"sweat it out".
The tramp trade is not altogether dissimilar in the nature of its business from the tanker trade. But here again, of British tramps about 8 per cent. are laid up. It is more difficult to get the figures for foreign countries, because it is less easy to distinguish between the kinds of dry cargo tonnage which they have. Broadly speaking, I think one could say that something like 30 per cent. of the Greek tramp trade was laid up, over 20 per cent. of the Italian tramp trade, and somewhere about 20 per cent. of the tramps flying flags of convenience. There again, British shipping, though not in a good position, is at any rate in not as bad a position as the shipping of quite a number of people who have been mentioned from time to time as being our most formidable competitors. It is, of course, perfectly true that the misfortunes of others are the consolation of a fool, but when all are suffering it is perhaps of some encouragement to feel that we have succeeded in avoiding the worst pangs which beset some of our competitors. I believe that that is the other side of the story of the charges which were levelled against British shipowners during the past few years of being not enterprising enough in increasing their fleets. I think it is likely that some of the people who took too optimistic a view of their prospects may now be wishing that, even with the aid of the New York bankers, they had been a little more restrained.
Another fact which, if one is looking ahead, I think is of some importance, is that nearly three-quarters of the tonnage which is laid up in the world at the moment was built during the latter part of the last war and is, therefore, about fifteen years of age. It is quite true that it has lasted longer than a great many people thought it would when it was first built, but ships will always last longer in good times, when people can afford the money to keep them up, than an old ship would be thought worth while maintaining in bad times. I
922
expect that a great deal of that bulk of tonnage will naturally begin to disappear, and if any of the measures which have been suggested to your Lordships this afternoon can be taken by Her Majesty's Government to increase the rate at which it disappears, so much the better for us all.
So much for those two classes of ship. From the British point of view, the liner trade is, I think, more important than either, and the nearest picture I can get of the position at the present time of the British liner trade as compared with its foreign competitors is that whereas of the total dry-cargo tonnage in the world some 6 per cent. is laid up, of the British dry-cargo shipping only some 4 per cent. is laid up. When one allows that that 6 per cent. contains a very much higher figure in regard to tramps, which I have already mentioned, I think it is a fair deduction that the rate of lay-up among British liners is not as great as it is among a fair number of their competitors. But that, of course, is not the same thing as saying that they are doing nicely, because whereas if a tramp does not get a full freight worth having he lays-up, the liner has to maintain his service and will go on running half empty, or even more than half empty, in order to maintain his obligations to his shippers and keep his place in the berth. His rates are more stable, except where he has to compete with tramp cargo and has to bring them down, but his obligations are more severe. What one finds with regard to the British liner trade is not substantial laying up but substantial lack of cargo for the ships that have to be kept running.
In the minds of many people outside your Lordships' House, and possibly within it, liners seem to mean primarily passenger liners. I should be the last to belittle the importance of the passenger trade, but it is just worth remembering that both money-wise and tonnage-wise, it is very small indeed compared with the cargo trade. Indeed, the figure has been produced that, taking ton-miles as the criterion, passengers represent only 1 per cent. of the whole. That is a somewhat fallacious figure, but if your Lordships will consider the difficulty of carrying a ton of passengers as compared with a ton of iron-ore you will realise that you are not really talking about the same

923
things. But, of course, the passenger trade has always been the place where prestige mainly resided, because it has always, naturally, in the nature of its business, been more before the public mind.
I do not want to say very much about the prestige issues which have been raised by other noble Lords this afternoon, except perhaps this. It is worth remembering that when the late Sir Percy Bates projected and finally built the two"Queens" he did so because, as he said, they were the slowest and smallest ships which would do the job. The operative words in that phrase were"do the job". He did not build them in order to fly the flag but in order to do a job. I think it is worth bearing that phrase in mind to-day and considering whether the job is the same and whether the tools required for doing it are the same. It would not be a good thing for us, or for prestige, or for anything else, if all we did was get rid of two"Queens" and leave in their stead two sacred cows, animals enjoying the highest degree of prestige in their proper countries but of singularly little economic value to anyone.
The bulk of British shipping in tonnage, which amounts to nearly half the ocean-going tonnage as a whole, resides in the British cargo liner trade, and it is just here that the influences of these matters of flag discrimination, competitive subsidies and the like which have engaged so much of your Lordships' attention this afternoon are to be seen at their most harmful. The tramp trade and, so far as I know, the tanker trade are not yet, at any rate, very subject to discrimination. That is largely, I think, because the people who discriminate are either the United States, who keep an eye on their own defences and therefore want a particularly fast type of ship which is not normally engaged in the tramp trade, or the emergent nations at the point of industrial takeover, for whom a merchant trade is a point of economic honour. They, in turn, almost always think of a line running along regular routes, and are probably encouraged so to do by some form of reciprocal trade agreement. It is that sort of agreement, that sort of fleet, which is the real menace to the British cargo liner and therefore to what I think
924
it is fair to say is the real core of the whole British Mercantile Marine.
Is that sort of menace likely to increase or not? I think on the answer to that question, if one gets it right, a great deal of the future of British shipping will depend. I think there is not a very great deal, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out, that Her Majesty's Government can do at any given time to curtail or reduce that menace. It is a matter of long and patient negotiation with the various people concerned, and I do not suppose that in the first instance the negotiations are likely to be at all fruitful, because to some extent in both the American heart and to a much larger extent in the heart of the younger nations this is not primarily an economic but an emotional consideration. It is a matter of national pride, and it is an extremely difficult thing, as all your Lordships will know who have seen anybody in love, to argue a man out of his emotions.
If I may continue this rather dubious metaphor, I think the only thing which is likely to make them less in love with their fleets is to discover that they consist of ships which, though possibly beautiful in appearance, are as economically damaging as a really extravagant wife can be. Once honour is satisfied, then the economic forces have a chance to come into play. My own perhaps slightly wishful thinking is that as the years go on the emotional urge will die and the economic disadvantages will become more apparent. It may be, therefore, that although I agree that this is perhaps the greatest single danger facing not only the British Mercantile Marine but the mercantile marine of all those countries who seek to supply shipping services for the benefit of third parties—the exporters of shipping services, as one might say—I think it is possible, and I would even venture to hope it is probable, that in the years to come it will not get progressively worse than it is to-day.
Finally, what may we hope for, for the British shipping industry in the years to come? We need, of course, ships. But we do not need just ships; we need the right ships, and I was much impressed by what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had to say about the importance of promoting research to ensure that we get the right ships. For, after all, in a highly competitive trade it is a sad

925
thought that it is no good improving your technique if at the same time everybody else is improving his technique; your relative position remains the same. In a world where all port facilities were enormously increased, where the turn-round of ships in every port of the world was halved, the only result, I am afraid, would be vastly to increase the apparent surplus of shipping. But if we in this country can be the leaders in the future, as we have been in the past, in those developments which make for the more economic running of ships, which make for the design of ships more suited to the trade in which they have to ply, if we can maintain those specialised advantages which really, and increasingly in later years, have been what we rely upon to keep our end up, then I do not think it will be so bad.
I hope that we shall get something out of Her Majesty's Government in the matter of taxation, and I hope it particularly for this reason: it is a commonplace in the shipping trade that of every decade about three good years have probably to pay for about seven bad ones. It has almost always been so, and I am afraid it will be a long time before we get a control over the forces of nature or the minds of men which will materially eliminate these large fluctuations. Why the British shipping industry has been growling away about taxation at a time when outwardly it was quite prosperous was simply that if we cannot get out of our good years enough surplus to see us through our bad years, then we shall be indeed beggars and not contributors to the national economy.
I do not think we shall ever get back to those conditions in the world which gave British shipping its enormous preeminence in the 19th century. I doubt whether we shall even maintain the same percentage of active world shipping, measured in tons, that we have to-day. I do not know that it matters very greatly if we appreciate one thing: that if we have not in the years to come to the same extent the biggest maritime marine in the world, at least let us try—as I think we can try with some prospect of succeeding—to have the best.
6.1 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in expressing thanks to the noble
926
Lord, Lord Teynham, for bringing this debate before your Lordships' House at this particular time. As is well known, the Opposition like to have a speaker at the end of the list so that we may have some opportunity of answering any contentious statements made by noble Lords opposite. As I have listened to the debate this afternoon, I heard only one contentious statement, and that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on the question of labour relations in our dockyards. I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lord Citrine—somebody who has probably as much experience of labour relations as anybody in this country—is going to say a few words on that important matter.
I had prepared a speech, but I have found that most noble Lords have used all the facts and figures that I had laboriously produced. I should like, in a few moments, just to try to sum up what I think were the main points that were raised. I think I can do it best by reading a small poem that was sent to me yesterday. I have always rather envied noble Lords who are able to quote"off the cuff". I cannot do that because I have not had the opportunity of memorising it; so may read it?
"Then what can I do for you, all you Big Steamers?
Oh, what can I do for your comfort and aid?
Relieve you from tax or from flags of convenience?
A subsidy render when new keels are laid?
Oh, what can we do for you, all you Big Steamers?
What can we do so you flourish, not fail?
'Improve British ports and their working to speed us,
Atomic power hasten to save us from sale!'"
The poet says that the last word may be spelled either"sail" or"sale", and he has also tendered apologies to Rudyard Kipling. That little poem, I think, sums up many of the main heads which have been discussed this afternoon.
One new fact, I think, has emerged in this debate. I have always understood, and believed, that the shipping industry took the view that the last thing they could possibly tolerate was Government interference, or even Government assistance. But we heard this afternoon, in what I thought was a remarkable speech by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, a plea for a new partnership—a partnership of Government and industry with

927
the"Fisher" attitude. I should like to pursue with the noble Earl what he meant by"partnership". Did he mean a partnership where the State and industry were supplying jointly the capital for a new and expanding industry; or was it to be a form of partnership where the Government were to be the troubleshooter, to go out on the international front solving the problems of the shipping industry and leaving the operations of the ships to the shipowners? Perhaps we can pursue that point later.
It is quite obvious that the shipping industry has reached a stage when something basically has to be done. I think it falls into two parts. First, something must be done about flags of convenience. I believe that that can be done only by getting the agreement of the main ship-owning countries to prevent the owners of steamers from placing their flags under some foreign flag. There have been some great campaigns on this subject. I think that it was only last year, against much criticism, that the dockers in this country put an embargo on ships under flags of convenience. I do not know what good it did, other than stating their position. But the only solution to this problem will be for Her Majesty's Government—and it will be Her Majesty's Government on whom the effort will fall—to bring the main shipping countries, which are relatively few, around a table to discuss and decide what action is to be taken.
Then we come to the other question, that of discrimination in flags. I should have thought that the effect of American discrimination was becoming less. As I understand it, the discrimination began when the American Government stipulated that 50 per cent. of any cargo carried as aid to European countries, and others, must be carried in American ships. I should have thought that the effect of such an arrangement was declining. The other day I saw some figures to the effect that the amount of cargo aid that is coming into Europe, in particular, has fallen drastically.
I agree with noble Lords opposite that such forms of restriction are bad for trade, but I would warn the House that we must tackle this question carefully because in American eyes we ourselves carry out some form of trade discrimina
928
tion. They point their finger at the system of Commonwealth Preference. Therefore, I think it is a case where we must go to the American Government and say,"This is causing harm not only to us but to the whole of the defence organisation." I believe that the American attitude towards building up their fleet does not depend on its earning capacity, but on the ability to maintain an auxiliary fleet to support their military commitments throughout the world. Therefore, I think that the Government should have these discussions. I hope that they will not take too hardly the words of my noble friend Lord Winster. These discussions will be long-term, and therefore we must look to Her Majesty's Government on those two aspects.
The Government will also, I feel, have to look into the whole question of shipbuilding and ship operation from this country. There is an increasing fear of unemployment in the shipbuilding areas of this country—and there is every reason for that fear. If we look at the figures of construction we see that there is a steady decline each year; and we cannot just look at shipbuilding as an isolated case, because the biggest buyers from British shipbuilding yards are the shipping operators of this country. I think that we build for export in our yards to-day a figure of only about 7 per cent., as compared with the 20 or 30 per cent. of countries like Japan. Therefore the House will see that on those figures alone the prosperity of the operator will have its effect on the prosperity of our shipbuilding yards and, if one goes further afield, on the great engineering centres where the hearts of our ships are built.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. There must be a real partnership in this industry. I do not believe it is within the resources or capabilities of shipowners to deal with the problems that confront this industry. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear from the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are going to take immediate steps to bring aid to this industry. And we must stress that, apart from the prosperity of our export trade, we must not forget our defence commitments. We need new and modern ships. We need more ships than in actual fact we need to operate—we may need a reserve—and it

929
is quite unrealistic to believe that shipowners can maintain within their resources a reserve merchant fleet for possible military action. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear this afternoon of a partnership between Her Majesty's Government and the industry.
6.13 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships very long. I am not a shipowner. I hold no shares in any shipping company or any related activity, and I suppose the nearest I ever came to that desirable consummation was during my chairmanship of the British Electricity Authority, when we had some 52 colliers—coastal steamers—under our control. I listened with a good deal of concern to the opening statement of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the two subsequent speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Winster and Lord Geddes. These speeches were obviously factual and well-reasoned and left no doubt whatever upon my mind that the British shipping industry has a very difficult time lying ahead of it.
I regret that very much. I do so not only on national grounds but on personal grounds, too. My family have been connected with the sea through three generations. My grandfather was a master rigger. My father was mate of an American ship and subsequently an officer of a British ship. He went to sea a the age of eight. Two of my brothers were seamen and I myself, in the early part of my life, worked as an electrician on board ships, both in the shipbuilders' yard and as an employee of certain of the shipping companies in Liverpool. Later, as a trade union official, I was very much concerned with the conditions on board ship. I was responsible for forming the first what we called"seagoing section" of the Electrical Trades Union, which was exclusively for electricians who were employed on board ship.
I should like to pay my tribute to the vast improvement in conditions of life on board ship that have been effected in the intervening years. They are not yet completely satisfactory in every case, but they are infinitely better than anything I saw in my early days. A great deal of the credit for that is due to a man not altogether popular, in his later days, with the trade union movement—
930
the late Havelock Wilson. He, more than anyone else on the side of the trade unions, was responsible for the initiation, in close consultation with the ship owners, of the National Maritime Board, on which, of course, the unions and the ship owners are jointly represented. Anyone who had the slightest knowledge of the intensely bitter relations that had preceded that development must be thankful for the harmonious and co-operative relations that now exist.
We used to sing, in other days, that Britain rules the waves—now, apparently, in limited dimensions; but I believe we all know instinctively how important it is for us, as an island country, to maintain this vital British service. I must confess that when I listened to what I might describe as the courageous speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Runoiman of Doxford (because it was not a popular speech or one completely endorsing all that had been said in this debate, or even what had been said by his colleagues in the shipping world), I felt rather alarmed at his statement, or at least at what I understood him to say: that he did not believe that in all probability we could maintain our proportion of the world's shipping trade. And he added that he did not think it mattered very much in the long run whether we did or not. I think I understood what the noble Lord meant by that, but at the same time I am sure that in every section of the export trade—and this is a vital carrier trade—our effort nationally must be to maintain, and indeed to increase, our proportion, of world trade.
Those who have spoken in the debate have made very clear the handicaps that are now imposed upon British shipping—discrimination, subsidies and flags of convenience. They are all too well known. If we could get fair competition I believe that, with the inventiveness and flexibility of mind of our people, we could well hold our own in that competition. Unfortunately world events are turning against us. What is not recognised, in my opinion, is the fact that every time self-government is conferred upon some State or other the inevitable secondary consequence is that that State seeks to make itself as economically independent of other States as it possibly

931
can. It may do it by tariff walls or something of the kind. This aim at self-sufficiency is, to my mind, a natural outcome of the conferring of self-government upon any country, in greater or lesser measure as the case might be. We must just recognise that.
My noble friend Lord Geddes made some reference to shipbuilding, stressing the importance of delivery dates. But I should like to point out that, vital as those delivery dates are, the shipbuilding industry is not the only one against which the charge is brought of not being able to keep to the delivery dates that have been prescribed either by contract or by agreement. It is a very grave defect, but let us keep in mind that we are living in a period of full employment, when it simply is not possible on occasions to hurry through orders to get them ready for delivery dates, to have the flow of materials coming regularly from the various agencies that make the completed ship, and to have those things coming in at the precise time. That is not possible in a period of intense employment—I would say over-employment—which this country has been going through in the post-war period.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, say that he thought there ought to be one trade union per shipyard. I do not know whether he quite meant that or not, but that would mean a form of trade unionism which is completely repugnant to British trade unionists. It would mean, in effect, something desperately resembling company unions, though I am sure that was not in the noble Lord's mind at all. But what could be done, and what should be done, is that all the unions who are working in the same industry, if they are not capable of amalgamating together—because that process is a lengthy one, as we all know, and as I particularly know, because of my experience at the Trades Union Congress—should work together. And so we place the accent nowadays upon federation and getting the unions working in that way.
I regret to say that this does not completely solve the problem of demarcation, although we never get to know, unless we follow the reports of trade unions, of the number of demarcation disputes that are settled amicably. We never hear of them. We hear of the rows. Men strike
932
against one another, and the employer is standing on the side lines powerless to do very much to help a settlement of the dispute. Why is it that British trade unionists have preserved this attitude? I should like to say this: that while conviction as to the futility of these disputes has already reached the trade union officer, it has not reached the average individual trade unionist. He sees what he deems to be his work being taken by men of another trade; and with the memory of unemployment (it is very hard to get rid of the memories and the suspicion that it may return) he thinks he is being deprived of something. Consequently, more often than not there is a stoppage of work on the initiative of the men themselves about which the union headquarters, even at district level, are completely ignorant.
Once the men are out, it is a devil of a job for a trade union official to run contrary to the clearly expressed views of his members. I know of no trade union official who rejoices in demarcation disputes. They expose our weaknesses. It is the saddest part in the life of any trade union official to find his members striking against members of another trade union on something which in totality means nothing. It might mean work for a particular trade, but it most assuredly does not add to the volume of work at all. I myself worked in a shipyard, as I have already said, for a period. My early impression was that there was an almost complete lack of organisation: time was wasted, and I got into bad relations with my foreman for daring to leave my job on the ship on three successive days to go and look for him so that I could be given another job. I will not mention the name of the yard. I took the opportunity in my days as an official to mention it many times to the managing director of that particular company. There were bad relations in the shipbuilding industry. Remember that.
What we forget is this: we cannot transform men's minds rapidly. As I said once before, the cause of a grievance can disappear but the feeling that it created remains. I believe that much of the trouble this country has gone through in the world from India and other places—Ireland, for example—is due not to anything done in my day and generation but to things done

933
many years before. I remember what my friend the late Jimmy Thomas said when negotiations were taking place with the de Valera Government. I said,"How are you getting on, Jimmy?" He said,"We started at ten this morning and at one o'clock de Valera had got up to Cromwell's time!" I know very well that since my early days shipyard organisation has been vastly improved. I visited British yards and American yards during the war period and was able to make some comparisons. I took a party of Russians round the British yards, several British yards, during the year (I believe) 1943, and I must say this. They were greatly impressed by the speed with which the work was being carried out. In the American yards, let us remember, without perhaps having the acute demarcation disputes that we have, it was shown that during the war period, despite the American claim to build merchant ships in four days (we all heard those stories about means of prefabricating ships and assembling them in the yards), the American man-hours taken were more than double those in the British shipyards. I hope that, when thinking of our trade unions, we shall not overlook these simple facts. It is clear from what has been said that we do need united efforts, and I ask myself how those efforts can be made.
I was for many years a member of the National Production Advisory Council on Industry where the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes and reports on the current situation, and where the Ministers of every appropriate Department, without limitation, appear from time to time when business concerning them is raised. Is this not an appropriate subject to be brought before a body of that kind, where—how shall I put it—the prospects of the British shipping industry could be examined? There, surely, are open to the Government, apart altogether from the question of subsidies and what help they may be able to give, many means by which this position can be examined. If the willingness is there I am perfectly sure the means will be found.
6.39 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that: my principal sympathy this afternoon goes out to the Kipling of the
934
future, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made me think, when he has to re-write the poem of"What can I do for you, all you big diesel-engined oil carriers?" I am glad to be able to tackle what might be called the third round in the series of transport debates, although it seems in some ways a little peculiar that it should not have been initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We should be none the less grateful to my noble friend Lord Teynham for putting down this Motion and for moving it so ably, and indeed to all the noble and self-confessed shipowners and seafarers who have taken part in the debate. I am sure my noble friend will understand me when I say that my feelings are mildly tinged with a little regret that the debate should take place at this particular moment of time, though I know that it is no fault of his. The reasons for this will become apparent to your Lordships, I think, as I develop the various points I propose to make.
As a comparative newcomer to the Ministry of Transport, I have been rather struck by the number and variety of subjects affecting the day-to-day business of the shipping industry with which the Department is concerned. It is very closely concerned, for instance, with the safety of ships and of all who sail in them, and I am glad to take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the help they have received from representatives of shipowners, officers and men of the Merchant Navy, and classification societies, in the heavy task of preparing for this year's International Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea, which, in accordance with what now seems to be tradition, will be held in London in May. My noble friend Lord Teynham mentioned that Conference and a possible extension of it, but I think I am right in saying that it would certainly not be practicable or possible to extend the scope of this particular Conference to consider the kind of matters that he had in mind.
Having said that, the first thing I should like to make very clear is that the Government are well aware of the problems and difficulties that the British shipping industry is facing. I am certainly in no mood to underestimate them now and, even if I were, what various noble Lords have said would prohibit me from anything like that. But what could

935
or should be done about them clearly requires a very great deal of thought by shipowners, not only in this country but in the other countries involved, as well as by Governments. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said that, and I certainly accept it, as I would accept his exhortation to patience and steady negotiation, which will probably take a long time. But, my Lords, the first need—and it is by no means as easy as it might sound—is to establish the real facts.
As I think is already quite generally known, the General Council of British Shipping have been doing a lot of work in this direction in recent months. The full results of their work will shortly be available to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. In fact, yesterday the General Council had a long and very interesting discussion with him on the subject, at which I was present. It is too early for any conclusions to be drawn, but I can assure the House that this material will be studied most urgently and with great care. This seems to me something like the close liaison between the Government and the industry that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, wanted and which was called for also by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
I cannot say more at present on the general issue, but I should like to comment on two particular points which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teynham, and also by others. First, there was the question of taxation. Of course, I cannot anticipate the Budget of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I understand that before last year's Budget he gave full consideration to the industry's claim for further taxation relief but decided that he could not bring any proposal forward to meet it. What I can do is to feel certain that, if the leaders of the industry thought, as a result of their present studies, that there were new circumstances, or that they had new proposals to make, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be fully prepared to give them consideration.
My second point concerns what has been brought up by a number of speakers—the necessity for large-scale scrapping of old ships, or of the older ships, and also the possibility of working out some"scrap and build" scheme. Naturally, all these matters will be kept
936
very much in mind when considering the report which the General Council of British Shipping is going to make and which I have just mentioned; but I must emphasise what the Chairman of the General Council, Sir Nicholas Cayzer, has said more than once—that is, that scrapping is an international problem; it is no use any one country trying to act by itself. The effect of its efforts on the world market can be only so relatively small. Not only must any effective action in this respect be international in its scope, but it should also, I should have thought, start in the first place at commercial level.
In fact, there are considerable differences of view amongst shipowners about schemes of this kind, and it is hard to conceive that Governments could make a lot of headway in discussing this problem unless there was a prior basis of international agreement between the shipowners. For instance, I think I should be right in saying that, as a result of the experience of the working of the 1935 British Shipping (Assistance) Act and of the Trades Facilities Acts during the previous decade, there is more than one viewpoint, even among British shipowners, about the virtues of"scrap and build". I say this not to be argumentative, but merely to illustrate that the problem is not so easy or straightforward as it might seem. All the same, careful consideration must clearly be given to any scheme which is directed towards improving the competitive position of the British fleet, on which, as has been pointed out, the health of the British shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry so largely depends. But I quite firmly believe that the first step is that the Government should know what efforts have been made among the shipowners of the world to deal with this problem of surplus tonnage.
Before I leave this subject, I think I should say a word about the disposal of ships, and of Government ships in particular. When it comes to the selling of Government ships, the policy in general has been that the Department must have the same regard for the taxpayers' money as the board of a company would be expected to have for the interest of its shareholders. It follows, therefore, that in general it is the Department's duty to obtain the best price that it can. The Government has never

937
bound itself, though, to accept the highest or any particular tender; and it will continue to treat each case on its merits, taking full account of any special circumstances. But I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that the problem of the disposal of the older ships abroad is an important one, and I should have thought was certainly one to be taken seriously into the consideration that I have been talking about.
If we begin to think about breaking down the difficulties in which our shipping industry finds itself in relation to the world position, it seems quite clear that flag discrimination is the most serious one that threatens, and certainly is of considerably greater importance at the present time than that of flags of convenience—I think it would be true to say shat they are not perhaps quite so convenient at the moment as they are in boom times. Furthermore, there is the fact, as has already been mentioned, that, in all, the flags-of-convenience fleets have 17 per cent. of their shipping laid up, as against the 5 per cent. in our own case. But I think it is important to be quite clear what we mean when we are talking about flag discrimination. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, had something to say about it. Many countries, particularly those which have attained their independence recently, are taking action of various kinds to establish or build up merchant fleets of their own, but that is not necessarily flag discrimination. Commercial competition it may be, and it is true that sometimes we may question whether it is in fact commercial and whether plans of this kind are well conceived, when there is already a large surplus of shipping in the world. Especially we may query them in the case of underdeveloped countries which have so many other calls on their resources. But basically it is not for us to tell other countries how they are to run their own affairs.
What we do mean by flag discrimination is any action taken by Governments, which interferes with the freedom of the shipping of all flags to take part in international trade and with the freedom of the trader to use the shipping services which suit him best. We have heard about many of the ways of doing this. It usually entails either direction
938
of Government cargoes or pressure on private traders to use their national ships. We think that these practices are detrimental not only to our own shipping industry but also to the whole interests of international trade. We have particular cause for concern when discrimination is practised by countries which enjoy financial assistance, either directly from us or from international organisations of which we are subscribing members. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, gave an example of this.
I hope that nobody thinks that the Government do nothing to help the industry in opposing flag discrimination. There are several ways in which we can and do help, acting either by ourselves or in consultation with the other maritime countries. We make formal protests. We have made 74 of them in the last ten years, to 31 countries. We have also made many informal representations as well. Within the last year some satisfactory assurances for the future have been obtained from countries which have been offenders in the past, and we have also secured the inclusion of non-discriminatory shipping clauses in several trade agreements and commercial treaties.
These successes cannot be viewed other than against the generally unfortunate background of discrimination which continues to be practised by many countries. As has been repeatedly pointed out, it would be a great help if we could feel that we had greater support from the United States in this matter. Unfortunately, as we have heard, they discriminate themselves and take other measures which are not very helpful to our shipping. The trouble is that this sets an example which is much too readily followed by other countries. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend took the whole matter up again very frankly with senior United States officials in Washington last month, as his predecessor, the present Minister of Defence, did in Washington last summer, together with representatives of eight other nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, who I am sorry is not in his place, raised this most contentious point of the entire debate. I do not know what he expected, but we never expected that

939
progress would be other than extremely slow. It is true that the communiqué at the end of the Washington Conference showed no dramatic result. And it could not have shown a dramatic result. The fact of the matter is—and this is what the noble Lord completely overlooked and left out—that American shipping policy is embodied in laws passed by Congress, some of which go back well before the beginning of the last war. Such a situation certainly cannot be settled by means of a dramatic communiqué at the end of a conference. There was, as Mr. Watkinson said, useful progress. The fact that we and other European countries were able to bring home collectively to the United States Government our concern about questions of shipping policy on which they differ is in itself progress.
It is our intention to follow this up by further talks and to build on the progress that has already been made. I am very glad to have the concurrence of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in this direction. We have every expectation that the continuing talks required will shortly be arranged between the United States and the European countries concerned. I cannot say more than this now. We certainly hope that, as a result, we shall succeed in convincing our American friends of the justice of our case and of the danger to the common cause which is inherent in their policy, particularly when we view the matter in the context of the growing recognition of the need for economic co-operation among the Atlantic Powers.
The struggle against flag discrimination is not an easy one, and it is very tempting to consider, as my noble friend Lord Teynham suggested, whether we should not resort to retaliatory measures of one kind or another. We certainly do not rule out the possibility that such measures may prove to be unavoidable. In fact, it is a matter that we are considering at the present time. But before we could decide to adopt any policy of retaliation, even in particular cases, we should need to consider very carefully, in conjunction with the whole industry and with the Governments of other maritime countries thinking as we do, what the wider repercussions of any such change of policy might be.
940
I should like to turn for a moment to the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, drew our attention and to which, it seemed to me, he took some exception—that is, the difference between the position of shipping and air transport. Government assistance to air transport takes two main forms—contributions towards the costs of developing new aircraft and towards the costs of airports and ground services. In the case of shipping, we already give, or have under consideration for giving, assistance towards research and development. For instance, in the development of nuclear propulsion for marine purposes, we have made contributions to the Shipbuilding Research Association, to the Admiralty Yarrow Research Establishment and to what is known as"Pametrada", which, for the benefit of noble Lords who do not know this institution, stands for Parsons Marine Engineering and Turbine Research and Development Association. I know that this assistance is less extensive than that given to the air, but allowance has to be made for the needs of the two different forms of transport and for the benefits to be derived from Government assistance. Any case for extending Government assistance in the marine research and development field would no doubt receive most careful consideration. I think I should stress, too, that it is Government policy that airports and ground services should become self-supporting, as soon as possible.
Although I listened with great interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, thought about ports, the fact is that the sea ports and harbours of the world are. in general, already self-supporting, and I do not think the Government would be justified, by subsidy or other means, in artificially reducing port and harbour dues for ships, many of which would be foreign and the great majority of which are probably unaffected by air competition, anyway, by virtue of being concerned mostly with freight.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also raised the question of the development and improvement of the docks, which I should have thought would be a Government responsibility.
LORD CHESHAM: In view of what I have yet to say, I should rather like to stand on my remark about any case for

941
assistance receiving careful consideration. I should now like to turn for a moment to the coastal shipping industry, a matter which was raised by Lord Simon. During the debate on British Railways on December 17 last I said that the Government shared the anxiety that had been expressed that the coastal shipping industry should be in a sound and healthy condition. I said also that we had very much in mind not only the economy but also the social and defence problems which any decline in the fortunes of coastal shipping would bring. The Government have been, and still are, giving a great deal of thought to the future of coastal shipping, its relation to the other forms of inland transport, the extent and the nature of foreign competition and the future scale of major traffics particularly that of coastwise coal. Talks are, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggested, taking place almost at once—in fact, I believe I am right in thinking that they start to-morrow—with the Chamber of Shipping, but, quite frankly, I cannot say that the prospects are particularly encouraging. The General Council of Shipping have, rather naturally, included coastal shipping in their survey that I have already mentioned, and I can only repeat that the Government will give the most earnest consideration to the difficulties which undoubtedly beset this section of the industry.
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, had some interesting things to say, as had more than one other speaker, on the subject of the"Queens." No one will expect me to say anything about that matter, other than to repeat the fact that the Government are firmly of the view that a British passenger service should be maintained on the North Atlantic. Further than that, until we receive the report of the Chandos Committee, I cannot go at the moment. I feel certain that the Committee will read to-day's debate with the greatest interest.
I now turn, as one inevitably must in a debate of this kind, to shipbuilding. My right honourable friend has already said in another place that he is well aware of the difficulties of the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries and that he intends to study them in detail. He has met the Shipbuilding Conference and the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, and he will consider carefully any
942
representations that they may make to him. Here again it is a question of determining the true value, as it were, of the problems which face the industries. Decline in shipping activity is, of course, part of the trouble. The volume of ship-repairing work is obviously directly related to the volume of active shipping, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. If this work began to decline in 1956 and 1957, it is, I think, at least reasonable to hope that it will not decline further. At the same time, we cannot expect much improvement until more shipping comes back into use. That again depends on further expansion in world trade and, as I have been explaining, we are well aware of the need to do everything that can be done in that respect.
The decline in shipping, however, is not the only problem, facing shipbuilding. This industry has had, until recently, a protracted period of prosperity, not only in this country but all over the world. Output here has gradually increased from 1·2 million gross registered tons in 1948 to 1·4 million gross registered tons in 1958 and 1959. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, pointed out, world output has increased much more than that, from under 3 million to over 9 million gross tons in about the same period. It has been put in various ways what that increase in capacity represents, but I think the most telling way to put it is that there is now sufficient shipbuilding capacity in the world to replace the whole of the world's merchant fleet regularly every ten or twelve years, and it is obvious that the life of a decently built ship is a great deal more than that.
I do not think I need quote any more figures to show that, even when shipping returns to normal, or something that we can regard as normal, there will still be a great deal too much shipbuilding capacity in the world. Some countries seem to be recognising this fact—at least there are signs that they do. France, I believe, is taking some steps to reduce the number of her yards over the next few years. But we have seen—I hope we shall not see any more—an increasing tendency on the part of many maritime countries to develop their own shipyards, and in some cases no doubt it has been for this reason of prestige.

943
Another point is that the shipyards of most other traditional maritime countries, certainly on the Continent, were extensively damaged, if not completely destroyed, during the war, and in reconstructing these yards the nations concerned have been able to lay them out on the most modern lines. The result of all this is that the competition becomes even more formidable. But I think I should make it quite clear, because it is sometimes insinuated to the contrary, that no one should suppose that our own shipbuilders have done nothing about modernising or bringing up to date their own yards. Recently I have been twice to the North-East coast, where I saw a fairly representative and wide selection of yards, and I can tell your Lordships that quite a lot has been done up there which impressed me a good deal. I have not the slightest doubt that I should find the same in other shipbuilding areas of the country, though it so happens that that is the only one I have so far been to.
Moreover, this modernisation plan has been carried out in a period when the order books have been full and the building programme going very hard. It is much more difficult to modernise and reconstruct yards at the same time as you are building ships than it is when nothing is going on at all. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to what has been done, and is still being done, in this direction.
Over all, the conditions I have been talking about have brought a keen element of competition to the industry. I want also to say this. As I went round the yards I found plenty of evidence that our shipbuilders are not throwing up the sponge because they are facing difficult times. On the contrary, they are going out and about wherever they think there may be business to be done. As a result of that, in the last few weeks of last year we saw orders placed, in some cases against very stiff competition, for about 100,000 tons of shipping. I know that orders are never such that you do not want more, but I do not think this picture accords very well with the gloomy one painted by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I should be deceiving your Lordships, or trying to, if I pretended that I thought that this marked the turn of the tide. Some of these
944
orders were captured at prices which were really too keen for what I might call comfort. But I think it is a real demonstration that the British builders are determined to grapple with the present situation, and in many cases are in a reasonable position to do so in a competitive way—a fact of which I have seen some evidence.
I was interested by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, and I hope that they, too, will have their effect in aiding the industry in being as competitive as possible. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe compared our merchant ships rather unfavourably in design with those of Norway, and I certainly do not want to start an argument with him about that at the present time. I should like to point out to your Lordships that Norway is a good customer of ours, and always has been. In fact some of the new orders to which I have just referred, which came in at the end of last year, have come from Norway, so evidently it does not look as though the Norwegians would agree with the noble Lord.
I want to go back now to where I started—that the subject of shipping is a highly complex one in itself, and one which links up closely with other forms of transport. It is also true that the problems with which shipping is faced in the world cannot be dealt with in isolation from many much wider problems affecting trade and politics and, indeed, I think, almost every aspect of national policy in its relation with other countries. My noble friend Lord Teynham drew attention to the ways in which activities of other Government Departments may affect our shipping interests. In the Ministry of Transport we are very much alive to that point, and we are in constant touch with those other Departments on matters that may affect us, however indirect that effect may be. I think we are fortunate in this country, compared with some other countries, in the way in which we have developed our administrative arrangements for consultation between Departments, and I can assure your Lordships that the Ministry of Transport are extremely active in getting the shipping implications of particular developments and policies before the other Departments.
We have had a very useful debate which has produced a number of useful

945
suggestions, which again I can assure your Lordships will not be overlooked by Her Majesty's Government in their consideration of the situation. In the course of the debate we have managed to shed some light on a number of the major problems which shipping is now having to face. If it has not been possible for me to say very much about remedies, and about action to put those remedies into effect, it is for the reasons—mostly reasons of timing—that I hope I have made clear to your Lordships.
In considering all these matters, there is one thing which I believe stands out with considerable emphasis. The principles that we have always held, of free and fair competition and non-intervention by Governments, have served our shipping industry well for many years; and we must be careful not to jeopardise our general position for the sake of some particular and perhaps temporary advantage. In the long run, I believe, the shipping industry will be best served by conditions of peace and prosperity which will enable world trade to expand and shipping to operate freely without regard to political factors. Her Majesty's Government will work for the establishment and maintenance of such conditions.
7.7 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, we have certainly heard many statements and reasons to-day for the unsatisfactory state of the shipping industry, and one of two views have been put forward to indicate that it is perhaps not quite so bad as is sometimes suggested. But we have reached the stage when Her Majesty's Government must give some assistance to the industry to alleviate difficulties in which it finds itself at the present time. I am sure we all appreciate the full answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, about this industry, and in view of his assurances I should like to ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DISTRESS FOR RATES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.