Sitting of 23 February 1960

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

  JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
  Mr. Boydenasked the Attorney-General (1) how many male justices of the peace appointed in 1959 were wage earners; and what percentage this was of the total number of men appointed in 1959;
  (2) how many married women justices of the peace appointed in 1959 were wives of wage earners; and what percentage these appointments were of the number of women appointed in 1959.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The information asked for is not readily available and I do not think that the work and expense involved in obtaining it would be justifiable.
  Mr. Boyden: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Royal Commission on magistrates went to very considerable trouble to make an occupational analysis and to make recommendations that a more representative section of the community should be appointed magistrates? How can these facts be obtained and how can we know what the advisory committees are doing in this matter if we have not got the statistics?
  The Attorney-General: Records are not kept of the occupations of the husbands of the married women appointed magistrates.
  Mr. Boyden: Surely figures are kept of the male magistrates?
  The Attorney-General: Figures are kept of the male magistrates but are not divided into wage and salary earners.

  PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS (PUBLICITY)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the anomaly and possible unfairness to individuals arising from the fact that newspapers are able to give full publicity to notices of proceedings in Chambers, when they appear in the Daily Cause List, but are not allowed subsequently to publish even the judges' decisions in such proceedings; and if he will introduce legislation to make possible, on application from any of the parties concerned, the publication of such decisions.
  The Attorney-General: The Government propose to introduce legislation dealing with the law of contempt at an early date. Cases like that which I understand the hon. Member has in mind will be taken into consideration.
  Mr. Driberg: Whilst thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether it means that he will take into consideration specific cases, such as that of Timpson v. Argyll, with its manifest unfairness, because the Sunday papers were able to publish sensational stories saying that this lady might be sent to prison, but the day after the hearing in Chambers they were not allowed to publish even the result?
  The Attorney-General: There may be good reasons in particular cases why orders should not be published.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Royal Opera House
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the recommendations by a committee of the Arts Council which surveyed the housing of the arts in London and in the annual report of the Royal Opera House that his Department should purchase the Opera House rather than continue to hold it on the present short lease, he proposes to open negotiations to this end.
    The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): I cannot add anything at present to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on 26th January, 1960.
    Mr. Strauss: Although the right hon. Gentleman's Answer says practically nothing, will he at least say that, in general, he is in sympathy with the idea that something should be done about this matter and that it is really quite ridiculous and indefensible that the whole of our opera and ballet should be in private hands and that the building will revert to private ownership in thirty years' time, making it quite impossible to carry out now the necessary improvements and modernisation which the building so urgently requires?
    Lord John Hope: The right hon. Gentleman's Question really goes to the merits of the case, and I do not want to comment on them. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is scarcely accurate in his substantive Question about the short lease because, in point of fact, it still has thirty-one years to run.

    Banqueting Hall, Whitehall
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Works what steps he now proposes to take to remove the Royal United Service Institution from the Banqueting Hall at Whitehall, to furnish the building appropriately, and to permit the public to enjoy its classical architecture and Rubens panels.
    Lord John Hope: I cannot yet add to my replies of 17th November, 1959, to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and 8th December, 1959, to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren)
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Cannot the Minister at least say that he will have a word with the Georgian Group and other bodies interested in this building? Very excellent work having been done on restoring the ceiling, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it ought to be possible to admire the place without squeezing oneself in between models of the Battle of Waterloo which would really be better housed elsewhere? Would not Inigo Jones, Rubens and King Charles I turn in their graves if they knew what was happening at the present time?
    Lord John Hope: The hon. Gentleman would be giving these two incumbents the wrong impression if he tried to suggest that no one was trying to do
    164
    anything about it. As he knows, it is not an easy passage, but I can assure him that I am trying to help.

    Birdcage Walk (Road Works)
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Works for how many weeks the firm of contractors has now been at work on Birdcage Walk; and how many more weeks it is estimated that it will be before it completes its task.
    Lord John Hope: Work has been in progress for nineteen weeks. The completion date for the contract is 12th June, 1960, but I hope that work may in fact be finished by mid-April.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there nothing more the Ministry can do to persuade this firm of Lavender McMillan to curtail the period during which great public inconvenience is caused?
    Lord John Hope: The fact that it might well be possible to finish by mid-April shows that the firm is doing its best to get this job finished. One reason why it has taken longer than might appear on the surface to be necessary is that we have had to keep a right of way open all the time. We could have done it much more quickly if we had shut the whole road.
    Mr. Russell: Could the Minister say how many men are employed on the work? Is it not possible sometimes to employ more men and get the job done more quickly without incurring more cost?
    Lord John Hope: I will look into that and let my hon. Friend know. I have not got the figure.

    Clock Tower and Victoria Tower
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Works to what extent the Clock Tower and the Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster are not vertical; and what action he is taking to remedy the structural defects.
    Lord John Hope: The Clock Tower is about 15 inches out of vertical towards the north-west. The Victoria Tower is out of vertical towards the south-west by about the same amount. Both Towers are being kept under close observation, but there is no indication that the tilt is of recent development in either case, nor is there any cause for concern as to the safety of the Towers.
    Mr. Lipton: While we all regret that Parliament is not as firmly based as we thought, will the Minister continue to keep a watchful eye on the situation to try to get things straightened out as soon as he can? Does he not agree that London has sufficient tourist attractions without adding the "Leaning Towers of Westminster" to them?
    Lord John Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful suggestion.

    Windsor Castle (Heating System)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Works what representations he has received from the National Coal Board on the proposed conversion of the heating system at Windsor Castle from coke to oil.
    Lord John Hope: The National Coal Board recently asked for an opportunity to make proposals for solid fuel to be retained at Windsor Castle. But, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained to the House on 16th February, it is too late to consider changing the system now being installed.
    Mr. Wyatt: Will the Minister use this unhappy incident—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why unhappy?"]—as a lesson for the future and give early notice to the National Coal Board and other authorities interested of installations under his control which are likely to be converted to oil, so that they may look at them in time and suggest more efficient and cheaper ways of running them than by oil?
    Lord John Hope: What happens in the future is one thing; this is quite another. The hon. Gentleman is less than fair in suggesting that this particular incident has anything unhappy about it at all.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Wyatt: The Minister himself admitted it. Is he not aware that last week his Parliamentary Secretary stated that like had been compared with like, but that that is not the case, because since the first plan three years ago, there have been many modern developments in coal utilisation to allow of all the things which can be done by oil to be done more cheaply by coal?
    Lord John Hope: Indeed, the whole point is, as the hon. Gentleman himself recognised in the speech which he made on the afternoon of the same day last week, that it is too late in this case to do anything. That is the point, and there is no need to go on about it.

    House of Commons (Accommodation)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Works, in view of the finding of the Select Committee on Accommodation 1953–54 that a disproportionate amount of space in the Palace of Westminster is at present occupied by other users of the Palace than honourable Members, what steps he is taking to provide alternative accommodation for these other users.
    Lord John Hope: The allocation of space in the Palace of Westminster is a matter for the authorities of the Palace. I have had no requests from these authorities to provide alternative accommodation for the users to whom the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Blackburn: Does not the Minister think it is time that the control of this Palace was taken over by the House of Commons, as recommended by the Select Committee?
    Lord John Hope: That is a matter of opinion, which is not for me to express.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the Minister agree that all hon. Members of this House have a very great interest in the proper use of the accommodation here? Will he not lend us his support in establishing some kind of democratic control in determining the use to which the accommodation is put?
    Lord John Hope: I have tried accurately to set out the constitutional position, and I cannot go beyond it. Within that, I am certainly not myself as Minister aware of obstruction from any quarter.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to express an opinion for some reason or other, does he object to the House of Commons expressing an opinion about this anachronism? Why does he not tell the Lord Great Chamberlain to mind his own business and let us decide to look after ourselves?
    Lord John Hope: Obviously, I can have no objection at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not for me to object to the House expressing an opinon. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had any objection to the House expressing its opinion. The answer is that I have no objection at all. It might be very interesting.
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Works why the construction of galleries in the House of Commons Library as proposed by the Select Committee on Accommodation was not carried out.
    Lord John Hope: The Library Committee agreed in 1956 that, as the estimated cost of this proposal was out of scale with the benefits gained, it must be deferred.
    Mrs. White: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in the Report on Accommodation, it was suggested that further estimates for a less elaborate arrangement should be obtained? Could he not look at the matter again, because the arguments used in favour of it in that Report still obtain?
    Lord John Hope: I think the answer to the hon. Lady's point lies in the fact that instead of 75 yards of shelving costing £20,000 having been provided, which is what would have happened had the original idea gone ahead, the same amount of shelving has been provided on the Ministers' floor at a cost of about £700.
    Mrs. White: But the question of access for Members to the shelves in the Library has not been dealt with at all.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Works how many desks there are in each of the three Members' Typing Rooms; and what is the floor space of each room.
    Lord John Hope: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Desk Rooms in the Upper Committee Corridor. There are now five of these rooms, and the figures are as follows:

    Room 1. 18 desks—470 sq. ft.

    Room 3. 14 desks—405 sq. ft.

    Room 8. 13 desks—430 sq. ft.

    Room 9. 10 desks—320 sq. ft.

    Room 10. 17 desks—470 sq. ft.

    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that these three rooms are grossly overcrowded, imposing almost intolerable conditions on hon. Members who try to work in them? Is he also aware that the floor space available to each desk is less than that regarded as the minimum for office accommodation in the Gowers Report years ago? When is he going to do something to improve this situation?
    Lord John Hope: A comparison with the Gowers Report as it stands is not a fair one, because these standards apply to work being done the whole time in that space.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that, unless he does something to improve these conditions before the Offices Bill reaches the Statute Book, he will be in danger of prosecution?
    Lord John Hope: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I neither wish that to happen nor to fail to do something to help the hon. Member as far as I can. That is exactly what I am now trying to do.
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Works what is the average number of square feet per desk provided for the use of hon. Members in Room No. 1 in the Upper Committee Corridor.
    Lord John Hope: A little over 26 sq. ft.
    Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are eighteen desks in that room and that the conditions in which hon. Members have to do their work in those rooms are absolutely shocking? Does he not think the time has come when hon. Members should be given better accommodation facilities to do the work which they have been sent here to do? Should they not be granted some means of privacy for carrying out their duties? Would he not recommend that the Prime Minister, who is responsible as the "parent" of this House, should himself see the conditions in which Members have to work?
    Lord John Hope: Of course I am aware of these conditions; I have worked in them myself for about fifteen years. I quite agree with the hon. Member that they leave an awful lot to be desired—in my view, at least. That

    169
    is why I want to do what I can to help. I assure the hon. Member and the House that I am considering ways and means to help, but it is not easy, although I am sure something can be done.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this accommodation works out at 19 sq. ft., less per person than that recommended in the Gowers Report? That was a minimum figure. Is not this a very shocking situation? Does he realise that he cannot get away with it by saying that these desks are not in regular use? These rooms are occupied for the most part by hon. Members on this side of the House, who use them frequently and regularly and work all the time.
    Lord John Hope: The hon. Lady is being rather naughty. She knows as well as I do that a great deal of hon. Members' time is spent outside these rooms—for instance, in the Chamber, as now.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no answer to this problem except the building of a private office block for the House of Commons? Can he tell the House whether any consideration is now being given to that?
    Lord John Hope: Consideration of that problem, as of other similar problems, is being given.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Works when he estimates that he will be able to provide sufficient working rooms to accommodate every hon. Member of this House.
    Lord John Hope: It is not possible to give a precise forecast yet.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister take into account that this Palace was built in the middle of the nineteenth century? We are now in the second part of the twentieth century and all the executive work is far greater than it was then. Will he see that the Government seriously tackle the provision of a new office block such as was spoken of a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly)?
    Lord John Hope: If I may answer the hon. Member in the terms of this
    170
    question, I can assure him that it certainly will be before the first half of the twenty-first century that something is done.
    Mr. Hayman: It is time this Government got out quickly.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Works how many desks are now provided in the Palace of Westminster for the exclusive use of hon. Members or their secretaries and how many are on order.
    Lord John Hope: There are 72 desks allocated to hon. Members in desk rooms and 109 for the use of their secretaries: in addition, there are 232 writing places in various parts of the House. Another 16 desks are on order for hon. Members, and 24 for their secretaries, for Nos. 6–7. Old Palace Yard.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister not aware that what hon. Members are anxious to have is desks exclusively for their own use, not merely a place in which they can perch like a bird of passage to do a bit of writing? Is he aware that as long ago as 1954, in answer to a questionnaire by the Stokes Committee, 295 Members said they wanted such a desk for their own exclusive use, yet, according to his own figures, 100 hon. Members are still without one? Is it not intolerable that 100 hon. Members have not even a desk of their own, let alone an office?
    Lord John Hope: There is a great deal to be said for the point of view of the hon. Member. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then say it."] Most hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to have some place of their own where they can concentrate and can keep their own things.
    Mr. Leavey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it seems that we are arriving at a situation where, in the view of hon. Members opposite, an Englishman's desk is his castle?
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is being far too modest in this matter? What hon. Members want is not one desk crowded out by others in close proximity, but a properly appointed office in which we can have two desks, one for a secretary, with a telephone and facilities

    171
    not inferior to those enjoyed, for example, by medium-rank officials of local authorities? Otherwise, we cannot do our jobs properly on these premises and will have to go elsewhere.
    Lord John Hope: The possibility of office accommodation is one of the things I am looking at. The hon. Member perhaps rather over-egged the pudding when he spoke of telephones and that sort of thing, but office accommodation is a different thing.
    Mr. Tiley: Is it not possible at the moment to take steps at least to have telephones on the desks we now use? We waste hours waiting to get hold of secretaries, those few of us who are lucky enough to have them.
    Lord John Hope: Yes, I shall bear that in mind.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Works what decisions have so far been reached with regard to the extensive building operations visualised by the Select Committee on Accommodation, 1953–54.
    Lord John Hope: I am considering various plans for providing additional accommodation for the use of Members. As a first step, I am making available space in Nos. 6–7 Old Palace Yard as already announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) on 1st December, 1959, and this will be ready at the beginning of next month.
    Mrs. Castle: Surely the Minister is aware that that paltry bit of accommodation across the road is not the extensive building operations for which the Stokes Committee called urgently six years ago? It is no good the Minister expressing regret about the grossly overcrowded and inadequate conditions to which we have been referring unless he is prepared to get a move on. Will he also realise that when accommodation is provided, hon. Members on this side of the House want it to be on this site, not somewhere else? We believe that other users of the Palace should go across the road while we should be near the Chamber where we do our work.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if there were to be building, many of us would very much regret the
    172
    replacing or cutting down of the beautiful catalpa trees in Old Palace Yard?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not clear that from all the answers of the Minister it is high time "the wind of change" started blowing through the Palace of Westminster and we had our own Committee of the House to deal with these matters?
    Lord John Hope: That is hardly for me to say. On the whole of this question, as hon. Members have asked it from both sides of the House, I realise perfectly well the whole House wants something substantial to be done. I realise that hon. Members do not want the accommodation to be too far away. Within these limits, I am sure the House realises perfectly well it is not going to be easy to find a solution, but I believe that one can be found. I am doing my best now to find it and to suggest it to the House.

    St. Stephen's Hall (Repairs)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Works for how long the internal temporary shell in St. Stephen's Hall is likely to remain.
    Lord John Hope: Until the end of the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister appreciate that, meanwhile, this very prosaic approach to the Central Lobby and the respective Houses is not at all encouraging to overseas visitors, who have the idea that this is the best that we can do in the circumstances? Cannot he speed the matter up?
    Lord John Hope: It is being speeded up as much as possible, but, as so often happens in a case like this, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, more was found wrong than was suspected when the work began. So far as the appearance of St. Stephen's Hall is concerned, I agree with him, but one hopes that visitors from overseas will, with their quick intuitiveness, realise that this is something temporary.

    Estimates (House of Commons)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Works which items relating to expenditure in that part of the Palace of Westminster occupied by the Commons are borne on the Vote of his Department.
    Lord John Hope: As the list of these items is long. I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. White: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has now come when all these items ought to be put together on a House of Commons Vote, to be dealt with as such, in the same way as another place has its own Vote?
    Lord John Hope: I think it works very well as it is.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Following is the list:

    1. Building and engineering work in connection with the repair and maintenance of the fabric and alterations and additions to it.

    2. Provision, maintenance and operation of engineering plant and equipment, and of electricity, gas and water services.

    3. Provision and maintenance of all furniture, furnishings and fittings.

    4. Cleaning of the Chamber, lobbies, entrances, waiting halls, corridors and lavatories.

    5. Care of works of art, and the occasional provision of additional ones.

    Litter
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Works to what extent anti-litter legislation has had an effect in reducing the amount of litter deposited by the public in the parks and open spaces under his control.
    Lord John Hope: Although no statistics are available, I am glad to say that there has been a noticeable reduction in the amount of litter left on the ground.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that account is kept of the number of tons of literature—[Laughter.]—I mean litter, including literature, collected on Bank holidays? Could we have some comparative figures on that basis?
    Lord John Hope: It is not possible to differentiate between litter properly deposited in baskets and litter improperly deposited on the ground.
    Mr. Blackburn: Can the Minister say whether there has been any estimate of the amount of litter deposited by the Front Bench?
    Lord John Hope: That is another question.

  SCOTLAND

    Salmon
    Mr. Kimballasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an independent committee to examine and collect all the evidence of the effect of hydro-electric schemes on salmon stocks and to obtain accurate figures of fish caught in nets in the affected rivers.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Most hydro-electric schemes have been in operation for too short a time to enable the effect they are having on salmon stocks to be reliably determined, but I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind. As regards the second part of the Question, returns for fish caught by nets in all Scottish rivers are already furnished to me under statute.
    Mr. Kimball: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the irreparable damage that is being done in Norway, and also of the experiments which are now being carried out by Liverpool University and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and could he co-ordinate the work so that some definite information will be available to the river boards?
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware of the various studies that have been made of the problem, and I myself have studies being carried out between the Hydro-Electric Board and the statutory Fisheries Committee.

    Edinburgh-Glasgow Road
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware or the dangers arising from the three lanes on the Edinburgh-Glasgow road; and if he will transform it into either a two-or four-lane highway to avoid danger from the centre lane being used to pass in both directions.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations has received from the Midlothian County Council concerning accidents on the Edinburgh to Glasgow trunk road A.8; and what proposals he has for converting the present three-Lane road into a dual carriageway.
    Mr. Maclay: I share the concern which Midlothian County Council have expressed at the number of accidents on this

    175
    road. Plans for the reconstruction of the Baillieston-Newhouse stretch, with dual carriageways, are in preparation and the improvement of the whole road will proceed as quickly as the funds at my disposal permit.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart altogether from the width of the road, the fact that there are three lines itself constitutes a danger, and that people driving on the road would feel far safer if there was a line down the middle which should not be crossed except on the responsibility of the person crossing it, and that that would be far safer than having three lines with a passing space between two sets of vehicles?
    Mr. Maclay: I know that that opinion is held, but the evidence suggests that the number of junctions and not the three-lane construction is the principle cause of accidents. I can give the right hon. Gentleman relevant figures.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the developments which are now taking place around the road, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will deal with the matter rather more urgently? Can he give us some indication of when he is likely to do something more about the other part of the road?
    Mr. Maclay: We are at present, in consultation and in conjunction with the West Lothian County Council, examining the implications of the establishment of the B.M.C. factory at Bathgate and will proceed with the early stages of the work as quickly as we can get on with it.
    Mr. T. Fraser: In saying that he will go ahead with the work as quickly as he can, is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that the funds at his disposal are hopelessly inadequate to the needs of the situation?
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at any given moment there is only a certain amount of money available. I hope that the Baillieston-Newhouse part of the road will be started early in the financial year 1961–62.

    Local Government Expenditure, Caithness
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the assurance given by him to the hon.
    176
    Member for Caithness and Sutherland in a letter dated 15th January, 1958, that no loss would be borne in the first year by Caithness County Council as a result of the operation of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, has not been fulfilled.
    Mr. Maclay: The assurance related to gains and losses ascertained in accordance with Section 18 (2) of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958. In the current year all such losses are being made good. Under a recent recalculation Caithness are now shown to be a gaining authority as so ascertained.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that Caithness had to spend a great deal of money on providing new schools because of the siting of the Dounreay establishment in Caithness and that when it received an assurance and a favourable answer from the right hon. Gentleman it went ahead with the projects and is now suffering a very heavy loss? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again, for it is a serious situation for a poor landward area like Caithness?
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have great sympathy with Caithness in the position in which it finds itself, but the fact is that the assurance given could be related only to the provisions of the Act. While I regret any misunderstanding that there might have been, I do not see what else could have been said.

    Housing, Lybster
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the danger to health, he will inquire into the housing situation in Lybster where some families are living in homes which are unfit for human habitation and others in homes without piped water or sanitation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: I have been keeping in touch with Caithness County Council about housing needs in Lybster. Since the war the council has built 42 houses there, 10 are under construction and further building is proposed. In addition it has improved 7 houses and grant-aided the improvement of 14 others.
    Sir D. Robertson: In spite of the houses which have been built, there is a very real need in this large village where people are living in thoroughly unhealthy conditions. As the Secretary of State is the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland, will he ensure that the matter is not left entirely to the county council?
    Mr. Maclay: As I have said, I have been keeping in touch with the Caithness County Council, and I understand that the council is thinking in terms of a further ten-fifteen houses to be built in the year 1960–61.

    Land Reclamation
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for increasing the present rate of land reclamation for agricultural purposes in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: None, Sir. I consider that the present range of incentives offer ample scope for the reclamation of land that can economically be put to fuller agricultural use.
    Mr. Willis: As there are large areas which could be reclaimed and as only same 10,000 acres have been reclaimed in four years, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel it is time he gave more thought to the matter and proceeded to get the best possible use out of the land of Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: There are a substantial number of incentive schemes available. One must also have regard to the ultimate economic possibilities of the operation.

    Industry (Rates)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the increased and rapidly increasing provision of State financial help to private industry, he will now take steps to introduce legislation providing for the full re-rating of industry.
    Mr. Maclay: Industry was partially re-rated as recently as 16th May, 1959, and I have no further proposal to make at present.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why not? As increasing amounts of public money are being given to private enterprise and at the same
    178
    time local authorities are having to increase their rates because of the Government's policy, will not the right hon. Gentleman introduce, as a matter of simple justice to the local authorities and the ratepayers, a Measure to ensure that industry pays its full share of the rate burden?
    Mr. Maclay: I am by no means certain that at this moment when we are trying hard to encourage industries to go to Scotland I ought to take steps to increase their overheads.
    Mr. Forbes Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to restore re-rating of industry would be one of the best ways to keep industries away from Scotland?

    Central Institutions (Students)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the total number of new students enrolled at the central institutions for the session 1958–59.
    Mr. Maclay: 4,033 full-time and 9,390 part-time students.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with that rate of progress?
    Mr. Maclay: The figures show an increase of 236 and 183 respectively compared with the previous year.

    Technical Education (Building Programme)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the projects which have been completed in the technical education building programme of £10½ million announced in 1956.
    Mr. Maclay: As the list is fairly long I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total value of the work completed, which includes a new technical college at Thurso, is £345,000.
    Mr. McInnes: Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot be satisfied with the rate of progress in this matter? What he is suggesting is that projects costing between £130,000-£200,000 are taking four years to complete. Is not this most unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Maclay: I am never satisfied with the rate of progress of almost everything with which I have anything to do, but I believe that the full £10 million will be committed by the time we said it would and that progress is being made now.
    Following is the list:

    £

    Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt College. Extension to Pharmacy Department

    55,000

    Aberdeen, Robert Gordon's Technical College. Alterations and Additions—School of Chemistry

    5,000

    Glasgow, The Royal College of Science and Technology

    (i) Accommodation for Radar Training

    20,000

    (ii) Conversion of accommodation vacated by Engineering Department

    50,000

    (iii) Alterations and Additions—St. Paul's Church—School of Navigation

    49,000

    Glasgow, The Scottish College of Commerce. Extension—Hotel School

    66,000

    Ayr, Kilmarnock Technical Further Education Centre. Temporary Extension

    9,000

    Caithness, Thurso Technical College. New Centre

    40,000

    Dumfries, Dumfries New Further Education Centre. Adaptations to existing school building

    5,000

    Edinburgh, Bristo Technical Institute. Adaptations and Improvements

    8,000

    Glasgow, Stow College of Building. Alterations—Whitevale St. Annexe

    7,000

    Sutherland, Sutherland Technical School. Extension

    25,000

    Renfrew, Paisley Technical College. Temporary classrooms

    6,000

    £345,000

    Arable Land
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total acreage of arable land in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: The total arable acreage—i.e. land under tillage crops and rotation grass—was 3,349,000 in 1959.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cultivated acreage of arable land in Scotland for the years 1957–58, 1958–59 and 1959–60, respectively.
    Mr. Maclay: The acreage under tillage crops (that is crops other than grass) in Scotland in 1957 was 1,611,000; in 1958 1,580,000 and in 1959 1,546,000.
    Mr. Manuel: Has the right hon. Gentleman prepared any plans for the future which will greatly increase Scotland's tillage acreage? Is he aware that such plans would lead to a much healthier agricultural industry in Scotland and also save much shipping space at present used for the importation of essential food?
    Mr. Maclay: The decline in acreage shown by the figures which I have been given has been largely offset by the increase in the acreage of rotation grass. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, good husbandry demands a relatively high proportion of grass in rotation. The Government's main objective has been set out in the White Paper on Agricultural Guarantees for 1959, and our object at the moment is the maintenance of the arable acreage at roughly the present size.

    Old People, East Fife (Hospital Accommodation)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the South East of Scotland Regional Hospital Board has made for the immediate provision of urgently required geriatric beds in the East Fife Hospital Board area.
    Mr. Maclay: The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board has submitted proposals for the building of a geriatric unit at the Randolph Wemyss Hospital, Buckhaven, and I hope to give the Board a decision on this matter very soon.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only 4·3 beds per 1,000 of the population over 65 years of age are available to the County of Fife at the present time as opposed to 11·2 per cent. in England and Wales, that almost 30 per cent. of the old people admitted to hospital die within a year of admission because they are so late in being admitted, and that a number of old people are left to die in their own homes in the most miserable and distressing conditions? Will he ensure that the hospital at Buckhaven is built as soon as possible?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman has given a number of statistics which I am sure are correct. I am aware of Fife's needs, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to improve the situation as fast as we can.

    Teachers, Lanarkshire
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the extent of teacher shortage in primary, junior secondary, and senior secondary schools in Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Maclay: Separate figures for different types of school are not available, but I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the shortage according to the qualifications of the teachers required.
    Miss Herbison: Surely it would be a simple thing to get separate figures for each category? Surely each education authority knows the number that it is short in the primary schools and the junior secondary and senior secondary schools? Surely the Secretary of State could ask for those figures?

    LANARKSHIRE EDUCATION AUTHORITY

    Qualification

    Number of Certificated Teachers required on 5th October, 1959

    To replace teachers insufficiently qualified for the posts they hold

    Number from Col. 5 available for redistribution to other posts for which they are qualified

    Total Net Shortage

    To fill Vacant Posts

    To replace uncertificated teachers

    To replace retired Teachers (re-employed)

    Col. (1)

    Col. (2)

    Col. (3)

    Col. (4)

    Col. (5)

    Col. (6)

    Cols. (2)-(5) less Col. (6)

    Chapter IV (Primary)

    …

    13

    54

    10

    —

    5

    72

    Chapter IV with article 39 (sub-specialist)

    …

    …

    …

    2

    69

    1

    12

    9

    75

    Chapter V (specialist, academic subjects)

    …

    …

    …

    11

    9

    4

    21

    21

    24

    Chapter VI (specialist, non-academic subjects)

    …

    21

    130

    2

    4

    2

    155

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    47

    262

    17

    37

    37

    326

    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many uncertificated teachers are employed in primary, junior secondary, and senior secondary schools in Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Maclay: At the last count on 5th October, the numbers were 65, 133 and 18 respectively, plus 64 others, most of whom are visiting teachers of practical subjects.
    Mr. Maclay: As I said, the figures are not at present available. I will examine carefully what the hon. Lady has said.
    Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will circulate these figures. Is he satisfied with them? Does not he realise that many people are seriously worried about this teacher shortage among the big education authorities like Lanarkshire and Glasgow? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to help such authorities?
    Mr. Maclay: I am also concerned about the shortage of teachers, but I am glad to say that the number of students undergoing teacher training has increased in recent years to more than ever before.
    Following is the table:
    Miss Herbison: Does the Secretary of State realise that the figures he has given show that the junior secondary schools are the worst off in this respect? Does he also realise that children in junior secondary schools leave at the age of 15 and have little chance after that of any kind of education? Surely he should do something to help those children, who are the under-privileged, to obtain better teachers for the work which they should be doing?
    Mr. Maclay: As I indicated in my previous answer, we are alive to the problem; and it is comforting to know that the steps which have been taken are showing some result in the form of increased recruitment.

    Scottish Office (Distribution of Functions)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes are being made in the distribution of responsibilities within his Departments; and whether, for the guidance of the public and hon. Members, he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: I have given a direction under the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Act, 1939, making from 1st April, 1960, some changes in the distribution of functions within my four Departments.
    The main effect is to transfer from the Scottish Home Department to the Department of Agriculture, which will in future be known as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, functions relating to fisheries, fishery piers and harbours, steamer services and the Highlands, and to the Scottish Education Department functions relating to child care, adoption and remand homes.
    The purpose is to secure a better distribution of the burden of work and the changes will have no effect on policy, for which I remain responsible. I shall, with permission, circulate full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Woodburn: We shall study these details but there is one point about which I am not clear. Is there any change being made regarding forestry? From what the right hon. Gentleman said, may I take it that there is no suggestion that forestry and agriculture are to come under one Ministry, because that would be bound to lead to trouble?
    Mr. Maclay: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that important point. There is no intention of changing the present arrangements regarding forestry.
    Following are the details:

    1. The functions at present assigned to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (except those referred to in paragraph 4) and the following functions at present assigned to the Scottish Home Department have been assigned
    184
    to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. That is to say, functions relating to fisheries, fishery piers, harbours and dredging (except Provisional Orders under the Piers, Harbours and Ferries Acts): functions relating to steamer services in the Highlands and Islands: and general functions relating to the Highlands and Islands, including the provision of staff for the Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands. The same staff will continue to carry out the work, including the present Fisheries Secretary, who will continue to act in that capacity.

    2. Functions relating to child care, adoption, remand homes, and the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, at present exercised by the Scottish Home Department have been assigned to the Scottish Education Department.

    3. Functions relating to coast protection and flood prevention, at present exercised by the Scottish Home Department, have been assigned to the Department of Health for Scotland.

    4. Functions relating to township roads in the crofter counties and to improvement of roads in livestock rearing areas, at present exercised by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, have been assigned to the Scottish Home Department.

    Housing
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to encourage local authorities to build larger size houses.
    Mr. Maclay: Local authorities are free to build whatever sizes and types of houses they consider necessary to meet the needs of their areas.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that only 26 per cent. of the houses built by local authorities in Scotland are four-apartment or five-apartment, compared with 73 per cent. built in the six years from 1945 to 1951? Does not he think that the present position is thoroughly unsatisfactory, particularly when we consider Scotland's history of overcrowding? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this and, in particular, consider the restoration of the subsidy differential according to the size of the house?
    Mr. Maclay: The answer to part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is "No." My own view is that we concentrated too much on the larger houses for too long. The hon. Member may be interested to know that an analysis of a representative sample of 1,000 households which my Department made recently showed that over 75 per cent. of the households required houses of three apartments or less.
    Mr. T. Fraser: How on earth can the Secretary of State say that we concentrated for far too long on large houses? Does he realise that we have far worse conditions of overcrowding in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom or most other parts of Europe? Does not he realise that even people in Scotland who support him and his party take the view that we should not have departed from the differential subsidy so that we could provide an inducement for local authorities to provide the houses needed in their areas?
    Mr. Maclay: The real answer is that we want more houses but not necessarily larger houses. That point is very important. Had we had more even of the three-apartment and two-apartment houses, we might have been able to clear up some of the overcrowding problems more quickly by a proper process of decanting.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the Minister aware that the bulk of the pre-war houses are grossly overcrowded even on his own figures?
    Mr. Maclay: The answer is that we need more houses, which is why we are going on building.

  OLD PEOPLE (WELFARE)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister in view of the desire of the public of all shades of opinion that more should be done to ensure that old people are given a greater share in the national prosperity, if he will give consideration to the appointment of a Minister for the welfare of the elderly, for the purpose of co-ordinating and expanding existing services, dealing with pensions, accommodation and amenities for leisure.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Old people have already benefited substantially from our increased national prosperity and the Government intend that they shall continue to do so. But I do not think it would be helpful to appoint a Minister to co-ordinate the several functions performed by my right hon. Friends, who do of course keep in close touch with one another on this important matter.
  Mr. Dodds: If the Prime Minister considers it unnecessary to appoint a
  186
  Minister especially to deal with the welfare of elderly people whose numbers are rapidly increasing, does he not appreciate that, despite the fine words of himself and his colleagues at the last General Election, so far a mere 80,000 have been allowed to earn more money without loss of pension and 1 million others have had virtually nothing done for them? Will he be frank and tell the House whether there is any hope of getting some benefit in the near future for these people, because time is not on their side? Or is it that the Government having made the decision to spend fabulous sums of money on doubtful defence purposes, there is no money left for the old people?
  The Prime Minister: That is another question which is for the Government as a whole. The hon. Member asked whether I would appoint a special Minister to co-ordinate this problem. My answer is that I do not think that would help in solving the problem.

  COLONIAL SECRETARY (RESIDENCE)
  Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Prime Minister if he will procure an official residence for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  The Prime Minister: Any such additional provision of official residences for Ministers would raise important considerations which seem to me to require a good deal of thought.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that hundreds of colonial visitors and conferences come here annually from all quarters of the globe and that it is not right that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary should be expected to entertain them in a relatively small flat with relatively little domestic help, or else in the cold splendour of Lancaster House?
  The Prime Minister: As I say, official residences for Ministers in London are partly a matter of historical tradition, although I agree that recently, some ten years ago I think, an official flat was provided for the Foreign Secretary. But quite apart from this, the matter obviously requires thought, but unfortunately some of these houses—the

  187
  houses and not the people occupying them, Nos. 10 and 11, Downing Street—are in a state of decay as well.
  Mr. Lipton: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the provision of better working accommodation for hon. Members of this House is much more important than the provision of an official residence for the Secretary of State for the Colonies? As speed is the essence of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman try to do something about that before he becomes Chancellor of Oxford University?
  The Prime Minister: This is a large problem which can hardly be dealt with by me today by Question and Answer.
  Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask the Prime Minister, if he is considering this problem at all, to recall that for the past 15 years at least some of us on this side of the House have been engaged in the liquidation of the British Colonial Empire and that if any official residence is called for, it should surely be for the Commonwealth Relations Department?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the process of gradual evolution towards self-government should properly be described as the liquidation of the Colonial Empire. I should have said it was moving on through progress to a position which had long been envisaged and always been our objective. About who is to live in what house, I should still like to reserve judgment.

  CENTRAL AFRICA (MONCKTON COMMISSION)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the results of his African tour, he will now amend the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission to allow other forms of association, besides Federation, between the territories, or secession, to be recommended, and in order to remove ambiguity about the work of the Commission.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to my statements on 21st July, 1959, and 24th November, 1959, about the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister not aware that, although he shirks
  188
  this problem, Lord Monckton does not, and that, according to reports from Rhodesia, Lord Monckton is prepared to hear people advocating the secession of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Will the Prime Minister comment on that?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have not seen those reports, but if they are true, I cannot see what the hon. Member is worrying about.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not becoming increasingly clear, in view of the statements of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and of the speech of Mr. Garfield Todd, reported today, that the prospects of Federation continuing effectively are becoming increasingly dim? Would it not be a wise move to invite the Monckton Commission to consider other forms of association, since they will in any case have to be looked at due course?
  The Prime Minister: We have had all this out about the terms of reference many times. I know the right hon. Gentleman's views. I know that he was not altogether satisfied with the interpretation which I tried to give. The Commission is starting its work, and I have no doubt that its report will be of the greatest value. Sooner or later this House as a whole and this country as a whole will have to face the difficult problem with which we shall then be presented. I do not think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman would think it wise of me to do anything except to allow the Monckton Commission to continue its work in the hope that it will be valuable and fruitful.
  Mr. Gaitskell: We are aware that the Prime Minister has insisted that the only thing the Commission can do, if it finds that Federation is not the right solution, is simply to say so. In view of what has happened since the appointment of the Commission, and in view of his own experiences in Africa and the feelings of Africans on this subject, does he not think that it would be a good plan to suggest to the Commission postively that it should consider alternatives to Federation?
  The Prime Minister: Already within the terms of reference there are very wide possibilities of interpreting and applying

  189
  the meaning of Federation. I believe that it would be a grave mistake on my part at this time to interrupt the work which is going on.
  Mr. Gower: If it is true that the prospects of Federation are dim, is it not a fact that the dimness is due partly to Questions of this type and the constant harrying of Federation by hon. Members opposite?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that it would be very much wiser to allow these things to proceed and to reach a conclusion quietly. We have a difficult year ahead of us.

  BASUTOLAND
  Mr. de Freitasasked the Prime Minister what discussions he had in Basutoland on the future of that country.
  The Prime Minister: As I said in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 16th February, I had talks about the future of Basutoland with political leaders in that Territory, and with the High Commissioner and some of his officers.
  Mr. de Freitas: Did the Prime Minister give them an assurance that they would not be handed over to South Africa unless the people of the territory consented to that transfer? If he did not give such an assurance, will he, either now or at another Opportunity, give the assurance that they will not be handed over unless they consent?
  The Prime Minister: I repeated both in Basutoland and, I think, in two other territories, as well as in Capetown and Pretoria, that the Government stood by the pledge given and the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in April, 1954. That statement is quite categoric.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the methods of operation and system of accountability of the nationalised industries.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not feel that a Royal Commission would be a suitable piece of machinery to help to solve this problem.
  Mr. Wyatt: As the Conservative Party have been running the nationalized Indus-
  190
  tries for nearly ten years, which is nearly three times as long as anyone else, will the Prime Minister now admit that if there is anything wrong with them or anything which makes them unpopular, it is entirely the fault of the Conservative Party and not the fault of the Labour Party? Will he start doing his duty by them instead of using them to man pulate for party political purposes?
  The Prime Minister: I have always tried to be a peacemaker, and I think that what the hon. Member has said may be a useful contribution to the difficult and delicate problem of Clause 4.

  FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Mr. Marquandasked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the statement of policy recently made by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia as to the conditions about which he would require to be satisfied before taking part in the Constitutional Review of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland: and whether he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to his supplemnetary question on 18th February.
  Mr. Marquand: Has not Sir Edgar Whitehead's statement made it absolutely clear that the possibility of the secession of Southern Rhodesia from the Federation will be one of the issues of the constitutional review? Is it not, therefore, equally clear that the Monckton Commission, in preparing for the constitutional review, must consider the possibility of secession in all its aspects?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we are rather splitting hairs on this phrase. What I have ascertained, and what I told the right hon. Gentleman, is that Sir Edgar Whitehead did not, as it was alleged, say that there were certain conditions which were primary conditions which must be accepted before he would enter into discussions. He set out, as people often do before they start negotiations, what he hoped to get out of those negotiations.
  Mr. Stonehouse: What reply has the Prime Minister given to the request by

  191
  Sir Edgar Whitehead that the protective clauses in the Southern Rhodesian constitution should be withdrawn?
  The Prime Minister: That is another question, of which I should like notice. It does not arise now.

  PRIME MINISTER (MOSCOW SPEECHES)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister in view of references in the Report on Defence, 1960, to the Communist military threat and the many and changing forms of the threat of war, if he will circulate to all Departments and publish as a White Paper the texts of his speeches in Moscow last year on this subject, so as to clarify Her Majesty's Government's policy.
  The Prime Minister: My speeches in Moscow were fully reported at the time. Although I am flattered by the proposal of the hon. Member, I see no advantage in publishing a collection of them now, though, so far as is within my power, I would reserve the copyright.
  Mr. Swingler: Does the Prime Minister still believe what he said in Moscow last year? If so, how does he reconcile it with the first page of the Defence White Paper, 1960? Does the Prime Minister recall that when he confronted the leaders in the Kremlin he said,
  "It is not that we fear acts of calculated aggression, and I hope that you do not. At the same time, it is impossible to hide from ourselves the dangers of a war by miscalculation or by muddle."
  Since the Prime Minister said that we did not fear a war from calculated aggression, how does he reconcile that statement with the Defence White Paper?
  The Prime Minister: We have to take the broad view of our responsibilities. While I personally do not believe that either the West or the East would on purpose set about an act of aggressive war, because of what one might call the stalemate of strength, I do not think that that is any good reason for removing unilaterally our guard and so taking away from this very stalemate of strength which is one of the protections of peace.
  Mr. Swingler: Is the Prime Minister aware that the White Paper speaks of "a continuing threat of aggression"? These are the words which are used.
  192
  He has just said from the Box that he does not believe that any of the Great Powers will commit calculated acts of aggression.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, but they may calculate acts which, as we all know from the tragic history of the past, might by confusion or muddle—or they might not be absolutely thought out to the last stage of what will happen—make a very dangerous situation. We know that. Surely it is our duty to protect ourselves against it.
  Mrs. Hart: If the Prime Minister believes that calculated aggression is not the threat but that there may at any time be an act of muddle creating war, will he explain what hope there can ever be of disarmament and peace?
  The Prime Minister: These are very difficult things with which to deal by question and answer. I once said—and I believe it to be true—that the first war might have been avoided had the means of communication, the habit of meeting and the conferences which we try to make part of our international life, been generally then in existence. I do not think that the second war was the same. I think that it was planned by a wicked, diabolical man. All I am saying is that that does not mean that we shall help peace by unilaterally disarming.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is it not a fact that one insures one's house against fire but that that does not necessarily mean that one expects that it will be burned down during the coming year?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and unless you are a very dishonourable man, you certainly do not set fire to it.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are beginning to think that he makes his best speeches outside this country? Will he do us the favour of re-reading those speeches when he comes home, with a view to suitable consistent action?
  The Prime Minister: I will re-read my speeches, and for purposes of greater accuracy I will obtain a copy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  SUPPLY
    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, TOGETHER WITH ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1960–61

      (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a sum, not exceeding £1,370,537,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, viz.:

      CIVIL ESTIMATES

      CLASS I

      £

      1. House of Lords

      75,000

      2. House of Commons

      520,000

      3. Registration of Electors

      75,000

      4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

      1,400,000

      5. Privy Council Office

      14,000

      6. Privy Seal Office

      4,000

      7. Charity Commission

      50,000

      8. Civil Service Commission

      197,000

      9. Crown Estate Office

      52,000

      10. Exchequer and Audit Department

      300,000

      11. Friendly Societies Registry

      40,000

      12. Government Actuary

      18,000

      13. Government Hospitality

      30,000

      14. Royal Mint

      10

      15. National Debt Office

      10

      16. National Savings Committee

      520,000

      17. Public Record Office

      48,000

      18. Public Works Loan Commission

      10

      19. Royal Commissions, etc.

      110,000

      20. Secret Service

      2,400,000

      21. Miscellaneous Expenses

      240,000

      Scotland:

      22. Scottish Home Department

      760,000

      23. Scottish Record Office

      19,000

      3.32 p.m.
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It may seem very strange indeed to the Committee that any back bencher should intervene, even for only four or five minutes, before the Committee automatically nods its acceptance to £1,370,537,000. I venture to make a very short speech of protest before allowing the Committee to pass to the Motion which the Leader of the Opposition has upon the Order Paper.

      197
      It used to be the constitutional function of the House of Commons to debate policy before granting Supply. Since the war, largely to suit the convenience of the Opposition, and, even more than that, to suit the convenience of Socialism, we have deserted that ancient and honourable practice, and we now pass these vast sums of money, past recall, and then allow the Opposition to discuss, on an ordinary Motion, a polemical topic of the day.
      Today's polemical debate, on which I cannot dwell, because I should not be in order, is on a subject which has been covered many times during the past three weeks. It has been debated ad nauseam, but that is only a small point in what I am trying to say to the Committee.
      The Opposition are eager to spend. Therefore, they pass these vast sums on the nod and they relish the ensuing debate in which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will open their mouths wider than ever before in asking that more State money should be put into their various constituencies.
      Mr. A. C. Manuel: The noble Lord should open his mind.
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Opposition are eager not only to spend the taxpayers' money, but to vote. Clearly, they do not want to vote against the passage of £1,370,537,000, so, since the war, they have developed the device of getting these sums passed quickly so that they can go on with an ordinary Motion and have a vote, at the end of it, against the policy of the Government of the day.
      I regret to say that my right hon. and hon. Friends have been all too eager to fall in with this idea, because there appears on the Order Paper an official Government Amendment to the Motion which is shortly to be discussed.
      The Chairman: I hope that the noble Lord will confine himself to the Vote. He seems to be ranging very widely.
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am most grateful to you. Sir Gordon.
      The time has come to abandon this wartime procedure. It was not in operation to a very considerable extent before the war, but for convenience, during the war, and because the country at that time was only too happy and eager to pass very large sums of money on a
      198
      Vote of Account for the war effort, the system has passed into the currency of contemporary Parliamentary history and has been eagerly seized upon by the Socialist Opposition as a device to aid and abet their policy.
      Very large sums appear in this Vote on Account—£6,000,000 extra for police and prisons; £7½ million extra for universities; £4 million extra for broadcasting; a £94 million increase in Exchequer grants to local authorities; £21 million extra for the Health Service; £20 million extra for the Board of Trade—of which only £9 million is for local employment services, a subject which is to be debated later today; £16 million extra for aviation and £13 million extra for the Post Office. All those figures are increases.
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: What about the Supplementary Votes?
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We are not debating the Supplementary Votes. We are debating only the Vote on Account.
      I have taken these sums from the White Paper. I do not wish to weary the Committee with the very full details which are assembled here of the extra increases. I merely point out that the White Paper shows a total rise of £252 million over the original Estimate of twelve months ago. I do not think that the Committee should pass this vast increase without examining, as far as it can, the procedure under which these things are conducted.
      I am aware that for various Parliamentary reasons I cannot debate at any length what changes should be made. No doubt there will be other opportunities for that. May I very briefly suggest that as a means of approaching a more rational and a more constitutional handling of this matter the Opposition should agree to surrender 10 days out of their 26 allotted days and devote them to financial investigation of the Votes under discussion? I suggest further that on those days the Opposition should put down for their—
      The Chairman: Order. The noble Lord is going far from the Vote now.
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I will draw to a close. Sir Gordon.

      199
      I do not think that this is a matter for another investigation by a Select Committee. I hope that the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition—"the usual channels"—will get together and discuss what may be done. It is by no means clear that everyone in the Labour Party is happy with this handling of affairs. All of us in the House of Commons ultimately have the whip hand over the rights of the Leader of the Opposition to continue with this form of debate. We have only to rise in our places, as I have done today, on every one of the 26 Supply Days when this procedure is adopted and we should frustrate the debate subsequently to take place on those days and, in the end, oblige the Government and the Opposition to come together and agree upon a more rational procedure.
      Mr. S. Silverman: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a moment, Sir Gordon, but I must tell the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that whatever sympathy one might have had for the constitutional tradition behind his argument, he himself has done a great deal to forfeit that sympathy by the way in which he presented his argument.
      To assume that this practice in which we have, as he quite rightly says, been indulging now for very many years was done for the benefit of Socialism is, perhaps, to reveal that he is not perhaps the most expert witness that we might ourselves select on behalf of the cause to which we are devoted. I must, therefore, tell the noble Lord that when we need his advice we shall ask for it.
      Perhaps I may say to him at this stage that, being not a less valid witness as to what the cause of Socialism requires than is the noble Lord, I do not agree that this procedure was ever devised in our favour, or is, in fact, favourable to us. I prefer the old method, whereby one discussed grievances before voting Supply, and not afterwards, when it is too late. But what is the noble Lord worried about? He has his opportunity—he has taken his opportunity. He talked as though it were the Opposition's Vote on Account, but we have not put down this Vote on Account. It is his own Government that have done that. We
      200
      have not increased the expenditure—it is his own Government that have done that. We are not responsible for a single one of the items of which he complains. His own Government are responsible.
      It may well be that his Government are wrong—for my own part I believe that they are wrong on most things, and I believe that they are wrong on this, too—but if the noble Lord thinks that his Government are wrong to raise the amounts, or that they are asking for too much on this Vote on Account, or that their policy is wrong, or that, for any other reason, they should not have the money, the noble Lord has a perfectly reasonable, ready, quick and quite effective constitutional method of making his view effective. He can divide the House, and vote against the Motion.
      Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I rise only for a few moments to support my noble Friend the Member for Dorset. South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). If I may say so, this is a serious matter, and something of interest to both sides of this House of Commons. I do not accuse the Opposition of abusing our procedure. They have put down a Motion on a serious and important matter. At the same time, I think that the Committee might reasonably pause for just a few moments before it passes on the nod a Vote on Account of £1,300 million.
      Some of us are deeply concerned at the possible dangers of excessive Government expenditure, and when we see a Vote of this kind, and know that it represents, in part, a published increase of Estimates ranging to about £300 million, I think that we are entitled to say that it would be a good thing if the House of Commons took every opportunity to debate it. After all, Sir Gordon, this House of Commons was largely based, and certainly its power is based, on the control of Supply and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—with whose speech I agree very much, indeed—said, on the insistence of the redress of grievances before voting Supply
      There is much to be said for that. It is part of our historic tradition, and it should not be lightly cast aside. I share with my noble Friend a little anxiety over the practice, into which all of us,

      201
      on both sides, I think, have tended to slip, of passing these huge sums of money without question and then putting down a Motion which, in the end, will, I warrant, ask the Government to spend still more money. I do not regard that as a useful application of the functions of the House of Commons.
      My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, speaking on this the other day, said that there would be other occasions on which we could discuss it—on the Budget, and so on. We cannot really discuss it on the Budget. The Budget is concerned with the raising of revenue, but it will have to be concerned with raising the revenue to met these bills—and some of us would like to discuss the bills. As I say, I do not think that it is right to interfere with the debate that has been planned—we have all to live here together. I accuse no one of abuse of procedure, but I think that my noble Friend is right to take his stand.
      3.45 p.m.
      Mr. J. Grimond: I hope that the Leader of the House will take notice that there is considerable demand not only inside this House, but in the country at large, that there should be more scrutiny of Government expenditure, though whether that is best done by general debate on a very large Vote on Account is another matter.
      As it appears to an impartial observer like myself, the Government have now taken over the Labour Party's election policy of buying their way into private business. There is also an urgent need for some discussion of the purposes for which the Government should give money both to private business and to the nationalised industries, and the methods by which such grants should be controlled. In view of the projects now before us, this is becoming rather an urgent matter.
      Major H. Legge-Bourke: I, too, should like to congratulate my noble Friend the Member for Dorset. South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on raising this matter. Erskine May very clearly lays down that one of the principal objects of a Vote on Account is to ensure that money not spent in the previous year, and which would otherwise return to the Exchequer, can remain in the hands of the Department responsible for spending it.
      202
      One difficulty is that in the Vote on Account as presented to this House there is no separation of what has not been spent in the previous year from what will additionally be required for the next financial year. If I may make a humble suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it is that it would be very helpful to the House if we could have that indicated very clearly in any future Votes on Account. We should know what has been under-spent in the previous year—how much of the Vote on Account is, in fact, a carryover from one year to another, and how much is new expenditure.
      I agree with my noble Friend and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) that we are slipping into a habit of voting vast sums without nearly enough attention being paid to them. In addition, I think that we were at least entitled to have had present this afternoon at least one Treasury Minister on the Front Bench.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): As Leader of the House, I would only say to my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), to my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) and to other Members that this is, of course, a valid point, but the fact is that the procedure of the House has been so conducted for many Administrations—I should put it at between twenty and thirty years. The practice has grown up that the Opposition of the day should not be inhibited in their selection of matters to be debated on allotted Supply Days. We are, therefore, following an absolutely definite tradition that has been used and taken advantage of by our own party when we were in opposition. Therefore, we are not doing anything new from the point of view of the House of Commons.
      That does not mean that it was not right for by noble Friend to rise in his place and make this protest, or observation, or that it was wrong for my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members to have taken part in this discussion, but it does mean that if we are to change the situation it could not be done without proper discussion between the usual channels. Certainly, if the Opposition decide to put down on a Supply day matters relating to the Estimates or

      203
      public expenditure there is nothing unconstitutional or unparliamentary in so doing.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) referred to Erskine May, but, on page 739 of the 16th Edition, Erskine May infers that it is possible to discuss in anticipation, upon a Motion for the grant on account, matters such as those to which my noble Friend referred in his speech, but goes on to say that the proper occasion to examine the grants in detail is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed to the Committee.
      I mention that because it is in the bible of procedure upon which we work, but I do not claim that that solves the problem, because it might well be that in the later Supply days to which Erskine may refers we might have had the main financial business of the year—the Budget.
      I do not think, therefore, that the matter is resolved by this short interchange, but I do think that we would be very wrong to alter, without proper thought, procedure agreed between both sides, and take from the Opposition one of the undoubted constitutional rights that they have had. Therefore, while I cannot complain at my noble Friend's intervention, which he is perfectly entitled to make, I do not think that any change should be made without proper consultation.
      Mr. F. Blackburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House of Commons, in full Committee, is not the right body to discuss in detail the Estimates and that some other method for detailed examination of them ought to be worked out?
      Mr. Butler: That would be quite a novelty, because the House in Committee, with the Mace below the Table, is the usual place where we discuss our financial business. Although I know that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has made a considerable study of procedure, and took part in our procedure debates, I should not like easily to agree to his proposal.
      I will add that if any of my hon. Friends or any hon. Members wish to
      204
      discuss the matter with me I shall be only too glad to do so.
      Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House for making absolutely clear what the procedural position is. The Civil Vote on Account is an Opposition Supply Day, and it is for the Opposition to decide what they will discuss on that occasion. Frankly, I think that it would be an abuse of the traditions of the House if a debate of this kind were to be prolonged and we were thereby inhibited from going on to the Motion that we have put on the Order Paper. We happen to think that the subject of unemployment areas and the assistance to be given to them is very important. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about it, and I believe that even some hon. Members opposite have something to say about it. It is our decision. We have made it quite conscious of our responsibilities.
      I myself share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), that to have a wide-ranging debate on the Civil Vote on Account would not be of much value, and that it would be very different from some other debates we could have of a detailed character. When we are covering the whole field of Government expenditure, I do not myself see that we should really be doing the kind of thing which the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) had in mind.
      To the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and his Friends, I say that the Opposition do use part of their time for doing the kind of thing to which he referred. For example, we shall be debating on two days the Civil Supplementary Estimates.
      Mr. Gerald Nabarro: But will the right hon. Gentleman be fair and concede that his choice of subject may not be that of my hon. Friends and myself? Are we to be denied an initiative in this matter? Is all the initiative to be on the other side of the Committee?
      Mr. Gaitskell: There is a very easy remedy for the hon. Gentleman. He has but to arrange things so that he is in opposition instead of in government, and he will then have his influence upon his

      205
      own party in deciding what subjects will be debated.
      It may be of interest to the Committee to know that we shall be devoting two days to debating the Civil Supplementary Estimates. There will, of course, be four days' debate on the detailed Defence Estimates, and I do not doubt that, as the Session continues, there will be other occasions when we shall put down the Votes of particular Ministries for discussion, when it will be open to hon. Members to raise anything within the expenditure of such Ministries.
      If there is to be any far-reaching change, and it is decided that the House of Commons should spend far more time discussing detailed expenditure, I can only say, speaking for my right hon. and hon. Friends, that we are not prepared to give up further Opposition time for the purpose. If the Government want to make time available so that we can investigate in detail the Estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Health, or whatever it may be, we should not oppose that in any way at all. It rests with the Government.
      On the other hand, if the Government take the view that there should be some further study of the Committee system, I should myself think that that would be pre-eminently a subject for the Select Committee on Procedure. That is something which we should certainly not be averse to considering. I must, however, make it perfectly clear that it must not be at the expense of Opposition time when we discuss the subjects which we believe are of vital interest to the nation as a whole.
      Mr. Nabarro: I do not wish to suggest for a moment that a debate on a specific Vote or Supplementary Vote should be at the expense of Opposition time on Supply Days. But there are not only considerations affecting the official Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I address my remarks to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It was said to me the other day that if I carried on like this I should qualify for his salary. That may or may not be true, but it is indisputable that some rights and privileges should repose with my hon. Friends and myself on the Government benches to initiate
      206
      debates on specific Votes and supplementary Votes. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the 1922 Committee?"] No, not the 1922 Committee.
      I do not wish to take unnecessary time on an Opposition Supply Day, but this is a vital issue. This year, these Estimates have increased by a total of £360 million. There are items in them about which I am very doubtful. Many of them may be broadly in the public interest, but there are specific items about which I am very doubtful. I wish that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would give uninitiated back bench Members of his party such as myself—
      Mr. Manuel: Uninhibited.
      Mr. Nabarro: No—uninitiated members of his party such as myself a clear guide as to when, before the Budget, not after—it is no good to me after 12th April—we may have an opportunity of debating specific Supplementary Estimates.
      With very great respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not consider that his answer a few moments ago was conclusive on that point. I feel that sympathy of the Government benches is with me, and I hope that following speakers from this side of the Committee will press my right hon. Friend for a specific statement at an early date about when we, as individual Government supporters, officially Government supporters, may initiate debates on specific Supplementary Estimates.
      Mr. E. Fernyhough: Would not the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have his opportunity when the Ballot is taken for private Members' Motions on Supply, and—
      The Chairman: Order. This is going very wide.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That a sum, not exceeding £1,370,537,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1961.
      Resolution to be reported.
      Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    LOCAL EMPLOYMENT AREAS
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Alfred Robens: I beg to move,
    That this House regrets that the list of Development Districts issued by Her Majesty's Government fails to include many places for which the special powers under the Local Employment Bill are needed.
    I notice that the Government had tabled an Amendment to our Motion, which seems to indicate that they are perfectly satisfied with the list of development districts that they have published as being a list of districts where the advantage of the Local Employment Bill is most needed. In the time at my disposal, I want to show that the list is inadequate and that it leaves out a number of places where the powers in the Bill are needed. I am certain that I shall be fortified by many hon. Members on this side, and, I feel, by some hon. Members opposite, in my contention that the list is inadequate.
    I should like to know what a number of hon. Members opposite propose to do about this matter this evening when we vote in the Division Lobbies. For example, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked the Minister of Labour about Plymouth and expressed anxiety at the fact that Plymouth was not included in the list. She passed that anxiety on to the Minister of Labour in the hope that he would persuade his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to include Plymouth in the list. I take it that we can count on the hon. Lady's presence in the Lobby in support of our Motion If not, she will show that she is not prepared to back up the anxiety that she professed to have the other day by making it clear to her constituents that the list is inadequate.
    In case there are too many smiles on the Government benches about what I have said, I should say that I have a complete list of Tory Members of Parliament whose constituencies contain places which were in the old development areas or D.A.T.A.C. areas, but which are not in the list. I shall be most interested to hear from some of them—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman will."] I am delighted to learn that we shall hear from some hon. Members opposite and I hope that we
    208
    shall have their support in the Lobby. I hope that they will say in the House that they are perfectly satisfied with the list although they represent areas which were formerly D.A.T.A.C. areas, but which are now excluded from the list, and cannot, therefore, get any help to mitigate their unemployment problem.
    For example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas) there are areas with 6·3 per cent. unemployment. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas), there are areas with 5·8 per cent. unemployment. Both of those were D.A.T.A.C. areas, but neither of them is in the list. The hon. Members for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), Torquay (Mr. Bennett), Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and a number of other hon. Members opposite have areas in their constituencies which were formerly D.A.T.A.C. areas, but which are now completely excluded from this list.
    If those hon. Members are satisfied with the high rate of unemployment in their areas, they will agree that the list published by the Government is adequate. But if they feel that they want assistance in reducing local unemployment, it seems to be that they have no alternative but to vote against the Government's Amendment.
    The Government produced the idea of the Local Employment Bill at the time of the General Election. It was one of the mainstays of their argument that they would dispense with the Distribution of Industry Acts and put in their place a single Measure. Judging from the words used by many prominent Ministers, very high hopes were held out in many parts of the country that there was to be a vigorous approach to dealing with local unemployment.
    In The Times of 16th September there is a report of a speech made by the former President of the Board of Trade, in Lancashire. I think it important to quote some of his words to show how the high hopes which he raised in Lancashire before the election have not been fulfilled. The report reads:
    "Sir David Eccles told his audience, which included cotton operatives, that the measures would help the Government to bring new industry into Lancashire to fill any gaps left by the cotton industry reorganization".
    There is not a single cotton town in the list—not one, Blackpool and Liverpool, neither of which is a cotton town,

    209
    are in the list. There was undoubtedly an attempt by the former President of the Board of Trade to utilise this Measure as a means of seeking support for Conservative candidates in cotton towns in Lancashire.
    The Minister said that
    "… the Government would publish a single list of places to which they would like industry to go. Help would be concentrated on the most deserving places, but the Government would take a new power to add to the list those places where there was a clear and imminent threat of high unemployment".
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to give an example. He said:
    "For example, if it was known in advance that any locality in the cotton belts was likely to be seriously affected by a mill closure an investigation could begin at once to find and help a new firm to come into the district".
    The Government have paid substantial subsidies in the closure of mills. They have stated that in relation to mill closures they were prepared to render assistance.
    I repeat that there is not one Lancashire cotton town in this list. I think that that is disgraceful, and I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends will want to know precisely why they should be denied the opportunity, under the Bill, to deal with unemployment in their areas. Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley, Rochdale, Accrington, Middleton, Prestwich, Nelson, Colne, Barnoldswick, Ryton, Shaw, Todmorden, Padiham and Littleborough were places on the D.A.T.A.C. list. They were badly hit by unemployment. Not one of them is included in the Government's list. I hope that hon. Members who represent these areas will have the opportunity to deal specifically with the grave problem of unemployment in Lancashire.
    It is very important that areas of high unemployment should be on the list, because, now that we are getting rid of the Distribution of Industry Acts, if an area is not on the list it can do nothing about dealing with local unemployment. This is very serious. In the days when, as the Government said, there may have been some overlapping, at least there was a chance of an area, if it was in a development area, getting some help to deal with unemployment, but now there is no chance at all. The advantages of the Bill are completely denied to a large number of places where, if one reads the
    210
    Bill, it was intended that assistance should be given.
    On Second Reading, the President of the Board of Trade said:
    "We must recognise the need for change"—
    that is, change in industry—
    "and grasp the opportunities for change and not flinch from them".
    Those are brave words.
    "This also means that in our legislation on this subject we must be prepared to deal rapidly, if possible in advance, with the consequences of the changes to which I have been referring."
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that one of the most important words in the Bill was the word "imminent". He said:
    "Under the Bill, the Government will have power to deal with the situation not only where a high and persistent rate of unemployment exists, but also where one is imminent".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 360.]
    The list excludes many places where there is already a high proportion of unemployment, where, indeed, it is as high as, and in some cases higher than, in the places which are already on the list. Based upon the imminence of unemployment, a large number of places should be on the list, but are not included. Here again, I have no doubt that many hon. Members will be able to cite what is happening in declining industries in their constituencies.
    I want, therefore, to quote as an example the County of Northumberland, which has had remarkably generous treatment from the Government inasmuch as, apart from a few areas on Tyneside, the only place in the whole county that is on the list is the village of Haltwhistle, where 81 people are unemployed, but where, I agree, special steps require to be taken because of the decline in the coal industry.
    The decline in the coal industry is a serious matter for Northumberland as a whole. Northumberland, however, is merely an example, because the decline in the coal industry extends throughout the country, as it does in other industries. This is merely an example of the kind of thing which the Board of Trade should have been considering. It should have included places in the list so that they can derive the advantages of the Bill.

    211
    One of the problems that was discussed when the Bill went through the House was the way in which areas like London, the southern counties and the Midlands were being severely congested by the availability of work and new buildings and because, for this reason, large numbers of people were emigrating from other parts of the country to the already congested areas.
    It is, I take it, the considered view of the Government that it is important not to add greater confusion to the chaos in traffic and everything else which exists in the congested areas. Part and parcel of the object of the exercise of curing local unemployment should be to try to keep people in their own areas rather than have them emigrating to the already heavily congested areas.
    In the inter-war years, about 350,000 people emigrated from the North-East and are part of the cause of the congestion of the other areas to which reference has been made. Even between 1951 and 1957, over 60,000 people left the North-East. These 60,000 people have had to be provided with all the social services that they require—houses and everything else—in the areas to which they have gone.
    One of the problems of a place like Northumberland is that about 33 per cent. of the insured population living on Tyneside and in the county is engaged in the basic industries of coal mining, shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering. In these areas the whole pattern of coal mining is changing repidly, dramatically and alarmingly and there is a grave shipbuilding and ship-repairing problem.
    Northumberland, for example, must cut its coal production by 1 million tons, so that the whole of the people employed in producing that 1 million tons will no longer be required in the industry. In addition, as year by year the output per man-shift increases, the number of jobs in the mining industry required to produce the remaining 10½ or 11 million tons will decline. We have, therefore, a situation in which thousands of people who today are employed in mining will not have jobs. By about 1970, 7,000 jobs in mining in Northumberland will have gone.
    212
    If ever there was a case which exemplifies the use of the word "imminent" in the Bill, it is that of Northumberland. It is not a question of what may happen. The plans of the mining industry are such that these changes will happen. Indeed, in one small area—the Seaton Valley Urban District Council area—in my constituency, there were 6,400 mining jobs in 1948, but by 1971 there will be only 2,500. Ten years from now, there will not be a coal mine operating in Northumberland except along the coastal strip. Clearly, therefore, the word "imminent" applies. There can be no question of "perhaps" concerning the number of jobs that will go. The Coal Board has had drastically to cut its production and it is now known exactly what the figures will be.
    There are two problems in connection with Tyneside. There is, first, the very congested condition of Tyneside itself and the necessity for the big overspill from Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The second problem is the need for the comprehensive development of the coalfields to provide opportunities for the introduction of new industries.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: The whole of my right hon. Friend's argument so far on this Part of the Bill has been based on the definition in the original Bill and as amended in Committee, when the criterion was
    "a high rate of unemployment exists or is imminent."
    My right hon. Friend may remember that the Government were pressed hard for an alteration of that definition and that, because an Amendment was accepted on Report, the definition no longer uses the word "imminent" but now has a much looser form of words which makes my right hon. Friend's argument all the stronger. It is:
    "a high rate of unemployment exists or is to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers".
    Mr. Robens: I am obliged. As my hon. Friend says, that strengthens the argument considerably. I was basing my argument on what the President of the Board of Trade said on Second Reading.
    What is required, therefore, is not only the relief of congestion, but

    213
    advance and forward planning for the area. If a plan of this character is to be carried out, it is no use waiting until the unemployment is high. What will happen is that if there are no prospects of jobs for the people who will come out of work because of a decline in their industries, they will begin to emigrate and the consequent large amount of emigration will cause greater congestion in the congested areas simply because the people see no sign of action to provide employment in their own areas.
    I cite Northumberland merely as an example—other hon. Members will be able to cite their own constituencies—but it is one of the best examples of where forward thinking and planning could be of enormous value and where it would be possible, for instance, to deal with the problem of overspill from the congested Tyneside area of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which will have to spill a population of about 40,000 within the next few years.
    In the area adjacent to the small town of Cramlington, whose building up from 6,000 to 20,000 people is envisaged, there is available for development up to 300 acres of suitable land which the council will want to see developed. There is available the new Tyne Tunnel, the railroad from London to Edinburgh and the rail tracks from the area to the Tyneside ports. This, therefore, is an area which should be dealt with upon the basis of the forward planning to which the President of the Board of Trade referred during the passage of the Bill.
    I have cited this as an example because it is part of our case. I am not suggesting that the Government will do nothing, because the Local Employment Bill, inadequate as it seems to many of us, is, nevertheless, bound to do something. In fact, it gives opportunities to local authorities to provide themselves with the necessary finance from the Government to do a whole host of things.
    Some of these powers are very important. It is very important that mining areas should get rid of some of the pit heaps and pithead workings which have been left derelict and which will stay there for all time unless help is given under the Bill. Therefore, unless a mining area such as this is put on the list, it cannot even start to do its job of planning the sites and of attracting
    214
    prospective industrialists because the sites are unattractive. Negotiations would take far too long if any industrialist were intending to use such a site.
    It is important in Northumberland, and in similar areas throughout the country, that there should be some forward planning. These areas should be listed so that local and planning authorities can get on with the work of preparing sites, roads and facilities so that they can take advantage of the Bill and provide the jobs which will be required when it is known well in advance how many will be required because of the decline in the basic industries.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that a lot of other places should be added to this already formidable list? If so, does he not think that it would be better to concentrate on places which are most in need of help at this time?
    Mr. Robens: I disagree with the hon. Member if he is telling me that the published list is a complete list. The whole purpose of our Motion is to show that the list is inadequate. It is no use, as I have been trying to explain in citing Northumberland merely as an example, waiting until all the mines are closed and all the young men have left the area. It is no use waiting until the damage is done. These places should be on the list now, so that we can prevent high local unemployment. In that way, we can prevent the emigration which causes the congestion elsewhere. The whole case which I am presenting this afternoon—and no doubt it will be fortified by many other hon. Members—is that the list is inadequate because it is preventing local and planning authorities from getting on with the job. Unless we can get these places on the list, nothing can be done in preparation for jobs for people who are likely to be out of work.
    That is the gravamen of the charge which we make. The Board of Trade appear—I say appear—merely to have looked down the list of places where unemployment is over 4 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—may I finish?—places which are about or above 4 per cent. and it has put some of them down, but not all of them. Therefore, it is inadequate even on that criterion.
    We should like to know from the Minister who produced this list in

    215
    the first place, and on what basis. What planning staff is there at the Board of Trade to ensure that some of this forward thinking is being done and on what basis are these towns included? That is not to say that any of us are saying that we should delete any of the places named on the list. What we are saying is that the list is inadequate.
    I think that I have shown by examples of the places which I know best, Northumberland and Tyneside, that the list has been proved beyond doubt to be inadequate because a big job of that character in an area of that size cannot be done in five minutes. It will take years and it needs to be started now. I have no doubt that hon. Members can speak of other parts of the country that have similar problems. For these reasons we think that there is no real planning behind the compiling of the list and no forward thinking on the part of the Government. That is why we move this Motion and I hope that hon. Members who feel as we do will follow us into the Lobby and vote for it
    4.25 p.m.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "supports Her Majesty's Government in their determination to ensure that assistance, as planned in their list of development districts, is made available where it is most needed as part of a comprehensive policy for the progressive solution of the local employment problem".
    I shall endeavour to explain the reasons why I am urging on the House the acceptance of this Amendment, which is designed to express as succinctly as possible the Government's policy in this matter.
    Perhaps I should begin with a few general observations. This list, of course, has as its basis the areas in which the powers of inducement in the first part of the Local Employment Bill will be available. We must always remember, in dealing with these matters, the extent and nature of the Government's powers in dealing with the whole problem of local employment. Our first and most important power is the industrial development certificate
    216
    system. We cannot get people to go to the areas where we want them to go until we first compel them to expand other than in the crowded Midlands and the South. I would have thought that recent events had shown that we were sincere in our determination to ensure that further development in the crowded areas should not take place.
    Having taken the first step to prevent development taking place in the crowded areas, what can we do to induce people to go to the areas of the country where there is the highest level of unemployment? Of course, it must be a question of inducement. It has been agreed on both sides of the House during the passage of the Local Employment Bill that there can be no question of ordering firms to go to particular districts. I think that some of the criticism which has been made from time to time of Government policy, and some of the feeling that individual districts have not been given what is called their fair share, is based on the assumption that the Government have powers of direction, which we certainly have not, and which the Opposition certainly have not proposed.
    It would be impossible, in a system of free enterprise, to have such powers of direction. There are different cost penalties applying to different areas. The further a firm goes from its main base of operations the more expensive it may be for it. It would be impossible, in those circumstances, for a Government to say to firm A, "You must go where the penalty is small" and, to firm B, "You, although you are competing with them, must go to where the penalty is much higher". These considerations rule out any question of ordering firms to any particular district.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he is making a serious mistake in suggesting that if a firm goes to any of these areas of unemployment it is, in fact, suffering a penalty?
    Mr. Maudling: That is the whole point of the legislation. The House must be realistic about this. If we ask a manufacturer to move a large part of his operations to a remote part of the country, then, without any question at all, it carries some economic penalty, and it is solely because there is an

    217
    economic penalty involved, and for no other reason at all, that the House has authorised the expenditure of money in financial assistance to those firms. If they did not need financial assistance they should not get it. It has been called a bribe, but it is not a bribe. What it is designed to do is to mitigate the economic consequences of a firm having to split up its industrial activities.
    Anyone who has studied the economics of large-scale industry will realise the degree of integration that exists today. We cannot expect many of our industries to be able to divide operations and set up new establishments. The cost of doing so is high and much greater than the cost of expanding on the existing basis. That is what the whole thing is about.
    Mr. J. J. Mendelson: It is surely those who have studied the economics of integration who disagree. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of these firms, though integrated, have some of their plants in different parts of the country without suffering at all?
    Mr. Maudling: Of course, but if one has plant for the production of motor vehicles, for example, and one is asked to put one half of that plant in the North of England and one in the South, that must involve one in great expenditure. If there were no economic penalty involved in going to a development district, why is the party opposite anxious to give financial assistance to people to get them to go there?
    Mr. Robens: To prepare the sites and things of that kind.
    Mr. Maudling: That is Clause 5 of the Bill, but I am dealing with major assistance—building grants, amortisation loans, B.O.T.A.C. loans, and so on.
    Our first policy, clearly supported by every one, is to prevent people setting up in the already crowded areas. Our next step must be to use these inducements to get them to go to areas where there is a high level of unemployment.
    Mr. Walter Monslow: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to make the basis a high level of unemployment only, without due regard to other factors, such as some diversity of industry in an area which has had protracted unemployment?
    Mr. Maudling: That was discussed during the passage of the Bill in the House and in Committee and in so far as it was not discussed then it will no doubt be covered in later remarks in this debate. Having created a movement of industry out of crowded areas, it does not follow that every firm will go to an area of high unemployment. There is a definite limit to the number of firms that can be induced by reasonable financial means to go to areas of high unemployment. I do not think that anyone would advocate a permanent subsidy to firms going to areas of high unemployment. We want to induce firms which are viable and on an established commercial basis to go there. We want firms to go to those areas if they can be induced to go there by the inducements contained in the Bill.
    The real limit to what we can do under the Bill is the number of firms coming forward with expansion plans which can be induced to go to these areas. No matter how much wider or how much longer we make the list, we shall not create a single additional job, because the limiting factor is the expansion of industry among the firms that can be induced to go into the areas.
    I should like to make quite clear the position of those areas which are not on the list. Cardiff and some of the Lancashire towns and many others have been mentioned. If industrialists wished to set up in one of those areas, we would not, in general, refuse them a certificate, but it is clearly our responsibility, first, to try to persuade them to go to a district where the situation is worse. If they will not go to places where there is a high level of unemployment, it is sensible that they should go where labour is available. Therefore, it does not mean that if a town is not on our list we would prevent people going there.
    We are concentrating Government assistance where it is most needed. This seems to us a matter of priorities. I remember the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) once saying, in what I thought was a very striking sentence, that the language of priorities is the religion of Socialism. I do not say that I accept that religion, but I say that in this matter priorities are essential and I am surprised that the party opposite should not accept that, [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Nelson

    219
    and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will get his priorities right and wait for what I have to say, he will be relieved of his anxieties. As I have said, by extending the list of places one does not extend the number of jobs. One merely extends the number of places over which the jobs will be spread.
    I made our intention perfectly clear during the passage of the Bill. We intend to tackle this problem on a progressive basis by dealing, first, with the areas which are worst hit and then giving support to places which are less badly hit. That seems to us sensible, and to be in line with what the Select Committee said when it criticised the excessive spread of the development area cum D.A.T.A.C. provision and the fixity of a system whereby, once an area was on the list, it could not come off, even though some of the places had an unemployment figure of less than 1 per cent., which made nonsense of the whole system.
    Our main purpose is to be flexible and changeable and to be able to meet changing situations. That is why, in our discussions on the Bill, we did not produce a list of places. The list was settled only after the Bill was passed. There is a complete change of system here. Whereas, previously, the principle was that, by Statute, certain areas should be marked out to be specially treated, the principle in the present Bill is that there should be a general qualification or criterion which should be applied administratively, and that such administration should be subject to challenge, as indeed it is being challenged today.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The right hon. Gentleman said that the list was decided after the Bill was passed. Does he not recall that when asked about it on Report his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade immediately got up and said that the list would be announced on the following Monday?
    Mr. Maudling: That is perfectly true. We decided to publish the list on the Monday, but we had not then got the list. There is no reason why I should say anything else.
    The first principle, as I have said, is to concentrate help where it is most needed. The list represents about 12
    220
    per cent. of the insured population. On Second Reading, I said that the percentage of insured population then being actively assisted was about 14 per cent. and I thought that our list would not be very different. We have made it 12 per cent. to give us some elbow-room because, especially after this debate, we wanted to look at the matter again and consider whether there was an argument for adding other places to the list. We thought it wise, in preparing our initial list, to leave ourselves that elbow-room, but 12 per cent. of the insured population is not far away from the prediction which I made on Second Reading.
    The other principle in setting up the list is that we should be concerned not only with the actual rate of unemployment in the course of the last year, but with the imminence of unemployment and the question of persistence, which has been raised today in an intervention. That is why the basic percentage on which we are working is rather higher than the 4 per cent. operated under the D.A.T.A.C. list. I am not going purely on a percentage basis, but percentage plus imminence plus persistence. I hope that the percentage will be brought down. If we can tackle successfully the problem in certain big areas and remove them from the list altogether, we can bring down the percentage and with application of the other criteria progressively bring about a solution of this problem.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage he is working on? Is it 4 per cent., 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent.?
    Mr. Maudling: It is rather difficult to be precise. It is over 4 per cent. It is nearer 4½ per cent.
    There are examples where this does not apply. I can quote four examples of places which are on the list solely because of the imminence of unemployment. They are Dundee, because of the difficulty with the mark-up in the jute industry; Haltwhistle and Bishop Auckland, where there is the imminence—or, rather, I should say the danger—of unemployment arising from pit closures and the employment position in the mining industry; and Pembroke Dock, where danger arises because one big project will be soon completed.

    221
    These are examples of places which are on the list because, although unemployment is not currently high, it looks as if it is imminent. There are other places not on the list where unemployment is higher than in those places, but where it will not be persistent because there are already jobs in the pipeline, as it were, to cure the situation.
    I will now deal with the cotton towns and with the North-East. The reasons why the cotton towns should not be on the list are crystal clear.
    Mr. S. Silverman: No.
    Mr. Maudling: I hope that in a moment they will be clear even to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne, but perhaps that is too much to hope. I will quote a few figures, first, for unemployment in January, 1959, and, secondly, for January, 1960. Let us take Accrington. In January, 1959, unemployment was 4·3 per cent.; in January, 1960, it was 1·5 per cent. The number of unemployed was 369. The number of jobs already in prospect is 300 or 400. Now let us take Blackburn. Unemployment in January, 1959, was 4·9 per cent.; in January, 1960, it was 2·4 per cent. The number of unemployed was 1,331 with jobs in prospect for over 1,200. In Rochdale, unemployment in January, 1959, was 5·6 per cent.; in January, 1960, it was 1·1 per cent. There were 620 unemployed and about 400 jobs in prospect.
    In the face of those statistics surely it is clear that we cannot classify these towns as places suffering from unemployment—
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: Can the Minister tell us where the jobs are in prospect? What is that based on? This is news to me.
    Mr. Maudling: They are the number of jobs which are expected to accrue in that area as a result of projects which are in hand or in prospect. The projects in hand or in prospect are based on applications to my Department for industrial development certificates, so the hon. Lady can be fully reassured that she need not discount those figures. Altogether, in the cotton belt as a whole, there are about 14,000 new jobs in prospect.
    Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman has been highly selective in
    222
    the places which he has quoted. Not a single one of those he has quoted is in the North-East Lancashire Development Area, yet the whole of that area has been taken out of his list.
    Mr. Maudling: I was saving that one up for the hon. Gentleman. In the North-East Lancashire Development Area unemployment in January, 1959, was 4·1 per cent. and in January, 1960, it was 1·9 per cent. The total number of unemployed was 1,748. Jobs in prospect are up to 4,000.
    Mr. Ernest Thornton: Imminence appears to be very important. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken fully into account the imminence of unemployment at 31st March, when many firms must close down under the cotton reorganisation scheme?
    Mr. Maudling: Absolutely, otherwise the figures I have given would give us more jobs being created than there are people unemployed, which would be absurd.
    I am saying that we hope very much that with all the new jobs coming along there will not accrue in the cotton belt a high level of unemployment. If it arises it should be only temporary and should not persist, but we shall, of course, watch this closely. If it appears that, contrary to our expectations, there is danger of a higher persistent level of unemployment, we will take action, but on the figures quoted we could not justify including those towns in our list.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Maudling: I am sorry I cannot give way; I have given way a great deal.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would the Minister tell us whether he is referring only to jobs in the pipeline, or whether his information comes from his regional controller at the Board of Trade, and is based on inquiries made for that area which, as in my own case, might be based upon the assumption that the area was to be designated under the Act?
    Mr. Maudling: No, these are firm prospects, based upon applications to the controllers for industrial development certificates.
    Mr. David Ginsburg rose—
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot give way again. There will be plenty of opportunity to raise points later.
    I am particularly concerned about the North-East and about Tyneside because, for many reasons, it is particularly difficult to induce industry to go to that area. I am myself clear that Scotland and the North-East are now outstandingly the two areas of the greatest difficulty—
    Mr. Edward Short: Why?
    Mr. Maudling: For the following reason. However many places in Tyneside we put on the list we would not get additional jobs. We are getting as many jobs to Tyneside as possible. It is better for industry to go to Jarrow, where there is 7 per cent. unemployment, than somewhere else where there is 1·5 per cent. unemployment. There is, of course, no limit to what local authorities can do outside the Bill. This list refers only to facilities available under the Bill.
    In the North-East the particular problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is the prospect for the coal mines. [An HON. MEMBER: "And shipbuilding."] That is nothing like as imminent as is sometimes suggested. We have looked carefully at the position and I am told that 11 collieries in Northumberland and Durham, employing 3,500 people, will close this year, five of them in Northumberland. I am referring especially to those places because the right hon. Gentleman raised the point. Haltwhistle is, of course, listed. Backworth (Tyneside, North-East), at present employs 480 people and only 36 of these are expected to become redundant. The rate of unemployment there will rise by less than ·1 of 1 per cent.
    Dinnington and Seaton Burn (Tyneside, North-West), are at present employing 370 people, 102 of whom are expected to become redundant, which will raise the rate of unemployment once again by ·1 of 1 per cent. Then there is Seaton Delaval, at present employing 380, of whom 61 are expected to become redundant. I gather that Seaton
    224
    Delaval is within travel-to-work distance of Whitley Bay and North Shields. So, in looking at Northumberland and Durham, we have looked closely at the prospects given us by the National Coal Board—
    Mr. Robens: It is a fallacy to say that only 20 people will become unemployed because 280 out of 300 in a pit which is closed will be absorbed. With 300 jobs gone, 300 youngsters now at school in that area will not have those 300 jobs to go to.
    Mr. Maudling: I am dealing with unemployment. If, for example, 300 people are likely to lose their existing jobs, there will be a proportion retiring through natural wastage and a proportion reemployed amounting to 250, so only 50 will be unemployed and will have to be dealt with. There is no fallacy there.
    Mr. Robens: What about the children?
    Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman is making a lot of noise while I am trying to deal with his argument.
    Mr. Robens: Will the Minister address himself to this point? If the number of jobs in Northumberland declines by 7,000, although the unemployment rate may be reduced by wastage and no recruitment, what happens to the children leaving school when the jobs to which they would have been going are fewer by 7,000?
    Mr. Maudling: New jobs are being introduced into the area. School leavers are one of the things we take into account in judging the list. This is another reason why I said earlier that the North-East Coast and Scotland seem to me to present a particularly difficult problem. We shall not get more industries to go from the South to the North-East merely by adding to the places on the list. We want to get more industries up to the North-East and to concentrate those who will do so where the need is greatest. I must always come back to this point, because it is the practical way of tackling this problem.
    I said during our previous debate that we expect to be judged not on the Bill, but on what we do under the Bill, and I believe that we have made a certain amount of progress. There has been a great deal of talk recently about the

    225
    motor industry. There is an expansion taking place which will involve tens of thousands of new jobs.
    Mr. Short: But the right hon. Gentleman prevented them from going to Tyneside by leaving it off the list.
    Mr. Maudling: For the hon. Gentleman to say that kind of thing is beneath contempt.
    Mr. Short: Would the right hon. Gentleman then tell the House whether the list was made available to the motor industry? Did the motor industry know that Northumberland was not to be included for financial assistance?
    Mr. Maudling: No, those in the industry certainly did not see this list, but they were shown every possible site in the area.
    Mr. Short rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order.
    Mr. Maudling: I really will not accept an accusation—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Member does not give way the hon. Member must sit down.
    Mr. Short: Give way.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been accused of preventing people from going to Tyneside. I want to say that I have failed to get people to go there. I accept that accusation. I cannot accept that I have prevented them from going there. I have tried my best to do so and I intend to continue to try my best to do so. More than that I cannot do.
    The point I was making is that of the tens of thousands of new jobs in the motor industry only a handful will be in the Midlands and the South, and the rest will go into areas of high unemployment. If that is not a clear indication of the determination of the Government in this matter, I do not know what more the House can possibly ask. We are determined to tackle this on a practical basis and not to allow industry to expand in the crowded areas; but at the same time we must not forget the economics of this. We cannot load additional costs on industry in a competitive world which would damage the export prospects upon
    226
    which every district, whether it be a development area or otherwise, depends.
    We shall deal effectively with some areas as we hope to do and then move them off the list and add others. Our purpose in having a flexible list is first to tackle those areas where there is the greatest difficulty and dispose of them, and then to reduce the percentage that is our criterion so as to add to the list other towns which are at present excluded. Many people may be disappointed at this stage in being excluded from it, and I recognise and accept that disappointment, but the Government's determination with these new powers is to tackle this problem on a practical basis and to break the back of it. That we intend to do, and that we believe to be the will of Parliament.
    Mr. Robens: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he apply himself to the point he has so far evaded, and that is to local authorities who have been making an enormous amount of preparations for industrial sites. If they are not on the list they cannot even begin. Will the right hon. Gentleman say how they are able to get on with the task of providing industrial sites if they are not on the list and have not the money to do it within their own resources?
    Mr. Maudling: So far as I know, the only effect is that they will not be able to get grants under Clause 5, but in these cases as in all others the principle must be to concentrate the help available where it is most needed.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have a cross-examination of the Minister.
    4.53 p.m.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: My constituency is one of those areas, to which the Minister has been referring, which finds that it is not on this list which was drawn up under the Bill, and that its hopes of continuing help have been destroyed. Blackburn was an area classified for financial help under the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee, and it was a very great blow to us to receive the letter from the Parliamentary Secretary informing us that we were no longer to receive any kind of Government aid at all. I have listened

    227
    very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's overtures this afternoon to try to assure us that all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds, in the Lancashire towns, one of which I represent.
    The reason he states for withdrawing the help which we have up to now received is that the Government have to concentrate assistance in areas where it is most needed, and that we are now classified with areas not claiming that kind of priority. The reason he has just given is that unemployment in Blackburn has fallen to 2·4 per cent., and we are very glad that there has been that reduction. However, that still leaves us above the average for England as a whole. Surely the right hon. Gentleman's calculation that this means, therefore, that we are not an area in which assistance need any longer be concentrated overlooks two considerations.
    One of these has already been referred to by one of my hon. Friends, and that is the fact that unemployment is mounting in the cotton industry. Only a madman could have argued that we should withdraw assistance from an area on 1st April when on 31st March the final stages of the closing of a large number of cotton mills are to come into effect. On the face of it, it really is quite absurd. Why this hurry, at the very least, to withdraw help from areas over which a big question mark now hangs? It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that all these people will be absorbed in the remaining mills or available factories. The cotton trade itself does not know the answer to that one, so I am sure he cannot speak with any certainty upon it. Under the definition of "imminent" we would have qualified to remain on the list for Government help.
    Surely the right hon. Gentleman is also overlooking a second point, and that is that unemployment in Blackburn and towns like it has been reduced only because Government financial help has been forthcoming under the D.A.T.A.C. scheme. What the Government are now doing is to tell us that they are abandoning the policy which is helping to cure unemployment because it has started to help to cure unemployment. The last moment at which to stop applying a remedy is when it is just starting to have the effect one desires.
    228
    The right hon. Gentleman, in trying to justify this curious behaviour, brings forward two excuses. He tells us that there are 1,200 jobs in prospect in my constituency. When I asked him where he got these figures from he said they were firm prospects based on applications already made for I.D.Cs. I now ask him a question which I was not allowed to put to him when he was speaking, though I appreciate his courtesy in giving way so many times. How many of these applications for I.D.Cs. have been made because D.A.T.A.C. help had either been received or was anticipated? Are not these two things linked? Are not these prospects, which he tells us justify the change in Government policy towards Blackburn, based not on the new position of no financial help but on the position of financial help being available under D.A.T.A.C.?
    The Minister also makes a second excuse, that if he proves to be wrong and, after 31st March, unemployment does rise in Blackburn in the reorganisation of the cotton industry, he will have a look at the position again, but there are at this moment firms who have applications for D.A.T.A.C. aid outstanding and they are the very people who want to expand inside my constituency to meet the situation which will arise after 31st March, if they can get Government help to enable them to do so. The future of these applications is very much in doubt.
    This is the concrete point that I want to put to the President this afternoon. On 27th January this year an engineering firm in my constituency applied for financial help from D.A.T.A.C. to enable it to take over a cotton mill which is closing down. Surely this is one of the future prospects on which the Minister is relying in order to justify his saying that Blackburn has nothing to worry about. However, although the firm had made its application on 27th January, it received a reply from D.A.T.A.C. to the effect that
    "… Treasury power to give financial assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, is likely to be superseded by new legislation at the beginning of April."
    The letter continues:
    "At the present time more applications under that Act are being investigated than can be

    229
    disposed of before the new legislation comes into operation. It has therefore, been agreed …"
    It does not say by whom.
    "… that it would serve no useful purpose to commence investigation of fresh applications under the existing legislation. In the circumstances, I regret that it will not be possible to give any consideration to your application."
    Here is an astonishing situation in which a firm in my constituency claiming assistance under an existing Act of Parliament is told that its application cannot be considered because a new piece of legislation may come into operation on 1st April.
    I took this matter up at once with the Board of Trade. After my intervention, D.A.T.A.C. wrote to the firm in February saying, "We will consider the application provided that you send us immediately the further particulars for which we ask." The firm wrote to tell me that the further particulars were sent overnight. Still, the warning has been given to the firm that there is no guarantee that the application, while still lawful applications under the old Act, can be dealt with before 1st April, and that if the time lag is too great the application will be turned down, not on its merits but simply because suddenly overnight Blackburn is transformed into an area which no longer qualifies for Government help.
    This is an intolerable and ridiculous situation. Here is a firm wanting to step in with an expansion to take the place of the contracting cotton industry. Here is a firm which will provide the future prospects on which my constituency's hopes are built. Yet, although its application has been made perfectly properly and within the specified time limit, it is told that there is no guarantee, whatever the merits of the case, that any financial help will be given.
    Will the President of the Board of Trade give us a firm assurance that all outstanding applications for help under D.A.T.A.C. which have not been settled by 1st April, through no fault of the firms, will continue to be dealt with after that date on their merit and financial help given accordingly? Will he also look again at Blackburn's exclusion from the list? Is it not a fact that the future prospects about which he talks, which will help us reduce our unemployment figure from the still excessively high one of 2·4 per cent., are related to the fact
    230
    that applications have been made for financial help from a large number of firms, some small and some medium sized, in my constituency? They have been trying to get financial help under D.A.T.A.C. which has been invaluable to my constituents, and it is a tragedy to us that it should now be withdrawn. I protest against that and ask the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the decision, and I most specifically ask for an assurance that outstanding applications at any rate will be given the consideration that they deserve.
    5.6 p.m.
    Mr. J. M. Coulson: As this is the first time that I have had an opportunity of speaking to the House, perhaps the first thing that I ought to say is how proud I am to be here following my predecessor, Mr. Austen Hudson, who represented Hull, North for nine years. Although over the last two years he was not able to be here very often because of ill health, his work for his constituents continued just the same as before, and I have very good reasons to be pleased with the legacy of good will that he left behind.
    The immortal Jorrocks once said that none but a huntsman knows a huntsman's cares. I am sure that my right hon. Friend must, as he sits listening to the debate, turn over that sort of sentiment in his mind when he thinks of the cares of the President of the Board of Trade. I think that any fair-minded person must realise that, however the list of development districts was compiled, someone was forced to be disappointed, and now my right hon. Friend is attacked not only from in front but from behind about the names included in the list of development districts. However, one thing which is clear is that the very worst thing that my right hon. Friend could have done was to cast the net too wide, to include too many districts, for this would have resulted in merely the continuance of the status quo. Indeed, there would have been no compelling incentive to any industry to go to any particular place, and, therefore, the whole purpose of the Bill would have been voided.
    I feel that the very shortness of the list is largely its merit, because that is the greatest guarantee that the provisions will be effective. It is, in fact, a

    231
    guarantee that the list will remain fluid, that the names of certain districts will be put on it and that the names of other districts will come off it. If the list was not short, that would not be possible. That is the very great thing about it.
    Therefore, while I agree in principle with the list set out in OFFICIAL REPORT, I beg at the same time to differ in detail about it because I and my constituents are disappointed at the exclusion of Hull and Humberside. It is a very bitter pill to us. Whereas we were a district scheduled under D.A.T.A.C., we are now no longer a development district.
    In asking the Government to reconsider their decision to exclude Hull and Humberside from the list, I would urge two things upon them. I would urge consideration not merely of percentages but of numbers actually employed. As I look through the list I see that of the 42 districts scheduled only 6 have a higher number of unemployed than Hull, and the average of the remaining 36 districts is only half that of Hull. This sort of thing should be borne in mind because it makes very disturbing reading for my constituents. Surely the actual number of jobs found is the best criterion of the success of the scheme. I say this with the greatest respect to the areas concerned and with only the very slightest hint of jealousy or malice, but surely it is very much better to provide a large number of jobs than, say, 60 in Haltwhistle or 200 in Southwold.
    Another point stems from this. If one looks at the list of unemployment figures for the last eight years, there are only two conclusions that one can draw. The first is that during that period unemployment has been less than it was when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office; and the second is that we have a hard core of unemployment. That is just the sort of thing that I thought the Bill was designed to remedy.
    The second point that I want to mention is collateral action to solve unemployment problems. I want to be sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleague are not acting entirely on their own in this matter. Are they liaising with other Ministries? We cannot regard special unemployment in a district as something in a watertight compartment. We must look at the collateral
    232
    surrounding circumstances that are the cause of that unemployment.
    Most hon. Members will agree, although this fact is lost sight of these days, that self-help is the best form of help, but it has its limitations. My local development committee has worked hard during the past two years to attract industry to Hull. It has met with success, but not with as much success as it would have liked.
    If industry is to be attracted to areas like mine, the area itself can hold out inducements and attractions to attract industry, but the Minister can, in addition, hold out his inducements and thus go a long way to attracting industries which in turn will attract more industries into the area.
    For example, quite a lot of the unemployment in my constituency is due to the decline in shipbuilding and ship repairing. Government Departments have helped with this problem before, and that is the type of collateral action that I have in mind.
    Another important consideration is the question of road communications. I know that this is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but to us road communications are one of the most important matters. If there was a better system of road communications between the West Riding and the industrial Midlands and the third port in the country, we should be in a better position to solve our problems, even without Government action, although Government aid would be welcome.
    I want my right hon. Friend to assure the House that there is this co-operation between his Ministry and other Ministries. I trust that he will give urgent consideration to the inclusion of Hull and Humberside in any future list that he issues.
    I thank the House for its indulgence.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) on his excellent maiden speech. I have never before had the pleasure of being called to follow an hon. Member who has made a maiden speech. It is gratifying to be able to extend warm and sincere congratulations to the hon. Member. He had that easy conversational manner which is so agreeable to

    233
    the House. He was confident, and he chose wisely an occasion on which he could speak for his constituency and thus combine a maiden speech with supporting the interests of his constituents—surely an enviable combination for any hon. Member making his maiden speech. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing future speeches by the hon. Member.
    There is one respect in which he had the agreement of the whole House. None of us wants this list to be excessively spread, but it would be quite all right if our constituency was on it. That sentiment has the full support of the House. It certainly has my full support, because I am going to say exactly what the hon. Member said, that this list would not be too bad if my constituency was on it. I have no doubt that we shall hear the same thing said by my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House.
    I shall take only a few moments to say what I have to say because the constituency I wish to speak about is one which is concerned in the general question of the cotton towns. I refer to Todmorden in my constituency which for years was left out of the North-East Lancashire Development Area for the simple reason that it is in Yorkshire. I suppose that is a good reason for omitting any place from Lancashire—that it happens to be in Yorkshire—but unfortunately that town is as much a part of the cotton belt as most places in Lancashire itself.
    After years of anxiety, protests and representations, the Parliamentary Secretary was able to announce last July that Todmorden would be included in the area covered by the cotton towns. That announcement was greeted with great joy by the inhabitants of Todmorden. After a few months the ground has been kicked from under their feet and they now have the sharp disappointment of finding that they are out in the wilderness again.
    It is only fair to say that they are out in good company. Last time, Todmorden was at the disadvantage that while it was out, Littleborough, Burnley, Rochdale and Nelson and Colne, and other more or less deserving towns, were in, but now they are all out in a bunch. If there is any comfort in mutual disappointment and dismay it has it, but it would be better if it were in.
    234
    This is the last moment at which the cotton towns should have been bundled out of the benefits of the D.A.T.A.C. list. It is only a few weeks to 31st March, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, no one knows quite what will happen then.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Some of them know.
    Mr. Houghton: My hon. Friend says that some of them know, but there are many uncertainties in these towns which have still to be resolved, especially in a town which came on the D.A.T.A.C. list so recently that many prospects and inquiries are only just beginning to gather force. The Minister might have waited to see the end of the closures under the cotton reorganisation scheme. He would then have been in a better position to judge how the cotton towns of Lancashire would stand.
    We all see now why the Minister did not produce a list—
    Mr. Silverman: I think that it will assist my hon. Friend if I point out that the President of the Board of Trade can find out the whole position now by the simple method of asking the Cotton Board. The statutory date for giving notice under the cotton reorganisation scheme has long passed.
    Mr. Houghton: I understand that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am saying that no one is yet certain what degree of unemployment will follow the closures. We know that many people will be thrown out of jobs. What we do not know is how many jobs will be waiting for them when they lose their present employment. In my constituency there is uncertainty about the position, and it has been a great shock to go off the list with this very big and not very favourable question mark overhanging the future of the town.
    We all realise why the Minister refused to produce the list while the Bill was before the House. He knows that he would have had much more than a debate; he would have had a shambles. We discussed the Bill on the basis of which part of those areas which were already on the list would continue to be there. We now find that the centre of gravity has moved from the industrial areas to the seaside towns, to a quite surprising extent. I say nothing against

    235
    the claims of these towns; we must each look after the claims of our constituents. But the claims of the cotton towns, considered from the general aspect of the matter, are of importance and force.
    The Minister has been unwise in his timing of the exclusion of these towns from the list. He cannot have understood the psychological effect of what he was doing. He has produced discomfort and dismay when efforts were going on to get the cotton towns through this crisis by the diversification of industry, the determination to be less dependent upon the cotton textile industry in the future than in the past, and the transformation of the composition of the industrial activity of these towns which is in progress. It is regrettable that he should have chosen this moment, and this way, to cast gloom upon them.
    I hope that he means what he says about including in the list in future towns where the expectation of unemployment may exist. I hope that it will not take as long to get some towns on the list as it took Todmorden, and I hope that none will be bundled off it as quickly as was Todmorden, which had been on the list for only a few months. The unemployment position in some of these towns is less worrying at the moment than it was some months ago, but we do not know how much more worrying it may be in a few weeks' or months' time. It is a pity that we could not have been left alone to get on with the job for a little longer.
    5.22 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Box: During the twelve weeks that I have been sitting here absorbing atmosphere, or, as my more outspoken colleagues would describe it, plucking up courage before making my maiden speech, I have marvelled at the patience and fortitude of the more experienced Members when listening to the first speeches of so many new Members. I am acutely aware that this is the normal tolerance of the House towards new Members, and it is therefore my intention to make my contribution as brief and as painless as possible.
    I am very grateful to the electors of my division for sending me here as their representative, especially in succession
    236
    to my experienced and able predecessor, Sir David Llewellyn. As a result, I am especially conscious that I have the honour to represent one of the three divisions of Cardiff, the capital city of Wales.
    Cardiff is a remarkable and beautiful city. Thanks to the foresight and generosity of the Bute family, the citizens of Cardiff now own the historic Norman castle which runs along one side of the main street and which occupies roughly a quarter of the centre of the city. It is difficult to visualise any other place in the United Kingdom where, merely by crossing the road from one's hotel in the heart of the city, one can enjoy a country stroll in about 500 acres of the most beautiful castle grounds.
    Although we who live there are all too inclined to take these unique amenities for granted, we are intensely proud of our heritage and are liable to speak about it with emotion. We have even been known to break into song when describing it, or showing visitors around. Hon. Members who have not yet discovered the beauty of Wales and the hospitality of the Welsh people should do so without delay, because they will be sure of a warm Welsh welcome.
    Despite the fact that he has not included Cardiff in the first list of development districts under the Local Employment Bill, I can assure my right hon. Friend—he is not present, but I am sure that my invitation will be conveyed to him—that he would receive a warm welcome, in the nicest possible way, if he came to Cardiff. Any initial disappointment that was felt in Cardiff, and the area within a radius of twenty miles surrounding it, at the fact that it has been omitted from the list, has to some extent been offset by the knowledge that several areas that were originally embraced in Cardiff's claim for recognition have been included under their own names.
    Among these are such places as Bargoed, Pontyclun, Tonyrefail, Ystrad Mynach and Blackwood, and we welcome the inclusion of such industrially historic names as the Rhondda and, only slightly further afield, Merthyr Tydfil. Although the inclusion of these well-known names covers an unemployment figure of nearly 3,000 men and women, and their prospects of employment have presumably improved considerably, there are still about 7,500 persons—

    237
    3,000 in Cardiff and 4,500 in the surrounding areas—who must be found jobs at the earliest possible opportunity.
    In arriving at his decision not to include Cardiff in the first list of development districts my right hon. Friend was probably influenced by two important factors; first, that about 1,000 new jobs will be created in Cardiff in the next year or so as a result of new projects in hand or in prospect and, secondly that Richard Thomas and Baldwins' giant new steel works at Llanwern is less than half-on-hour's train journey from Cardiff. We recognise the significant rôle that these great projects will play in the future prosperity of South Wales, but we also welcome the information recently given by my right hon. Friend that the officers of his Department take every opportunity to bring the many advantages that Cardiff has to offer to the attention of suitable industrialists.
    Bearing in mind the limitations that the Bill imposes on areas of high employment, we interpret this to mean that suitable applicants will have no difficulty in obtaining industrial development certificates if they wish to come to Cardiff. I sincerely hope that it also means that the large engineering concern which has currently expressed its desire to come to Cardiff will receive every encouragement to do so. It appears that Thursday of this week will be quite a day of destiny for the future of Cardiff.
    Although it is understandable that the keen disappointment which is felt in some areas of relatively high unemployment should be expressed in the Opposition Motion before us, it must be admitted that the one great advantage that the Bill has to offer over all previous legislation dealing with the distribution of industry is its great flexibility. This should enable areas suffering from high unemployment now, or threatened with it in the future, to make urgent representations to the Board of Trade at any time in the light of new information or changing circumstances.
    It is reasonable to expect that the need for the provisions of the Bill will tend to increase rather than decrease. The amount of capital investment required in industry in order to create each new job has risen, and continues to rise steadily. In the more prosperous areas, full employment is maintained
    238
    partly by the growth of service industries, catering for prosperity. By the nature of things it would be pointless to encourage these service industries to go to areas of falling employment. This virtually eliminates the service industries as a cheaper method of providing jobs in areas of high unemployment, and priority must, therefore, be given to the more costly provision of those consumer, manufacturing or capital goods industries which are best suited to the area.
    The economic reasons that demand the replacement of out-dated methods of production by more modern techniques are becoming more urgent each day, and this should be sufficient reason for welcoming the first list of development districts. The Local Employment Bill will help to overcome the inevitable difficulties and hardships associated with a change from ancient to modern methods of production.
    The people of South Wales have come a long way since the days of depression, dole queues and development areas. There is a new spirit abroad and we look forward to the day when by reason of the tremendous road improvements now taking place, by the excellent choice of sites and port facilities that we have to offer, by the adequate supplies of coal and steel available locally, and by the inherent adaptability and skill of Welsh workpeople, South Wales will become so prosperous that it will be entirely eliminated from the development districts under the terms of the Local Employment Bill.
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Grey: It is a great pleasure to compliment the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) on his maiden speech. Like the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. Coulson), he chose an appropriate time at which to make his maiden speech. He spoke about the glories of Cardiff, and perhaps some day we shall enjoy a visit to that part of Wales.
    As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, my mind went back to the time when I made my maiden speech, and I can tell him that he did not appear to be half as nervous as I in fact was. He got through his speech fluently and well. Although I cannot wish him a long Parliamentary life, I do wish him a good life while he is here.

    239
    Although the Local Employment Bill is half way to becoming law we have had to have this debate today on local employment areas just to prove once again how inadequate that Bill really is, and also to bring to light more problems concerning local unemployment areas. I hope that in considering the Bill in the other place attention will be paid to what we are saying here and that the inadequacy of the Bill will be recognised and steps taken to remedy its defects.
    I have always regarded the Bill as an inadequate Tory Measure. It has all the ingredients of other Measures which Tory Governments have introduced in an effort to deal with the problem. We cannot just tinker with the matter; it must be given serious thought. I wonder when the Government will be a little more effective in their effort to deal with unemployment, and when they are going to learn that a little bit of planning would have been far better than this method of pinpointing places here and there and having areas competing one with another.
    There is nothing more humiliating than to have one constituency fighting against another to get on the list. That is what is happening today. We are demanding that our particular areas should be on the list. I wonder if everyone realises how degrading and belittling it is to Parliament to have to engage in that kind of struggle.
    I am firmly convinced that this great human problem is only being tinkered with. If the President of the Board of Trade and the Government think that by dealing with the matter in this patchy way they are going to solve the problem then all I can say is that they have another think coming. It certainly is not any solution at all.
    I readily admit that those areas which are on the list will feel satisfied because they have been mentioned and because they will receive financial assistance, but the fact that this debate has had to be initiated is a further proof of the dissatisfaction felt, especially by hon. Members representing North-East constituencies. I believe that I can include hon. Members opposite who represent constituencies in the North-East.
    Mr. Rupert Speir: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Grey: I think the hon. Gentleman is the odd man out on this side of the House.
    I must concede that of the 45 or so districts in Britain that have been listed, eight are in the northern region. I do not think anyone would complain about that. But it must be remembered that for the past four or five years the North-East area has never had less than 40,000 unemployed. At the moment, the figure is well above 43,000. Therefore, to include only eight areas of the North-East is not sufficient.
    We on this side of the House are extremely dissatisfied with the position, and we have good cause to be. I have some criticism to make of the President of the Board of Trade, and I wonder whether in making that criticism I can get the support of hon. Members opposite who represent North-East constituencies. An effort was made recently to get the car industry to come to the North-East. My hon. Friends and I were shocked when it became known that the representatives of the car manufacturers were not shown all the sites available when they came to the area. They were not shown the site at Seaton Valley and the site at Aycliffe.
    Although I know that the President of the Board of Trade would probably say that the Government did not stop the car manufacturers from going to the North-East, I would point out that the emphasis is the wrong way round. The Government did not encourage them to go there. How can we hope to attract this kind of industry to the North-East when that sort of thing happens?
    I do not think that anyone was informed about the good labour relationship which exists in the area and which has been a prominent feature of our industrial life in the North-East. No one on either side of the House can minimise the importance of this fact. Of course, it may be said—and I admit that it may be so—that even if the representatives had been told of these advantages they might still have gone elsewhere. But that fact is not proved. Therefore, we can only have the very strong suspicion that we in the North-East have been let down very badly indeed.

    241
    Another factor which annoys my hon. Friends and myself is that the President of the Board of Trade does not seem to know what is happening. Time and time again we have to tell him what the trends are in the area, but we get no response. We do not mind repeating these things, but to have to question him time and time again and then to get no response is extremely frustrating. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will carry the message to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when he comes back. I hope he is in a more receptive mood today than he has been hitherto. Then, may be, it is possible that after what we have said with real sincerity today we might get a better response.
    The simple fact is, and I repeat it in simple language, that the North-East has to a large extent in the past depended upon three basic industries, namely, shipbuilding, ship repairing and mining. They are all contracting, and up to the moment there has been no replacement. The issue is as simple as that, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand that I do not know what he will understand. Because it is as simple as that, I want to put to him some simple questions.
    The first is: What does he intend for the North-East? Has he any kind of basic industries in mind which will cater for the skilled and unskilled labour force now available? Does he intend to do anything more than he has already done, or is he kidding himself that he has acted more or less like Father Christmas in listing these eight areas? I can assure him that we do not think that he has been Father Christmas at all, and when we looked in the stocking—it has been a rather big stocking—we have had nothing out of it, and we are extremely dissatisfied with his supposed gift. We now want to place on record how dissatisfied we are. This is one of those cases in which the right hon. Gentleman has sat back, done nothing and hoped for something to happen.
    If I may deal with my own County of Durham, and particularly my own constituency, I want more or les to repeat what I have said about the North-East as a whole. I repeat that we have been let down about the kind of industry we should have and the attitude of mind towards the North-East generally. We
    242
    have not even been able to get anything out of the right hon. Gentleman. Here, again, we have the same problem in County Durham, and the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any knowledge of what is happening there. He might have the reports coming in from the various Employment Exchange areas, showing that there are so many unemployed today and that there were so many a month ago; he might have all the relative figures, but they do not mean a thing.
    I hope he realises, when considering the County of Durham, that in 1960 six collieries will be closing, involving over 1,000 men, and that is not the end of it. This trend will go on, and if the right hon. Gentleman has not got all the knowledge, may I advise him on a certain course of action? I would suggest that, as I believe he is on speaking terms with the Minister of Power, he might arrange a meeting and have a talk with him. I am sure that he will get not necesarily advice but at least an accurate picture of the situation in the County of Durham. He would be told a pretty grim story of the continued contraction of the mining industry resulting in the closing of many pits, with serious social and economic consequences. If what he hears from the inister of Power does not stir him on to quicker and more effective action, I believe nothing else will.
    In my own constituency, I suppose I ought to be satisfied, because two of the exchange areas which cover my constituency are on the list. But Durham is excluded and therefore I am not. Why it is excluded, I do not know. I do not know whether it is assessed on the current figures, but I have them here before me. On 11th January, there were 532 males out of work, and in this month, the figure has gone up to 577. I agree that that is not a tremendous figure for the area, and perhaps it is not a big enough figure to encourage the President of the Board of Trade to include it in the list of areas, but at least he should have taken into consideration the very short time that will elapse before we shall have a colliery and also a coking plant closed down. The colliery is at Ushaw Moor and the coking plant at Bearpark. If he had considered these factors when he made the list it might have been different, but I am certain that he did not. I therefore ask the

    243
    right hon. Gentleman to have another look at this area, not in the light of the position at the moment, but rather in the light of the shape of things to come.
    My final point is quite relevant to this debate. It is this question of establishing a Government Department in Durham. This has been a long-standing argument which we have had with the Treasury. We were promised one in 1948, and now it is 1960. I have already had two Adjournment debates on the matter. We have met the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have asked many Questions about it, but, up to the moment, without any success. I wonder if we could get the support of the President of the Board of Trade on this matter. I hope he will realise that it is very important, because it will solve some of his unemployment problem by having a Government Department in Durham. I am certain that if he helped us in this way, he would certainly be helping himself.
    Most important of all, there has not been too much emphasis on the youth side of the unemployment question, and we have a problem of youth unemployment in Durham. Here we have a chance of catering for the youth of Durham with the kind of employment suitable to their talents. I therefore ask the President of the Board of Trade to have a word with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on this issue, because if he is successful he will be solving part of the unemployment problem in Durham. I am sure that if he does that, we shall be very pleased.
    My last word is this. I understand that the President of the Board of Trade is to visit the North-East very soon. I hope that he meets as many people as possible, and that he meets a complete cross-section of the community, including the trade union leaders. I am certain—and here I am sure I have the unanimous support of both sides of the House—that he will be given a warm welcome. I tell him now, before he makes the journey, that if at the end of it he sets about the task of removing the fear of continued unemployment in the North-East the journey will have been worth while.
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. Henry Clark: I should like to thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for calling me in this debate, and also for calling me so soon after the other maiden speakers who have already spoken, because sitting on this bench, waiting to make a maiden speech, it not a thing which anyone can enjoy. I must ask the House to give me its usual indulgence. I apologise for the fact that I am the third maiden speaker in a row from this side of the House, but these things have got to be done some time.
    Nobody who has been returned for Ulster can possibly keep quiet when unemployment is being discussed. Indeed, it took very considerable self-restraint on the part of Ulster Members, when the Local Employment Bill was being discussed, not to take part in the debate. Of course, they would have been out of order, as the Bill does not refer to Ulster, and, therefore, could not speak about Ulster when that Bill was being discussed.
    Before I deal with the subject of unemployment in Ulster I take the usual opportunity of mentioning my predecessors and my constituency. Before I was returned for Antrim, North, at the last election, the county had been represented by the O'Neill family for very nearly one hundred years. The O'Neills were members of the Ulster Unionist Party in this House for a very long time indeed, and particularly in those heroic days of Ulster Unionism when our heroes, Carson and Craigavon, fought across this Floor against Tim Healey and John Redmond.
    Not long ago one of the O'Neills became the Father of this House and he now sits in another place. The O'Neill coat of arms appears on one of the shields there by the door of this Chamber which commemorates those Members who fell in the Great War. The O'Neills have been popular in North Antrim for many years. They were often returned unopposed, and, when opposed, they have been returned with large majorities. It is also a tribute to the name and standing of the O'Neills in County Antrim, and the honest loyalty of the people of County Antrim, that when I, a comparative stranger, was nominated by the Unionist Party, I received exactly the same support that the O'Neills had always had.

    245
    County Antrim is probably one of the finest counties in the British Isles. It is very common for a maiden speaker to describe his constituency as a microcosm of the whole country. Although it is a hackneyed gambit, I say it again. North Antrim has got everything that is worth having in the United Kingdom, and I think that we have got it better. We have the finest whiskey, spelt with an "e", or spelt without an "e". It is made at Bushmills. We have Irish linen, and Irish linen shirts are made at Ballymena as well as anywhere in the world. We also have—what many people do not know—the largest eel fishery in the British Isles. We are not very fond of eels in North Antrim. We do not eat them, but we send them to Holland and to London. We prefer the salmon we catch in the rivers of the county and in the sea. We have beautiful scenery on the Ulster Coast Road, very fine farmland and some of the most solid farmers to farm it.
    There is one thing wrong with the whole of North Antrim, and the whole of Ulster. It is unemployment. It is an absolute blot on the whole country. Ulster is a land running with milk and honey, but we have unemployment. If we could cure that we would have very little to complain about. We do not come under the new Act, but that Act will have a very serious effect on Ulster, because when assistance is stepped up in England and Wales, in local unemployment areas, immediately there will be very heavy competition with Ulster. We are trying to get industries to Ulster, but now we shall have the big guns in the other areas competing with us. We shall find it extremely difficult to get more industries into Ulster, but we need them very badly.
    The overall percentage of unemployment in Ulster is very nearly 8 per cent. It was 7·8 per cent. at the last count. To bring this home to myself, I looked up the list. I found that Ballymoney, a very small market town, had about 1,100 unemployed; Ballymena had 900 and Larne had 500. Anyone who knows those areas knows that those are large figures for small, not thickly-populated, places. It is country unemployment. The majority of unemployment in Ulster is in the country and is not so apparent as in other places. One does not see people standing about at street corners smoking
    246
    "fag ends". If one motors through Ulster one does not see people standing around street corners, but there are unemployed in large numbers in the country even if they cannot be seen.
    We have all been worried that firms will go to Scotland, Wales and the North-East of England and we shall not get them in Ulster. We definitely look for an assurance that Ulster will not be forgotten. I ask for an assurance that the name of Ulster, which has the heaviest unemployment of any area, will be read between the lines of this list of which we have been talking so much and that Ulster will always be thought of when new industries are to expand. I consulted my Ulster Unionist friends before deciding to speak in this debate. They asked me particularly not to demand, but to ask, of the Ministers two assurances.
    One is that when the Ulster Government, at Stormont, puts up schemes to increase incentives for industry to go to Ulster they will receive a most sympathetic hearing in London for those schemes. The second assurance is that when a firm is refused a development licence in the Midlands, or in London, and is advised to go elsewhere, the claims of Ulster will be pushed just as much and as firmly as the claims of any place named on the list that we are discussing.
    In turn, I can give an assurance that any firm which comes to Ulster will never have any reason to complain about its treatment there. We have never asked for charity in Ulster. We want firms to come there to make money. I can assure the House, and I can assure any firm which is contemplating coming to Ulster, that it will be no fault of the people of Ulster if it does not make money when it moves its factory over the Irish Sea.
    5.58 p.m.
    Mr. James MacColl: No one in the House can doubt that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) has made a very valuable and notable contribution not only to the value of the discussion, but to the interests of his own constituency.
    This, I suppose, was in some ways bound to be a rather sad debate, because it is one in which we are discussing problems of unemployment and industrial decay. The hon. Member, like most hon. Members making maiden speeches, has done his best for his constituency.

    247
    He has certainly painted a picture which moved everyone of us—a picture of a land flowing with milk and honey and whiskey, which seems to have something for everybody. I congratulate the hon. Member very much on his choice of constituency. I also congratulate his constituency on its choice of a Member.
    As the hon. Member reminded us, he follows a long line of hon. Members of this House who not only have been valuable servants of the House, but also have been valuable representatives of the constituency. No one could doubt for a moment that the hon. Member is well worthy to succeed in that line. I would utter a word of warning to him, however. The last hon. Member whom I had the honour to congratulate on his maiden speech shortly afterwards joined the Government. I hope that the hon. Member will decline to do that in disgust at the way in which his constituency, and, indeed, the whole of Northern Ireland, has been treated by the Government.
    It is rather ironical that at the beginning of the election campaign, when it became clear that the question of industrial location was to be a major issue in it, the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Minister of Education, made the keynote speech of the election in Lancashire announcing that this Measure was to be introduced. There is no great industrial area which has benefited less than Lancashire. If the then President of the Board of Trade knew what was to happen, I cannot understand how he could have had the staggering effrontery to make such a speech in Lancashire.
    This is a rather degrading business. Here we are, like a lot of oriental concubines, parading our charms before the President of the Board of Trade in the hope that there may be something which one of us has which catches his eye and which the others lack. I do not know what it is. I am baffled to know what it is that appeals to the right hon. Gentleman, because I thought that I had everything. Apparently, I have not.
    If I remember rightly, when Esther went into the presence of her husband, she knew that if the sceptre was pointed at her she would live, but that if the sceptre was not pointed at her she would pay for her effrontery with death. If
    248
    the right hon. Gentleman will point the Mace at me to indicate that Widnes will be included in the list of places to receive assistance under the Bill, I will at once sit down. The House will be spared a somewhat detailed speech and some of my hon. Friends who want to make their case will have a chance to do so.
    I make no apology for making a constituency speech, because this is obviously a local question. The case for excluding Widnes from this list is impossible to discern and I cannot believe that the exclusion was seriously intended. When I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about it last week, he said that the position and the prospects were different. They are not, unless the hon. Gentleman has some information which I do not have, which the local council does not have and which the Industrial Development Association does not have. I cannot understand what he is talking about.
    I am sorry to detain the House with this detail, but I want to run through the facts of the situation one by one. First, there is the question of unemployment. General unemployment at Widnes at 18th February was 4·3 per cent. The unemployment for Merseyside and Prescot, our neighbours, was only 4·2 per cent. and I should be extremely surprised to hear that Prescot had an unemployment figure of anything like that.
    I have no quarrel with Prescot, which had the good sense to send my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) to the House as its representative. It is an admirable place, but its unemployment figures are fairly low compared with ours, which are higher than neighbouring areas which are being assisted. We also have the problem of diversification, because unemployment among women in Widnes is very much higher than our average unemployment, so that we have a special need to find light industries to give employment to women and young people.
    We have not only immediate but imminent unemployment. Prospects are not good. The chemical industry has said again and again that it has no prospect of expansion in the area. Population is increasing and has increased over the past few years, so that

    249
    the potential is bound to be worse than the existing position.
    We also come within Clause 5, in that we have derelict areas and factory sites which could be improved to offer sites to new industries, if we had financial assistance.
    Even if it is said that for some reason, perhaps because Widnes had the ill taste to return me as its Member, it should be singled out in some way for not being included on its own worth, it has a right to be considered under Clause 1 (4, c) as a
    "place so situated that workers living in the locality … can conveniently work at that place";
    in other words, a reception area for overspill. For many months, the Widnes and City of Liverpool authorities have been discussing the prospect of Widnes receiving overspill from Liverpool. My latest information is that those conversations are now progressing with so me likelihood that they will soon be concluded. It is quite on the cards that Widnes will become a reception area in the comparatively near future, another argument for securing assistance for industrial location.
    It might be said that Widnes will benefit because motor industries are moving into the area. Ford's have been mentioned, but I see in the papers today that there is some uncertainty about whether Ford's are to come. Even if they are—and I profoundly hope that they are coming into the area—that is not a reason for excluding Widnes while including Merseyside and Prescot. It may be an argument for not including anything, but, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North so rightly said, if an area is not included while its next-door neighbour is, the neighbour will get help in competition with one's own area. One will not even have fair competition in trying to attract industries to the area, since it is easier for the other areas getting help to offer better terms. In Widnes, we are having our hands tied behind our backs because advantages are being given to the rest of Merseyside.
    Behind this argument is an important principle of town planning. Everyone knows that new industries coming into an area, quite reasonably, prefer to develop virgin sites. From the point of view of the community it is usually
    250
    better to develop old rather than virgin sites because services already exist and the sites are already developed industrially. I do not think for a moment that a vast motor undertaking will go into an old industrial town like Widnes, but I hope that industries ancillary to the motor industry, the small engineering firms, will find their way into the town where there are sites which they could use.
    That will not be possible if we are unable to offer the same kind of terms offered by neighbouring areas. Widnes will have the same sort of problems as the rest of Merseyside, with which it will be competing in the offer of factory sites to the same kind of industries. If the position is improving I cannot see why either all the area is not excluded—which God forbid—or all included so that the industries can be evenly spread throughout the area.
    The hon. Gentleman might argue that Widnes is howling and demanding to be spoon-fed by Government money. Northerners are sturdy, independent people, and when faced with a problem they put their backs into tackling it. Lancashire County Council has introduced a Private Bill to give Lancashire local authorities powers comparable to those in the Government's legislation so that local authorities themselves can do this sort of work without waiting to be spoon-fed by the Government.
    Clause 12 of that Private Bill provides that the district and borough councils, as well as the county council, will have those powers. We have just had the staggering information that, while we are reeling under the blow that we are to be excluded from this Bill, although we are an old D.A.T.A.C. area, we will be unable to tackle the problem ourselves because the President of the Board of Trade has used his influence to compel the county council to delete Clause 12 from its Private Bill.
    The Widnes Borough Council has a long record of industrial understanding and knowledge of business conditions. It is anxious to keep its industry in the area and provide employment for the people there. It is prepared to spend money and, if the Government will not help it, to help itself, and I should have thought that that would present an attractive picture to the party opposite. But we

    251
    are being ruthlessly and brutally told that we cannot have this power. The county council is being bullied to exclude Widnes from the provisions of the Bill, not because it will cost the Government a penny but because the Government are afraid that a vigorous local authority might get out of step with its policy.
    It is scandalous to exclude one part of the Merseyside area and leave in the rest. It is scandalous not even to allow Widnes to do what it wants to do, to spend its own money and keep its own house in order. This is a disgraceful thing to do and I am staggered at the action of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers.
    6.11 p.m.
    Miss Joan Vickers: After what has been said by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) I feel a little nervous about speaking in this debate, and I hope that it will not be thought that because of my sex I am trying "to put anything over" on my hon. Friend.
    The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) challenged me to say whether I should vote for the Opposition Motion. I do not think I should be any better off by so doing, because his Motion simply regrets that the list of development districts issued by the Government fails to include many places. It does not give me any definite assurance that Plymouth would be included. If it had, I might have fallen for the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. In any case I have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that he proposes to fulfil one election promise given by our party. He is going to bring in a Bill to help with employment fairly quickly which will help a great many of the districts in the country and so, although I regret that Plymouth is not included, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend proposes to act quickly so that other districts may benefit.
    The composition of this list seems to me to indicate that preparations have been made to attend to the "very sick areas" and to deal with emergencies, but the "chronic sick areas" seem to have been neglected. Plymouth is a chronic sick area. I have referred to this matter on previous occasions. I had an
    252
    Adjournment debate on the subject and I have spoken in more than one debate upon it, including the debate on the question of juvenile employment. The problem in Plymouth is not new. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) will recall that unemployed workers organised marches from his city, and there have been similar marches from Plymouth in times of unemployment.
    Plymouth was in a D.A.T.A.C. area and we had hopes of being included in the list of districts which will benefit from the provisions of this Bill. There were enormous advantages in being in a D.A.T.A.C. area even though the firms coming to the area did not necessarily apply for Government assistance. The fact that a district was a D.A.T.A.C. area indicated to firms that labour was available in that district. Firms which have come to Plymouth did not require Government help, but they came there because they had seen the list at the Board of Trade and knew that labour was available.
    My right hon. Friend referred to the problem of distance, and this presents a special difficulty for Plymouth which is 230 miles from London. There is no major industry in Plymouth except the Admiralty, and therefore it is difficult for any new industry to co-operate with existing industries. Only an entire industry could come to Plymouth if there is any hope of it being successful.
    Most industries coming to Plymouth have to train their labour. We have one small industry starting now which has a labour-training scheme. When a new industry comes to an area it is essential that its labour should be trained in advance, and, for example, the firm to which I have referred is training its labour in advance of putting up a factory. Though it will employ only a small number of people it is being put to the additional expense of having to train its labour before work can be started.
    Like Widnes, Plymouth is a town which displays initiative. Last year we sent an officer of the Estates Development Office in Plymouth to America where he was able to tell industrialists that Plymouth was in a D.A.T.A.C. area and that if they decided to bring their industry to England, Plymouth was an area which needed employment and

    253
    where the advantages of going there were greater than in going to any other place with the exception of Northern Ireland. It is proposed to send this officer overseas again, but I think that this time his journey will be unnecessary for what can he say except that in Plymouth we have a problem of unemployment? Obviously if the situation in Plymouth is not considered to be sufficiently serious to attract Government support, it is therefore unlikely that more American industry will be attracted to Plymouth because, naturally, such industry will go to areas where it can obtain support from the Government.
    Another difficulty which faces Plymouth is that we are dependent on one major industry. Of our male insured population 29 per cent. works in engineering and shipbuilding. There is a certain amount of female labour, but 29 per cent. of the insured male population is employed in that way, and 16 per cent. of the male insured labour works in distributive trades. Only 1 per cent. is engaged in fishing and working in the port and so on. Therefore, we have an unbalanced economy, and if the major industry dismisses a number of people there the people to whom goods may be sold have not the money to buy; so we are in a difficult position economically.
    There is also the problem of the employment of youth. Not only has the school leaving "bulge" revealed itself later among the young people, but in Plymouth we have a great number of young people. I think the reason is that the city had to be rebuilt to a great extent after the war, and many people living outside were not included in the earlier figures. In 1961 we shall have 3,428 school leavers which represents a figure of 69 per cent. compared with the national average of 40 per cent. In 1962 we shall have 3,682 young people, an average of 82 per cent., compared with the national average of 52 per cent. In 1967 it will be 2,994, or 41 per cent. compared with the national average of only 19 per cent. So it is obvious that there is a great problem in the future. According to the latest figures which I could obtain, which relate to the year 1957–58, we were paying nearly £6,000 in unemployment benefit and National Assistance to young people, and I con-
    254
    sider that a very large figure. I think it a bad thing that young people should be in receipt of National Assistance on leaving school.
    In reply to a Question which I put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour it was revealed that we have an increasing problem of unemployment in Plymouth. In 1955 the figure was 2·2 per cent.; in 1956 it was 2·5 per cent.; in 1957 it was 3·2 per cent.; in 1958 it was 4·1 per cent. and in 1959 it was 3·7 per cent. I regret to say that on 11th January of this year the figure had gone up to nearly 4 per cent. That means that we now have a total unemployment figure of 3,337 whereas in December, 1958, we had only 2,954.
    Recently Bush Radio, a firm which makes television and radio sets, had to stand off 160 people, including 32 men, only half of whom obtained other jobs. There are still 110 on the unemployment register, and this does not include a number of women who have not registered because they are waiting for suitable work to turn up.
    In reply to a supplementary question which I put to him about these high unemployment figures, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said,
    "Naturally one has anxiety where there is unemployment of that kind".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th Feb., 1960; Vol 617, c. 1278.]
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will consider these words and will realise that there is considerable anxiety in an area which has these very high unemployment figures.
    Plymouth has extremely good labour relations. We have no wild cats in the area. As far as I know, we have had no strikes since the General Strike of 1926. That should weigh heavily with employers who want to bring factories there, as it is very good to have a steady labour force.
    Another problem, which has not been mentioned by hon. Members so far, is that of finding work for the disabled. We have over 200 disabled people for whom it is almost impossible at the moment to find a job. We also have ex-Service men, who present a particular problem to our city.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough last year to receive a deputation, led by our lord mayor, on the subject of trying to get

    255
    further industries under the D.A.T.A.C. scheme. It was then stated that since 1945 seven small firms have moved to Plymouth, but they employ only about 5,000 people.
    We in Plymouth try to help ourselves by providing employment. We do not just wait for the Government to act. As I said earlier, we sent an officer overseas and we have encouraged some smaller firms into the area. There is another scheme to which it is worth directing my hon. Friend's attention. One firm—a clothing firm called Berkertex—has agreed, I think for the first time in the history of this country, to start an apprenticeship scheme in the trade for boys, because one of our greatest difficulties is to find employment for boys. They are to be called "Machinists—Clothing Industry", and they are to be apprentices, with a 4½ year training. We were a little doubtful whether the boys would be keen to take up this job, but thirty-seven have applied, and we hope that the scheme will get going on 1st April. I say this to indicate to my right hon. Friend that in Plymouth we are not just sitting back and doing nothing but wait for help.
    This firm also wishes to expand, and it might have been able to get help had we been in the Local Employment Act. As it appears that it will get none, this may mean that the firm, which is full of enterprise, will not extend its premises, which would be a great pity.
    Reading the Report of what my right hon. Friend said in the Second Reading debate, I came across what I think must have been a misprint. My right hon. Friend said:
    "I first pose the question of what we are trying to do with this series of pleasures now enacted over a long period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 31.]
    I presume that my right hon. Friend means not "pleasures" but "Measures", because these provisions are not bringing any pleasure to Plymouth. Perhaps before the HANSARD is bound my right hon. Friend will be able to correct that misprint.
    I agree that we do not want to direct industry. I am not suggesting that we should direct it, because I do not think that it is possible to know whether an industry will fit into the area concerned. On Second Reading, however, it was
    256
    stated that the original concept of the Special Areas Act, 1934
    "was one of large areas of the country where unemployment was endemic, deep-rooted and semi-permanent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 34.]
    That is what we should bear in mind. In Plymouth this is a deep-rooted and semi-permanent problem, for we have had high unemployment for many years.
    I therefore wonder why the present Bill has moved away from the principle of the 1934 Act. It seems to me that in choosing cities and towns for the new list we are moving completely away from the principle which has served us very well in the past and has provided help to certain towns.
    What will have to be done to bring Plymouth on to the list? Supposing after future Navy Estimates have been issued we are suddenly told that the Admiralty establishment there is to be cut down. We must realise that already the numbers employed by the Admiralty in Plymouth are dwindling. There used to be 25,000 people employed, and now only 19,000 are employed. If all these people had been put off at once there would have been a great outcry, but it has been done gradually over a period, and it is not until we have a debate such as this that we realise how the numbers are dwindling. If anything of that sort happens in the Admiralty in the future, will it mean that immediately, or as quickly as possible, we shall be brought on to the list?
    May I sum up for my hon. Friend the reasons why we feel that we have a claim to be considered for inclusion on the list? The first is to prevent the high level of unemployment from getting any higher. The second is to suggest to him that we are too dependent on the dockyard, and particularly on the Admiralty. The third is to point out that we have an exceptionally high number of school leavers and an exceptionally high child population for whom jobs must be found in the future.
    Matthew Arnold wrote:
    "But that vast portion, lastly, of the working-class which … is now issuing from its hiding-place to assert an Englishman's heaven-born privilege of doing as he likes …"
    I suggest that for the first time in the history of this country these people have

    257
    an opportunity to break down class barriers as we have known them so far. Because of modern science and hire purchase, a man—or a woman—can improve the standard of living of his family beyond the wildest dreams of his forbears, if he has a regular job, but a few weeks of unemployment can upset this standard. The knowledge that, through no fault of his own, he cannot get a job makes the man concerned frustrated. It is particularly tragic for the individual, and we should do everything we can to prevent this situation from arising.
    I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the present list in the light of this debate. Obviously there will be another list in the not too distant future. In view of the many points which I have put to him, some of which may not have been brought to his attention before, I hope that he will consider placing cities such as mine on the next list.
    Plymouth is an historic city which has done a great deal for this country. It suffered tremendously during the last war. The city is being rebuilt, and it is a very fine city. We do not want to drive all our young citizens away to find jobs in other parts of the country, but I am afraid that that will happen, in view of what I have said to my hon. Friend and to which he has kindly listened, if action is not taken in the not too distant future.
    6.29 p.m.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), who made such an eloquent and persuasive appeal in support of my right hon. Friend's Motion, indicated that she did not intend to vote for it. The reason which she gave was that the "many places", the phrase used in the Motion, did not specifically include Plymouth. If that were a valid reason for not voting for the Motion, none of my right hon. or hon. Friends could vote for it, because no place is mentioned specifically. If the hon. Lady will look at the Amendment she will find herself in very much greater difficulty in making the decision to vote for it reconcilable with her speech.
    Our complaint against the Government in the Motion is not that they have left out this, that or the other specific place. I do not agree with those hon. Members
    258
    on both sides who have said—I daresay facetiously and not meaning it—that the Government's list of places would be all right if only it contained their constituency. I think that the list would be very much better if it contained my constituency, but even then I should not think that the list was a good one. I should think that it was a had list if it included Nelson and Colne, but omitted Plymouth, and I invite the hon. Lady to say that it would he a bad list even if Plymouth were included if it omitted Nelson and Colne.
    To quote the Minister himself, who, in turn, quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), our challenge to the Government is that they have got their priorities all wrong and they are not properly applying even the limited criteria which they themselves included in the Bill. I shall return to that later, and if I try to illustrate it by figures derived mainly from my own constituency that is only because I know those figures best, and not because I believe that there are no other constituencies for whom the same case could be made.
    Before coming to the substantive part of my speech I wish to spend a few minutes on tracing how the debate comes to be held at all. Throughout Second Reading, the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading, so far as it was in order, my right hon. Friends and myself complained that the Government would not give us any indication of what their intentions were. We said that we would be able to look at the Bill more fairly and understand it better if the Government would only tell us what kind of scheme they had in mind, what places they intended to retain on the list, what places they intended to add, and what places they intended to take away. If they had done so, we could have seen the pattern of their thinking.
    We went a stage further. We said that it should not be left purely as an administrative decision by the President of the Board of Trade. We said that it would be very much better to have a scheme whereby the right hon. Gentleman would need to come to the House with his list, either by way of affirmative Resolution or in the negative form, but, at any rate, that he should have to make an Order in Council. The House would

    259
    not have the right to amend that, because we cannot amend Orders in Council, but we should be able to accept or reject it, and, at any rate, discuss it with him on the Floor of the House.
    The right hon. Gentleman refused all this. He told us that he was not able, or thought it wrong, to give us that information before the scheme became operative. However, he is telling us now before the scheme became operative. The Bill as it left the House of Commons is about to be debated in another place. I do not say that it is likely to be rejected or even substantially amended there, but, theoretically, under our Constitution it could be. As a result of what the Government have done, the other place will be in a very much better position to deal with the Bill than the House of Commons, which, after all, is much more vitally and closely concerned, was placed in when we had to deal wtih it. The other place will have the opportunity of seeing the pattern as contained in the list, which was exactly what we begged in vain that the Government should give to the House of Commons when we had the responsibility of dealing with it.
    Moreover, the Government did their best to keep all knowledge of the matter from the House after they had made up their minds. When the matter was challenged on the Floor of the House, the President of the Board of Trade was frank enough to say that it was he himself who had decided that it was better to give the information in the form of a Written Answer to a Question—when there could be no supplementaries and no explanation demanded in the House—than to give it in a way which would have given the House the opportunity of discussing it.
    It is no merit to the Government that we are able to debate the subject at all today. My right hon. Friends decided to place one of their days at the disposal of the House of Commons. But for that we would not have had the opportunity of debating it. This is a legitimate grievance. I daresay that the Government have approached the subject responsibly, doing the best they can according to their lights and according to the information that they receive. It is, perhaps, not their fault if their
    260
    lights are so dim and their information so defective. Though they could not improve the first, they could with more diligence repair some of the defects of the second, and I hope to help them to do so shortly.
    Whatever the merits of the matter, and even though it turns out ultimately that the Government are absolutely right and all the rest of us are absolutely wrong, do they not, on reflection, think that it is a good thing that we are having the debate? The more right they are, the better it is that they should explain it and defend it in the House. If they are confident of their case, they should welcome the opportunity. But the President of the Board of Trade said no word of thanks to my right hon. Friends for having tabled the Motion, or placed a Supply Day at the Government's disposal, so that they could explain to us exactly why they were right when all of us thought that they were wrong.
    Inevitably, this has to be a soldier's battle, in which each of us fights for his own hand. That is a pity. I can imagine nothing more degrading. I agree with my hon. Friends who made this point. Some of them thought that it was perfectly all right, but most of us think—I am sure that this is the better view—that it is degrading for the House of Commons to have a debate in which each hon. Member says, "Do something for my constituency. Never mind the others. Let us deal with this patch by patch. Let us struggle against one another for the bundle of hay which the Government throw in front of us, each seeking to get out of it what we can for ourselves." It is our duty to do that if the matter is approached in this way. We are here primarily to represent our constituencies, to do the best we can for them and put their case the best way we can. It is a great pity that the industry and economy of the country cannot be planned strategically instead of these individual tactical battles which do no one any good.
    Mr. Rupert Speir: Does the hon. Gentleman advocate the policy that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best and that we should leave it to them?
    Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the hon. Member has been listening to the debate. I can forgive him for not listening to my speeches. They are

    261
    always so long and so dull. If he has not been listening he should not intervene. The whole tenor of the debate and of the speeches of every hon. Member has been that the gentlemen in Whitehall are wrong. That is what the debate is about. We should not have been able to say that if the Opposition had not provided the opportunity. The Government did not give it to us.
    Mr. Speir: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood my meaning.
    Mr. Silverman: I know what the hon. Gentleman means, and that kind of approach to a difficult question is not helpful. There is a case for saying that there should be no central planning for industry, and I dare say that the hon. Gentleman says it. I say that there is a very good case for it, and I had the advantage recently of the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that proposition.
    I want now to come to the circumstances of my own constituency to illustrate my point that Nelson and Colne ought not to have been left out of the first list and in, I hope, persuading the Government that that is so, to illustrate at the same time how they failed to apply their own criteria. I am not saying that the President of the Board of Trade should go back on his policy. He has defended it, he believes in it, he carried it through with a majority of the House of Commons, and he is now bound by it. I have no right to complain at this stage that the policy is wrong. My only right to complain at this stage is that the Government are not properly applying the policy that they defended, or the powers with which the House of Commons has entrusted them.
    I think that no one will contest that to do that the proper criterion is to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 1, which says:
    "In this Act 'development district' means any locality in Great Britain—"
    The words are "any locality". I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to agree with me that "any locality", in that sense, means all localities, any locality that can fulfil these criteria is entitled, by Statute, to the aid. It does not say that it shall be such localities as the President of the Board of Trade may choose, but
    262
    "any locality in Great Britain in which in the opinion of the Board of Trade … a high rate of unemployment exists or is to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers and (in either case) is likely to persist, whether seasonally or generally."
    What have I to show? I have to show that the rate of unemployment is high or, failing that, I have to show that
    "… a high rate of unemployment … is to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers …"
    to prevent it, even though it is not high at the moment, and, in addition to that—and not as an alternative—I have to show that it is "likely to persist". I am quite prepared to submit the case of Nelson and Colne to any impartial or objective judgment, to see whether or not these qualifications for assistance, even under the present Bill, are satisfied.
    Earlier, one of my hon. Friends had a little lighthearted fun about what information exists or what information can be ascertained. I certainly would not pretend that my information is complete—it is not. I would not pretend that I can vouch for it personally. I have no means of ascertaining it personally. Indeed, under the Cotton Industry Act itself the Cotton Board is precluded from giving a good deal of information that would be very interesting and highly important to know. At any rate, it is precluded from giving it to individuals, although I think that the information must be available to the President of the Board of Trade.
    I hope that hon. Members will agree that I adopted the proper method of getting the information. I went to the town clerk of Nelson. I asked him to get out for me, on a non-political basis, the actual facts and figures as far as he could ascertain them. I hope that there is no fairer way of doing it, because the town clerk did not dream up his figures. He went to the Cotton Board and to the Ministry of Labour. For all I know, he may well have gone to the Board of Trade itself. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to listen to the town clerk's figures, and I invite him most earnestly to look at them carefully and to have them checked as thoroughly as he can manage, because they give a very different picture from that sketchily drafted by the President of the Board of Trade in response to interventions in his speech today.

    263
    To give the figures will not take very long, but, before giving them, I should like to say just a word by way of background. I do not intend to be lengthy about it, because I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary knows the background very well and that many hon. Members have heard of it before. The hon. Lady the Member for Devonport made an absolutely valid and legitimate point when she said that she could regard Plymouth as a one-industry town, as 29 per cent. of the male employed labour was engaged in only one industry. That was quite fair. I do not complain of it in the least. I would support the hon. Lady in it, but let her compare that figure with the figure obtaining in Nelson and Colne.
    We, too, are a one-industry area. We live on cotton—or did. It is not a question of 29 per cent., but a question of something between 65 per cent. and 70 per cent. Of every three people who are employed in the area at all, two depend, or depended, on cotton for their livelihood. If 29 per cent. makes a one-industry area, what does 65 per cent. make? I hope that the hon. Lady will reconsider her vote in the course of the debate, because I have one additional factor that she did not have in her plea for Plymouth. Plymouth's industry, at any rate, is not a contracting one.
    What have we in Nelson and Colne? We have not merely a situation in which two-thirds of the working population depend on one industry but, added to that, we have the tragically complicating factor that the industry itself has been rapidly contracting for over fifty years, and that the Government's remedy for that is to assist the industry, by financial rewards, to contract even more rapidly.
    This is not the place to discuss the Government's policy for the cotton industry. For the sake of argument, let us assume that it is right, but what does that policy consist of? It consists of saying, "You have too many mills. You have too much machinery. You have too many people employed in the industry. The only way to put the cotton industry on its feet," say the Government, "is to contract it; to have a smaller, more highly-concentrated area—fewer mills, but better equipped ones." And the
    264
    Government offer rewards to re-equip the mills.
    The point that I say is so very relevant is that before that scheme for cotton can work at all we have to reduce the industry's productive capacity, and this bears particularly hardly on a constituency in which two-thirds of the working population depend on that one industry. There is only one fair way in which we can do it if we believe that to be the right thing. It is either to take our alternative industries in first, or, at least, to take in the new industries simultaneously—contemporaneously—with the closing of the mills, so that the new employment is ready at the moment when the old employment stops. Is that fair? Is that an unreasonable claim to make?
    Let us see what is happening. In December, 1959, the general percentage of unemployment in the country as a whole was 1·9. On 11th January, 1960, the percentage of registered unemployed in the Nelson Employment Exchange area was 2·1 and in the Colne Employment Exchange area it was 1·9, making an average of 2 per cent. for the area as a whole. It may be said that that can hardly be described as a high degree of unemployment. It is only just above the national average. So far, I think that I should agree.
    Let us see how it goes on. A month later, on 15th February, 1960—almost the exact date on which the Government announced that such protection as we could have from D.A.T.A.C. was being withdrawn—the percentage of unemployed had increased to 2·46. Still, it may be said that it is not very high. But it is a substantial increase in one month.
    Thus, even if one relies only on the registered unemployed, one finds a substantially rising figure. But, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, after living with this problem for quite a long time, these figures are deceptive because a great many of the people who are unemployed in the cotton towns are not fully insured. They rely on their husbands' insurance. The result is that, when they become unemployed, they do not register. There are more women employed in the mills than men. They do not register and, therefore, they do not figure at all in the published lists of percentages of registered unemployed.

    265
    It is not easy to make a calculation to correct that figure and give effect to the number of unregistered unemployed. The town clerk tells me that it must be between ½ per cent. and 1 per cent., on a very modest estimate. Let us call it ¾ per cent. We then show a percentage of unemployed rising in one month, taking it all in, to about 3·4 or 3·6. This is already verging on double the national level.
    I should have thought that that might well be regarded as a high level of unemployment, but I do not have to prove that, if I can prove that high level of unemployment though not yet existing is likely to exist, within the definition of the Bill, that is to say,
    "within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers."
    What is the position here? Again, I rely on the town clerk's figures. Under the Cotton Industry Act, mills which intend to take advantage of its provisions have to give their notice to the Cotton Board. They had to give it by a date now long past, the 30th September last year, I think. In the Nelson Employment Exchange area the number of factories or sheds which have given notice to close is 32. In the Colne Employment Exchange area it is 31. That is a total of 63 factories or weaving sheds which are to close by 31st March.
    It is true that, in one or two cases—I think it is done without powers, but we are thankful for small mercies—the Cotton Board has given leave to extend the period, but it can extend it by only a few weeks. If it is not 31st March, it can be only a few weeks thereafter. Sixty-three mills are to close. This means, in Nelson, 12,558 looms, and, in Colne, 9,218 looms.
    It may be said that not all the people dependent on those looms will be unemployed because in some cases the looms are being destroyed but the shed is remaining open. Out of the 12,500 looms, 10,831 are in sheds which are closing completely, and, out of the 9,218, 8,142 are in sheds which are closing completely. So there is very little hope there.
    Hon. Members may ask what this means in terms of numbers of unemployed. In the whole area it means a total of 3,400. The percentage which I have been talking about—the percentage now unemployed, the 2·46, or
    266
    whatever it may be, corrected for the unregistered ones—represents only 1,100. Between now and the end of March—I shall come to the modifying features in a moment—2,300 more people will lose their work in Nelson and Colne, if nothing happens, if they are not reabsorbed into the modified or developed cotton mills, or if they are not absorbed into new industries. This will multiply the percentage of unemployed at least by 2, and perhaps by 3, at least by 31st March. Can we not say that a high percentage of unemployment is expected within a period when it is reasonable that the powers should apply?
    What are the powers? The powers are to do the very thing that is needed, namely, to assist—I think that the word used by the President of the Board of Trade was "induce"—new industries to go there rather than to other places. But we are losing them. The whole area was made a development area in 1953. When the 1958 Act was passed, and the Government published their first list, Nelson and Colne was not included. It was not until the end of July last year that Nelson and Colne was made a D.A.T.A.C. area. It is common ground and beyond controversy that, since that date, the position has become worse, not better, and within the next few weeks it will become worse again.
    If it was right to make Nelson and Colne a D.A.T.A.C. area at the end of July, 1959, why is it right to withdraw those powers in February, March or April, 1960? There is something faintly unpleasant about these dates. After strong refusals, we are made a development area three months before the General Election. During the election campaign, the President of the Board of Trade comes to Lancashire and says:
    "Our principal Measure, our first, most substantial Measure in the coming Parliamentary session will be something which will do a lot of good for Lancashire. I have come to Lancashire in the middle of the campaign to say so."
    When the election is over, the Government introduce this Bill. When the Bill is safely through the House of Commons, they withdraw the protection which they have given prior to the election, but only just prior, to Nelson and Colne. I do not want to make the most elementary of all logical errors and say post hoc propter hoc, but there is a prima facie case. Unless the Government

    267
    could show conclusively that they were right, even in this first list, to leave Nelson and Colne out, they would find it very difficult to explain to the many thousands of Lancashire voters, some in my constituency, who voted for Conservative candidates on the basis of the speech of the former President of the Board of Trade that they have an overwhelming case for the places in their list. I am endeavouring to show they have not such a case.
    What are the modifying factors? They are the extent to which labour may be reabsorbed and new industry introduced. In part of my constituency, certainly in Nelson, we have not been unsuccessful in attracting new industries by our own efforts. One major new industry is already in production, which will eventually, employ 400 people. But it will be two or three years before it employs 400 people. It already employs 100, and, having regard to the short time the industry has been in the district, it should be congratulated on having progressed so quickly and for being so efficient and effective. To employ 100 people in such a short time is very good, but how far does it solve the problem of the 2,300 people who will leave the cotton industry between now and 31st March?
    I hope that if the President of the Board of Trade has not heard all of what I have said he will think it worth while to have a look at it tomorrow. I have done my best to be severely factual. I hope that my figures are right. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that no reasonable man, applying the criterion of Clause 1 (2), could possibly come to the conclusion that Nelson and Colne do not qualify under every one of the criteria set out. The Bill lays upon the right hon. Gentleman a duty to exercise these powers in any locality to which those criteria apply. It would be a grave dereliction of his duty not to apply them.
    The right hon. Gentleman offered a faint hope in his speech that this is only a first effort and that the Government can consider the position again. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider it more closely and carefully and hesitate a very long time before he takes away the last hope of a constituency which has not been behind other constituencies in its contribution in the
    268
    past, and, indeed, at present, to the prosperity of our country. I say to the Government, do not desert these people. The Government have the powers and we are entitled to the benefit of those powers. The Government should amend the list and let us have the benefit of it.
    7.4 p.m.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) described this debate as a bit of a soldiers' battle. I suppose that it is understandable, as the hon. Member himself suggested, that we should represent the problems of our own particular areas. To a quite advanced degree it is essential that we should do so. I suggest, however, that most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have, at least attempted to find the balance which the Government seek in the face of this local unemployment problem. I for one most certainly acknowledge that the Government are doing their very best to determine the centres of the greatest trouble.
    As a Member representing a constituency in the north-east of England, I should be very happy if we could have had in the North-East a greater number of development districts. Of course, I view the list with some concern. Our major industries, such as coal and shipbuilding, are contracting, and we look with some hope to the future and the possible introduction of another major industry. In welcoming the possibility of new industries in the area, I suggest that the list as it stands with regard to the North-East covers the areas where our trouble is greatest.
    I see the wisdom of local assistance on two main scores. First, the Government are attempting, with such assistance as is available, to render the maximum help where it is most needed. Secondly, I do not think that any of us should forget for a moment that any assistance at all depends on the country having a basically sound economy. The general financial assistance which has been suggested by certain hon. Members would undoubtedly have an inflationary effect. It is rampant inflation such as that which we have known in the past that we must avoid above all things.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: If the spending of £120 million on providing

    269
    work for those who are out of work is inflationary, how is that amount spent on the arms programme anti-inflationary?
    Mr. Elliott: The arms programme, unfortunately, is something which is necessary at this time. I am suggesting, if the hon. Member can appreciate it, that such assistance as is available should go where it is most needed, and that there would be an inflationary danger in general assistance. We have the assurance of my right hon. Friend, if we needed it, that the number of new jobs which are possibly available is limited. I suggest that the Bill as it stands is, in the long term, an anti-inflationary Measure.
    I suggest also that the special powers of assistance are somewhat wider than many hon. Members have suggested. Under Clause 1 (4, c)
    "any place so situated that workers living in the development district … can conveniently work at that place"
    will be considered as forming part of a development district. To quote an example in the North-East, a factory on the Team Valley Trading Estate could reasonably employ people from Jarrow. Although it may be argued that a manufacturer coming to the Team Valley Trading Estate would not wish to be tied down to employing people from Jarrow, I am encouraged in the belief that no such fixed stipulation will be made and that the apparently narrow field of assistance will in due course be flexible enough to contribute to wide prosperity such an area as my own.
    Anyone coming from an area like mine, which in the past experienced great unemployment although it was before my time, is thankful for the Board of Trade trading estates. The history of the North-Eastern Trading Estate Company is a splendid one and I personally wish to see a continuance of the prosperity of trading estates and their expansion ensured. Under Clause 14 of the Bill the Government have power to build on trading estates outside development districts, but this Clause does not lay down the terms under which such future development is to take place. I am very anxious that existent industrialists in areas like my own who went to the area in days of trouble and unemployment and who, by their enterprise, efforts and success, have made a certain degree of descheduling necessary
    270
    should not in future be left out in the cold. They should be further encouraged.
    A great deal is being said at the moment in my part of the world as well as in the House about contracting major industries and possible new major industries, but I should like to say a few words in support of a smaller industry which has in its time collectively provided so much employment and can do so increasingly in the future. On our trading estates in the North-Eastern area 12,461,000 square feet of factory space is administered by the Board of Trade and 321 tenants employ 51,500 people. Government expenditure here since 1945 has been some £17 million. Last year it was £943,000. In 1959 alone there were 23 extensions to existing factories representing in that year 2,447 new jobs. Two hundred new firms have come to Tyneside since the war. In grants and loans this year they have already taken a total of £21,500, and in the current financial year £79,800 has been authorised for the clearance of fifteen derelict sites.
    I suggest that although there has been a great deal of gloom in this debate about such areas as mine, this is a splendid progressive record, and as a Member representing a constituency in the North-East of England I welcome this latest Bill, which, in the words of the Amendment, is
    "… part of a comprehensive policy for the progressive solution of the local employment problem".
    The danger of unemployment in northeast England, I believe, will be largely averted by the proposed concentration on the blacker spots.
    Mr. Short: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that the area to which he refers as one which would provide work for Jarrow is not included in the list?
    Mr. Elliott: I fully appreciate that, but I am afraid that the hon. Member has not understood my point. It is suggested in the Bill that an area outside of a place named in the list can be included in a development district provided that it can supply employment for the named place. Surely that is clear enough.
    Trading estates are doing a splendid job. I therefore wish that wherever possible in the North-East—where, I am

    271
    sure the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) will agree, the threat of unemployment rather than actual unemployment is our worry at the moment—that as much of the trading estates as possible can be brought within the scope of the already named development districts.
    We should all realise that this list is far from being final. It is a very temporary list. We are giving assistance where it is needed, and as soon as a place has recovered either from unemployment or the threat of it the list will be amended, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne suggested it should be. Let us wait until the worst places are cured and then move on. I believe that this special aid will get us out of the wood and that eventually the Bill will be seen as one which has contributed to the permanent prosperity for which we are all striving.
    Finally, I appeal once again to my right hon. Friend to give the fullest possible consideration to our existing industries. I should like to put a question to him. Has the moment now arrived when some consideration might be given to the development companies, or the corporations as they will now become, obtaining money from public funds on a fixed interest and return basis, or, alternatively, has the moment arrived when they might possibly borrow the money on the open market and so finance their own expansion. I suggest that every possible expansion should be encouraged towards the end of general prosperity which is so much desired in areas such as those which I represent.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. William Hamilton: As a native born and bred of the North-East, I regret very much the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Elliott). It will not be echoed by any other hon. Member from the North-East, though my concern at the moment is not with the North-East. Incidentally, I am a little alarmed to see the new "Parliamentary Private Secretary" to the President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), especially when we are discussing this topic. It sends a shudder down my spine. I hope
    272
    that his occupation of his present position on the bench behind the President of the Board of Trade will be as brief as was his Chancellorship of the Exchequer.
    I want to refer to the situation in a part of Scotland, but before I quote some figures I want to echo the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and others about the sordid character of the debate. I fear that the Government have brought this upon themselves. I want, further, to support what has been said about the way in which the list was produced and the fact that another place will have the opportunity of having a much more rational debate on the Bill than we had, because noble Lords will have available to them the list which was denied to us.
    I want the President of the Board of Trade to recall what he said in opening the debate about the criteria on which the list was formed. He mentioned three: first, the percentage of unemployment, secondly, its imminence, and thirdly, its persistence. I want to take each of those three in turn and apply it to the Cowdenbeath area, in central West Fife.
    First, as to the percentage. There are on the list which has been published no fewer than 13 places which have a percentage rate of unemployment of 5 per cent. or less. Cowdenbeath has 5 per cent., and there are 993 unemployed, including 158 juveniles. In addition, 4,500 move out of that area to get work elsewhere. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) talked about a one-man industry and quoted a figure of 29 per cent., but I would remind the President of the Board of Trade that more than 70 per cent. of male employment in the Cowdenbeath area is entirely dependent on the mining industry, and a mining industry which is declining very rapidly there. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the figures for the boys and girls who are at present on the labour market in that area. Last Christmas 70 boys and 65 girls left school, and as of now 45 boys and 19 girls are still without a job.
    I obtained figures from the Secretary of State for War several weeks and discovered that a very high proportion of the considerable number of men who were leaving the pits were joining the

    273
    Army; and what applies to the Army applies to the Armed Forces generally. Precisely because of the unemployment already there, or because it was imminent and likely to persist—in other words, precisely because of the criteria which the President of the Board of Trade mentioned—men are leaving the industry at an increasing rate, and if they are not going into the forces they are moving to the Midlands. I had the experience the other week of seeing a dozen of them on Edinburgh station going off to the Midlands because they were fearful of the consequences of the decline in the mining industry in West Fife. Therefore, unemployment there is on the percentage criterion.
    On the criterion of imminence, not only is the unemployment already there, but if the President of the Board of Trade obtains the figures for individual pits—and I rather suspect that he has not had them—he will find that employment will have declined during the period from March, 1959, to December, 1960. The decline in the mining manpower in the central West Fife area will be 2,638 In other words, in a year's time there will be one-quarter fewer mining jobs in that area, which is basically a one industry area, than there are currently.
    Unemployment is already there and further unemployment is certainly imminent in the next year or two and likely to persist. Could the right hon. Gentleman give us figures, such as he quoted this afternoon for Dundee, which is on the list because of some foreseeable effect in the future which will adversely affect Dundee? I want him to tell me where we are to place these men, and particularly the boys and girls, who cannot now get jobs in the area. If he can tell us where the jobs are to come from, I shall be obliged.
    The Royal Naval Aircraft Repair Establishment, at Donibristle, has services and buildings which are perfectly sited for industrialists. It has been available for several months and there have been investigations, but the industrialists will not go there.
    The point has been made time and again in the debate that if we get other areas in Scotland, on the list which were not previously scheduled whether far from Fife or near to it, our competitive position in West Fife will be jeopardised.
    274
    What, therefore, are the prospects in that area; what influenced the President in deciding against the inclusion of the Cowdenbeath area?
    I want to say a brief word on the general character of the debate. I said in my opening remarks that it had been a sordid and a disagreeable debate, with Members coming along with their begging bowls. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the alternative?"] A new light industry in Cowdenbeath making begging bowls, I suppose.
    Now that everyone is coming along this will not be the last debate that we shall have on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman will be coming along with another list shortly, and if our own areas are not on it we shall have to make further representations. The President of the Board of Trade will probably again put the list in a Written Answer in HANSARD in an attempt to forestall the kind of indignation which has been expressed in this debate.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will exercise a little more discretion in the manner in which he produces these lists and that he will very soon come along with one relating particularly to the areas where the mining industry is in serious decline and where the National Coal Board can hold out no prospects for any immediate improvement in the situation; indeed, the chances are that the position will get worse rather than better in the near future.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. Rupert Speir: As hon. Members have already pointed out, the President of the Board of Trade has an extremely difficult task in deciding which areas should be in the new list of development districts. I do not agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) who said that this is a sordid debate, and that hon. Members will be coming along with their begging bowls. I hope that hon. Members will also be coming along and be able to say to the President of the Board of Trade, as I believe that certain areas can now almost say, that because of the action which the Board of Trade has taken in recent weeks, they are no longer in need of development assistance and have sufficient industry for their purpose.

    275
    I believe that both South Wales and Merseyside will be able to say that in the near future. Those are two areas which have had a long period of acute employment problems in this postwar period.
    I wholeheartedly support the principles upon which the Local Employment Bill is based and the system under which the development districts are to be put on the official designated list. I think that it is a happy compromise between the idea that by some central planning we could have done what we are attempting to do now by this list. By central planning I think that we should have got into a state of utter confusion with the idea that "the gentlemen in Whitehall know best." It is a happy compromise between that conception and that of the local authorities and local M.P.s being allowed to put forward their views, and to have their rightful say.
    I am in the fortunate position that one of the areas in my constituency, Haltwhistle, has been placed on the list—and rightly so. Haltwhistle had a long record of high unemployment in the pre-war 1930 period. It was a very depressed area indeed, and I think that if any area deserves consideration it is the smallish community of Haltwhistle. I hope, however, that if we can get one more new industry in Haltwhistle, employing up to about 500 people in the near future Haltwhistle will be able to be taken off the list.
    On the other hand, I have pleaded for Prudhoe to be put on the list and I have been told that the situation there is not sufficiently serious to warrant its being put on the list. I have had the assurance from my right hon. Friend, however, that the situation will be watched very carefully. That is the point which I want to make—that this situation should be watched by the Board of Trade and that we should see changes in the list. I think that it is one of the great points about this Bill that it enables the position to be judged in a flexible way instead of labelling an area a development area for all time.
    The Bill does two important and rather novel things. Under the old development area Acts it was not possible for the Board of Trade to look ahead. It could not do what the right hon.
    276
    Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) referred to as "forward thinking". In a matter of this kind anticipation is of great importance and this Bill will enable the Board of Trade to anticipate trouble, to look ahead, to take a stitch in time; and, by drawing up a list like this, we shall be able to take account of those areas where a high rate of unemployment is threatened even if it does not exist at the present time. Of course, if it exists at the present time it also qualifies as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) pointed out for assistance under the Bill.
    I have no doubt that in the North-East there are several areas which should be added to the list at some time in the near future. I shall not go over all the ground, but we know that there are many mines to be closed in that area, in both Northumberland and Durham, and we know that the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries are threatened with short working. The whole system under this Bill is intended to be flexible, and I think that is very important because the situation can change so easily, if not from day to day, at any rate from month to month.
    Another novel principle about the Local Employment Bill, and one which I welcome tremendously, is the idea that under the Bill, work shall be taken to the workers. Instead of the workers, when pits are closed, having to leave their homes, pack their bags, uproot themselves and their families and drift away, as almost inevitably they have drifted in the past, south to the Midlands or to London, the aim of the Bill is to take the work to the workers and to the areas where unemployment might develop. That should stop the terrible drift southwards, which ought to have been stopped long ago. Wherever possible in these small overcrowded islands, it is infinitely better to take the work to the workers instead of the workers having to uproot themselves.
    I realise that some people—there are one or two in this House—would say that we should allow economic factors to have their full force and uninterrupted play and that this would be in the general national interest. That is certainly not my viewpoint, however, and I am glad that it is not the Government's point of view either.

    277
    We must face the fact that "the wind of change" is blowing here just as much as in Africa, but we should try wherever we can to temper it and control it. Fortunately, during the past twenty years, we in the North-East have had a relatively high rate of employment. It is only latterly that the fears and the threat of a return of pre-war conditions have to some extent become apparent.
    In the post-war period, we have been far more fortunate than Scotland, Merseyside, South Wales or Ulster in maintaining full employment. Thus it is the fear of the future rather than the actuality of the position today which causes us concern. It is not surprising that we should suggest to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the list of designated areas which he has produced is one which we in the North-East will watch carefully and one which we shall ask him, too, to watch carefully.
    I have not myself expressed any great surprise or indignation that we have not been successful in attracting one of the new sections of the motor-car industry to the North-East. I do not complain on that score, because Merseyside and South Wales have had a far more acute employment problem and have had it far longer. I realise that there must be fair shares on a national basis. In any event, the motor industry is itself very much subject to booms and slumps. Its labour relations, too, are not of the best, whereas we in Tyneside have had a wonderful record in the maintenance of good labour relations. I would say that our record is the best in Britain, and second to none.
    If, however, we are not to get a motor-car factory, we deserve special consideration for smaller factories. Personally, I would welcome a dozen or a score of factories employing up to, say, 1,000 to 2,000 people, rather than one vast factory, employing 20,000, which would cause difficulties from planning, social and general transport viewpoints. Nothing would be nicer than to have a dozen or so smaller factories, which could be dotted about the North-East in the areas where we know the mines are to be closed.
    I know full well that the Board of Trade cannot actually direct industry or labour, but, on the other hand, we realise that the Board of Trade today has some
    278
    immense powers. Its powers of persuasion, both positive and negative, are now considerable. We thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for his efforts in trying to bring part of the motor industry to Tyneside, but we realise the difficulties that were in his way. Now that that project has apparently failed, however, we ask him to do his best to ensure that other industries are directed to this declining mining area.
    Mr. Robens: Would the hon. Member agree that the President of the Board of Trade is not able to offer anything unless he includes Northumberland on the list?
    Mr. Speir: I do not accept that at all. There is no need to put the whole county on the list. Some areas are on the list. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that if other areas are within travelling distance of the designated areas, they can get assistance under the Bill, too. I believe, therefore, that it would be quite possible to provide employment in the North-East without, at present adding to the list. The right hon. Member for Blyth was not, I think, present earlier, however, when I said that we in the North-East would watch the list carefully and that undoubtedly there would be places that we would want added to the list soon because of the impending closure of more mines.
    To conclude, I would only add that these coalmining areas have done much for Britain and have hitherto asked little in return. For that reason, they are deserving of the highest consideration.
    7.36 p.m.
    Mr. Harry Randall: The speech of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) was much more agreeable than the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott). At least the hon. Member for Hexham seemed to have an appreciation of the situation as well as an understanding of the problem that faces us in the North-East. I disagree, however, with the hon. Member that the list of places so far designated goes anything like far enough to give the North-East its proper entitlement.
    This is one of those debates which call for short speeches by hon. Members. It

    279
    has been said that we are engaged in a sordid business, but it is inevitable that in a debate of this nature we should refer to the difficulties and problems of our constituencies. I simply do not understand the criterion used by the President of the Board of Trade in determining the various places throughout the country that need assistance.
    In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, however, I am a little optimistic about what may happen concerning Gateshead. The right hon. Gentleman promised to listen to the debate and said that in the light of it, he would be prepared to think again. I welcome also his comment that he was very much concerned about the North-East. He made what I regarded as an important statement when he said that the percentage figure he had in mind was nearer 4½ per cent. than 5 per cent. I will explain why I regarded that as important.
    For the last twelve months, Gateshead has had a high unemployment figure. We have had 1,640 men wholly unemployed. This has been going on for probably something like twelve months. In Gateshead there are only 167 vacancies. This means that ten men are chasing each vacancy registered at the employment exchange. This is a serious situation. There have been eight, nine or ten men chasing one job for the last twelve months.
    The other day I asked the President of the Board of Trade to tell me why Gateshead is not included in the list. The reply I received stated that it is not a locality in which a persistently high rate of unemployment exists or is expected. I could not accept that answer, which I regarded as most unsatisfactory, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman that my constituents are most unhappy about it. I am fortified in my opinion now that I have seen the list of places selected. In going through the list I have found that in twelve the conditions are comparable with those in Gateshead and district. Gateshead is included in a district which combines Blaydon, Felling and Prudhoe, where the percentage of unemployment is 4·3. There are twelve on the list which are either just below or just above that percentage, and the numbers of unemployed are also nearly comparable.
    280
    For instance, Bishop Auckland with 2,197 unemployed has a percentage of 4·5; West Cumberland with 2,082 unemployed has a percentage of 4·2; Bathgate with 1,356 unemployed has a percentage of 4·8 and Llanelly, with 1,657 unemployed has a percentage of 4. The number of unemployed in Gateshead and District at present is approximately 2,920 and the percentage is 4·3 as I have said.
    Mr. Speir: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about Gateshead or the southwest Tyneside area in giving a figure of 4 per cent.?
    Mr. Randall: I am talking about Gateshead and district, which includes Prudhoe, Felling and Blaydon.
    Mr. Speir: I have a letter here from the Board of Trade dated 19th February which states that the basis for determining the list was 3·3 per cent. in south-west Tyneside, which covers the area to which the hon. Gentleman has been referring.
    Mr. Randall: I have in my hand a communication in which I am told that unemployment in the Gateshead district is 4·3 per cent., which suggests that I should urge the Minister to look again at Gateshead and district.
    I do not wish to detain the House but I want the President of the Board of Trade to realise that this has had repercussions already. One hon. Member referred to the Team Valley Trading Estate. One firm on that estate wishes to extend its factory space by 50,000 sq. ft. It already uses 70,000 sq. ft. It is a good firm; it began on the trading estate and now going into the American market, yet because of the decision made under the Bill no assistance can be given to it. I give the name to the Minister—Smith's Electric Vehicles. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) knows the firm well, and I am sure she is interested—
    Dame Irene Ward: I have made representations.
    Mr. Randall: Then I hope that as a result of what I have been able to say today, together with the representations made by the hon. Lady, something will be done. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)

    281
    in saying that firms not included in the list have the right to receive assistance under D.A.T.A.C. until at least 1st April, in which case this firm would benefit. Another firm wants 7,000 sq. ft. on the Team Valley Trading Estate. That, too, is to be denied. I say to the Minister, therefore, that there is a strong case for reconsidering the Gateshead position.
    Finally, I will give some more facts for the Minister to think about. Over the weekend I made some inquiries and found that the position will get worse in Gateshead. I understand that 100 men employed by Wright Anderson have been paid off since Christmas. At Clarke Chapman's a considerable number have been paid off and the prefab shop has been closed. In addition, the Close Works are now slowing down and nightshift working has stopped. Furthermore, the 50 per cent. of our men who are wholly unemployed have been in that position for periods of from nine to more than twenty-six weeks. So there is a solid, hard core of unemployed men and I believe that there is a strong case for Gateshead and district to be reconsidered.
    I apologise for pleading on behalf of my constituency, but I should have been criticised had I not mentioned to the House how desperate is the situation there and that my constituents feel that they should be included in the list.
    7.46 p.m.
    Dame Irene Ward: I am a political child of the 1930s, and I fully realise that I tend to over-emphasise the difficulties. Indeed, when I was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), who rightly pointed out some of the problems of Merseyside and Scotland, my mind went back to the thirties when the whole of Lancashire, including the Merseyside, was in a much better position as regards unemployment than the North-East Coast.
    The North-East Coast and South Wales were the first two areas in the country where the experiment of the trading estates was started. In spite of all my many criticisms I remain a very devoted adherent to the Conservative philosophy, and I want to remind the House that whereas my hon. Friends talk about the post-war period, I talk about the pre-war period. I remember that it was the Conservative
    282
    Party which first conceived the scheme for providing industry as widely and as profitably as possible, both for those who could provide the capital and those who could carry out the work. Although I have certain criticisms to make, I am proud to recall that this conception found its being and roots in the Conservative philosophy of the 'thirties.
    Mr. Robens: After the Jarrow march to London.
    Dame Irene Ward: Did the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene?
    Mr. Robens: No.
    Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the North-East then; I was.
    Mr. Robens: I only said that it was the Jarrow march to London which forced the Conservative Government of the day to do something. The hon. Lady must not take pride in the Conservative philosophy for that.
    Dame Irene Ward: Of course, that was not the position.
    Mr. Robens: It was the position.
    Dame Irene Ward: I do not want to enter into a controversy about the Prime Minister of the day, but I am always delighted to pay a tribute to Mr. Baldwin, who, long before the trading estate project came into being, was doing what he could, because he believed in full employment, to conceive an idea which would help to solve the problem with which we were faced. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to try to draw my blood, I will remind him that I twice defeated the first Socialist Cabinet Minister, Miss Margaret Bond-field, so I would suggest that we now leave this argument.
    Mr. John McKay: On a point of order. Has this anything to do with the subject under debate?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am bound to say that I was beginning to think along those lines myself.
    Dame Irene Ward: I promised that if I intervened in the debate I would be fairly short, and I shall keep my word. There are only three points I want to make. First, I think that those who have struggled to try to attract good industrialists into any of the areas which have

    283
    come under discussion will realise that all sorts of problems arise. When industrialists are selecting a new site for expanding, or attracting, or bringing a new industry into an area, that site has to be the best they can find within the vicinity. There may be a question of water, and there certainly is one of communications. There may be the need for quick access to ports to serve overseas markets.
    I feel that the Local Employment Bill is slightly amateur in that it is just drawing a little circle round an area suffering from unemployment, and that we may fail to attract industrialists, for they are very choosey and demand very high standards. I think that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has rather restricted some of the areas which might attract good industrialists by putting this fence around those which have a high level of unemployment. I genuinely believe that and, therefore, I repeat that I believe the Bill to be amateur.
    I come to my next point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, but when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) was talking about the contracting mining industry in Northumberland—and I agreed with what he said—I was a little alarmed to hear my right hon. Friend say that the displaced miners or their children—who are very important—might find employment in Whitley Bay and North Shields. Whitley Bay is not an industrial area at all. We have a very small amount of industry there and the population has above the average number of retired people. I do not know where these vigorous, vital, first-class young children from the mining areas will find employment in Whitley Bay. In North Shields we have the biggest ship-repairing centre in the world and though we have a first-class trading estate, there is considerable unemployment. I do not think that my right hon. Friend made the happiest of suggestions. Perhaps he will look at this again.
    My next point is perhaps the most important of all. I think my right hon. Friend has already had his attention drawn to it. It concerns the views of the ship repairers. I will read only one or two extracts from their letter to the Minister of Transport. As I tried to
    284
    indicate at Question Time last week, the ship repairers have to make their objections to this Bill to the Ministry of Transport, which then has to channel them to my right hon. Friend. As I have no great idea of the speed with which Government Departments co-operate, it may well be that their letter to the Ministry of Transport has not yet reached the Board of Trade.
    I think it only right that I should mention this point. What I am about to say is the considered opinion of the ship repairers all over the country who, of course, are co-ordinated as a body in one central council. They are speaking for the whole of the industry, though some of the ship-repairing yards come within the Bill and some do not.
    It may surprise my right hon. Friend to know that the ship repairers were quite pleased with the original intervention I made last December on their behalf and the pledge given by him. I will not read many extracts, but this is the letter sent by the secretary of the Dry Dock Owners and Repairers' Central Council to the appropriate official at the Ministry of Transport.
    "You will see that Dame Irene Ward obtained from the President of the Board of Trade a satisfactory assurance about the position of dry docks in relation to the Local Employment Bill as it stood at the Committee stage."
    I had a very nice letter from the secretary thanking me and, through me, my right hon. Friend for giving that assurance. The letter goes on:
    "Since then—on the Report stage—the Government have amended Clause 1 dealing with the purpose of the legislation, to meet points raised by the Opposition in Committee."
    The letter goes on to give an extract from HANSARD of 3rd February, 1960, quoting the President of the Board of Trade as saying:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1008.]
    The ship repairers go on to say:
    "The words underlined do not seem to match up very well from the ship repairers'

    285
    point of view with the assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade in December last. We read it as indicating that an application for a loan or grant for a dry dock project would have little or no chance in face of an application for helping some new branch of industry seeking to come into a ship repairing district."
    I will not trouble the House with all the correspondence, for my right hon. Friend will be able to obtain it from the Ministry of Transport. But ship repairing is the main industry in my constituency and he would be less than surprised if I did not feel very perturbed that the ship repairers' council, speaking for the whole of the dry docks in the country, has felt it necessary to indicate that the assurance which, at its request, I obtained last December, seems to have been vitiated by my right hon. Friend in trying to meet a point which was raised by the Opposition.
    I do not want to be unduly controversial, but it seems rather extraordinary that the Opposition, in their desire to help—because we do not regard this any more than they do as a political question, for we all want to do the best we can for the country as a whole—and in exercising their right to express their anxieties about this Bill, should have been the ones to have forced the Government to accept an Amendment which has had such a poor response from the dry dock owners who, in my constituency, form the major basic industry there.
    Mr. McKay: On a point of order. Is this relevant to the subject which we are discussing?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. I think that it is within the terms of the Motion.
    Dame Irene Ward: I will not pursue the matter further, but I think that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that it is fit and proper that in this very important matter I should have it on record that the ship repairers are somewhat apprehensive about what is to happen to their industry. In North Shields, the main industrial part of my constituency, we are dependent on ship-repairing docks for the provision of stable employment. Indeed, we are now embarking on a major reconstruction during a time when ships for repair are rather hard to come by. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to deal with this matter when he replies to the debate because, much as I should regret it, much
    286
    as I believe in Conservative policy, I should have to vote against the Government unless I could have an absolute assurance that this matter would be straightened out, perhaps in another place.
    8.1 p.m.
    Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I shall confine my observations entirely to the Wrexham division, a division which I have known from my childhood, in which I have lived all my life, which I know very well, which I have the honour to represent and which is one of the casualties of this legislation.
    I have to inform the House that there is a very bitter feeling in Wrexham which arises from a keen sense of disappointment. Among the leading citizens of the area there is a feeling of baffling frustration which I now feel compelled to voice. Wrexham expected and had reason to expect better treatment, but that better treatment has been denied us.
    Perhaps the House will allow me for a moment briefly to describe the area industrially and geographically. It is primarily based on the coal mining industry, with the steel, chemicals, brick and tile manufactures as subsidiary heavy industries. My area has known hard times. It has experienced the vicissitudes of trade fluctuations and depressions. I have seen the hard times. I have seen them in schools and what I have seen is no credit to the Governments of the inter-war period. I know what it was during that awful period to see children in school collapsing because of under nourishment. We saw colliery after colliery closing down, until at last we had only four in the division.
    Fortunately, in 1947, the area was scheduled under the Distribution of Industries Act, 1945, and the economic landscape of the area changed. New industries came into the industrial estate. There was diversification of industry and a very much better balanced economy in the area. Local authorities played their part magnificently. Whatever they could do to encourage the introduction of industries they did. They built houses as occasion demanded.
    Not only did the local authorities help in that way, but the local education authority played its part exceptionally well. For example, in Wrexham we

    287
    have the expanded technical college, the biggest in North Wales, supported by industrialists and by trade unions. People in every home throughout the Wrexham area are familiar with the Wrexham Technical College, for it is something of which we are proud. It does not matter into what home in Wrexham one goes, one will find that everyone is well informed about that education institution.
    In other words, the whole area has geared itself to being a balanced industrial district, but—and the "but" makes a big difference—conditions have not been so good for the past eight or nine years, especially in certain industries. For example, some brick works have closed down permanently and 1,100 miners in our newest colliery, Llay Main Colliery, have been rendered redundant.
    We have four large grammar schools with about 800 pupils each and eight large secondary modern schools within six miles of Wrexham. There is a problem of finding school leavers suitable employment, not blind alley employment, but employment leading to a career which those boys and girls have a right to expect.
    We hold conferences in the district and many wise observations are made. We have education experts and technologists making excellent speeches and there are other fine contributions. But all those discussions do not add up to an answer, because the answer can be given by one person only in one Ministry only—the President of the Board of Trade. If he does not provide the answer no one can.
    What has he done on this occasion? He has given us a negative answer, and, as we all know, we can never build on a negative. He has removed Wrexham from the list. Although the Distribution of Industries Act, 1945, was suspended since 1952, we believed that we would get something from the Distribution of Industries Act, 1958, under which Wrexham was scheduled. As the Government are aware, 60 acres of land on the trading estate were cleared in the past year and there are other excellent sites in the Wrexham area. Wrexham was led to expect that something would follow.
    288
    Something did follow. Industries never came, but this Bill came and Wrexham was removed from the list. It was very difficult before, but with one stroke of a broad-nibbed pen the name of Wrexham was removed from the list, and if my experience of pen writing counts for anything, I know that it has left behind a big blot as well. Why? Is there no unemployment in Wrexham? I admit that we do not have 4 per cent. unemployment, but we have 3·9 per cent. We are not one degree under, but we are ·1 per cent. under—one per 1,000. Are my mathematics correct when I say that if we had 30 more unemployed, we would have 4 per cent. and that if we had those 30 to 40 more unemployed, the Wrexham area would be eligible to be on the list?
    Here is an example of a complete lack of imagination; of crucifying the prosperity of the district on a decimal point. On one occasion we had an eminent statesman in the House who bore an illustrious name and who held the high office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked his staff to send him the estimates, and he saw the decimal points in the estimates and asked "What are these damned little dots?" I am sure that he knew that they were decimal points, but he felt that on one occasion that question should be asked. Is Wrexham to suffer because of 0·1 of a decimal point? When I was in school—and I spent fifty years in school—children were always taught to correct decimals to the nearest full number. Can the President of the Board of Trade correct 3·9 per cent. to the nearest whole number, make it 4 per cent., and bring Wrexham back to the list?
    That is all I wish to say, and I am thankful for the attention that I have received.
    8.11 p.m.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: I do not wish to detain the House for very long. I want to put one point to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Parliamentary Secretary and I hope that the Ministers now on the Front Bench will pass it on to one of them.
    Hon. Members probably thought at the time of the General Election that the Bill which the Government suggested that they would introduce, should they be returned, would be helpful. It is true

    289
    that during the General Election one may be challenged about points that parties put forward, but no one could conceivably consider that a Bill that had that intention and that objective would be anything but helpful. Furthermore, if one took the voices of the House, in spite of the disagreements which from time to time crystallise between us, we would say that the House as a whole loathes and detests what unemployment means in the United Kingdom.
    Consequently, it is the wish of the House, wherever possible, to see that the free men and women of Britain have the right and the opportunity to earn their keep and the respect which automatically goes with it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: They have never had it yet.
    Mr. Marshall: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Never at any time in the history of our people have so many people had the opportunities that they have had over the last fifteen years, and I am including a period covered by both a Socialist and a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Silverman: There are still a lot who have not.
    Mr. Marshall: It may well be that there are still a lot of people who are sick. These matters arise from time to time but, as a whole, the House wishes to abolish unemployment.
    During the General Election I was glad that that was part of the Conservative policy, and I said so on many occasions.
    I have had the honour, not for the fifteen years that I have been in this House, but for ten years, to represent the area of Gunnislake. There was an alteration in the boundaries in 1950, and that accounts for the five-year discrepancy. Gunnislake is one of those very difficult places to deal with when one is considering employment. During the war, as every hon. Member knows, our difficulty was due to having insufficient people to deal with the many and varied problems that beset us. In spite of that, there was considerable unemployment in this area, and at one point during the war the figure of unemployment rose to over 7 per cent.
    290
    Part of this hangover goes back many years to the collapse of the mining development of that area. It was no longer profitable. At least, it will no longer be profitable until Her Majesty's Government see how right I am over the new Clauses that I have put down to past Finance Bills and which they have refused to accept; but that is another matter.
    I felt that the Bill would undoubtedly aid this area which, at that time, had an unemployment figure varying between 13 and 15 per cent. Although it was included in the D.A.T.A.C. area the different impacts that would be caused by the Bill would help it further.
    I never thought for one moment that that would not be the case. Imagine, then, my complete surprise, and the horror of the Gunnislake industrial committee that was set up and worked hard for many years, to find this area left out of the list. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government might argue—it is conceivable that they might—that a reasonable number of the people living within this area earn their living in Plymouth, and that, therefore, whatever the Government decide for that area, Plymouth should be treated in the same way.
    That might be the argument, but it has no validity. As the crow flies the distance between those two areas is not very great, but we are not crows. We have to cross waters, bridges, roads, and a railway which is southern in one area and western in the other, and they do not connect. It is true to say that because this area has been one of unemployment for a long time people, naturally, have gone where employment is available, but, at the same time, it is equally true that they have gone because no employment has been available in Gunnislake. That is the main reason for them leaving.
    For a long time we have been trying to attract light industry. Every President of the Board of Trade for the last ten years has tried to attract industry to this area, and I am grateful for the assistance that they have given to try to accomplish this, but this does not appear to be the moment to leave out an area which has an unemployment figure of 13 to 15 per cent.
    If the Government use the argument that I have suggested, the argument of Plymouth in relation to Gunnislake, they should use a different argument for

    291
    Plymouth, because I am certain that hon. Members will agree that in that case we should add the average of Gunnislake to the average of Plymouth, and that brings Plymouth into it. That cannot be a valid argument. They have left out Saltash as well.
    I trust that what I am about to say will be passed to the Parliamentary Secretary for reply this evening. It is true that no difference will be made in the D.A.T.A.C. areas until 1st April. Consequently, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will realise that areas which have from 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. unemployment come within the Bill and that by 1st April—or, if they do not like that date, 2nd April—they will include the area of Gunnislake.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I am pleased that I have been given the opportunity to make a contribution to this very important debate. I shall refer only to my constituency, and I shall be brief. I want to dissociate myself from the observations made by the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that North-East Lancashire has nothing to complain of. It would be as well to look at the background to the situation in north-east Lancashire before considering what is happening today. It must be emphasised that in the early post-war years areas in that part of the country were denied industrial diversification because we desperately wanted cotton. That was a blow, and this is another, and we must bear that in mind.
    In Burnley the present situation gives quite a false impression. The need to complete orders before next March has created a false boom, but reliable opinion has it that unemployment will definitely increase abruptly when this false boom ends. In Burnley, Colne, Nelson and Padiham—areas which are closely linked—no less than 92 mills will close by March of April, and about 6,850 people will be affected. That time is only just around the corner, because we are already in February.
    The ability of those mills which will operate beyond March to absorb any of those people will be very limited, since only mills with automatic machinery will be able to do shift work. This is in agreement with the trade unions. The Cotton
    292
    Board and the Government are optimistic in their forecast that this shift work will absorb a great number of workers. I think that they will be very disappointed.
    The position in the coal field near Burnley gives rise to a measure of anxiety. In 1949 no fewer than 464 people were lost to the industry, and it is reliably estimated that another 400 will leave this year. As one of my hon. Friends has observed, it is the young people who are leaving this industry. It is not unreasonable to say that this may impose an additional burden upon the Coal Board, which cannot afford to lose the younger elements in its employ.
    The bulge of school leavers will aggravate the situation in Burnley. In 1960, about 2,571 will become available for industry, and by 1962 the figure will have risen to 3,571. I suggest that that will cause increased anxiety. I am dismayed at the thought that the position might become even worse as a result of the limitation now put upon the protection afforded the textile trade by agreement with Commonwealth countries. That, together with the effects of American competition, might put existing textile firms in jeopardy.
    I want to put three questions to the Minister. Firstly, will industry be prevented from going to Burnley, or will the expansion of existing firms be vetoed? Earlier in the debate the right hon. Gentleman gave assurances that such would not be the case, but I should like to have those assurances repeated. Secondly, what is to happen in the case of improvement schemes which have been put forward under previous legislation but of which no advantage has been taken? Can such cases be considered for Government assistance? Thirdly, what financial assistance can local authorities expect in transforming old textile mills into factories suitable for modern industrial requirements?
    The Minister has said—probably, with wisdom, according to him—that if there are not enough jobs to go round these areas cannot be satisfied. I ask the House how wrong I am when I say that if a conscientious and imaginative attack were made upon the whole situation this problem could be solved.
    One school of thought is of the opinion that we are wasting over £500 million annually through our inability

    293
    to provide a proper road transport system. I hold the opinion that if every town were bypassed and if an underground car park were provided for every town it would provide a substantial contribution in terms of work, and that cannot be disputed. The building industry and the constructional engineers are ready to deal with the problem, and I suggest that if the Government are in earnest about tackling this serious problem the remedy is at hand if they desire to adopt it.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Percy Browne: The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said that he hoped he would hear something from this side of the House and I replied that he would, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was aware of who had spoken.
    Mr. Robens: No, I was not.
    Mr. Browne: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he has heard something. I disagree with him in that I believe that this matter of priorities is an essential feature of the list. While I am bitterly disappointed because part of my constituency, which was in a D.A.T.A.C. area, does not appear on the list, I recognise that we must have priorities. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been doing my best to persuade him that we warrant being included on the list.
    Mr. Robens: The only difference between us is that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) thinks that his right hon. Friend has got his priorities right, but we do not think that he has.
    Mr. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct.
    There are some complaints which I wish to make about the list. I feel that the word "seasonal", which was written into the Bill and which we thought would mean a great deal to those of us living in coastal towns, has turned out to mean practically nothing that was not already included in previous legislation. In other words, it is merely a legalising of the present position, the averaging of the previous year's unemployment figures. It does not take account of any specific figure in any one month.
    To me, this is particularly disappointing because of the words used by my
    294
    right hon. Friend on 2nd December, 1959, during the Committee stage discussions on this Bill. I would quote them to the House were it not for the fact that there are a number of other hon. Members who wish to speak. In answer to a Written Question which I put to him about seasonal unemployment, my right hon. Friend said:
    "It includes a number of places where unemployment fluctuated seasonally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 149.]
    My answer is that it leaves out a great many more. I believe that it is a pity, if this word "seasonal" is to mean something, that these places which have been D.A.T.A.C. areas, and which have now exactly similar figures of unemployment this year as at the same time last year, should now be off the list.
    Like so many other hon. Members who have spoken, I must be parochial, I quote the town of Bideford as an example. It was included on the D.A.T.A.C. list in January, 1959, with a percentage figure of unemployed at that date of 4·5 per cent. On 12th January this year the figure was the same. To be exact, there was a drop of 16 in the number of unemployed. Yet it is off the list. This is one of those areas to which my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) referred when he spoke about rich hoteliers who grow fat in the summer and spend their holidays in the South of France. People working in hotels do not receive inflationary wages in the summer. They are the people who have increased our unemployment figure to double what it was last July and I can assure the House that they are not now cruising in the Mediterranean.
    I do not wish to repeat what I said in my maiden speech, mainly because to do so would remind me of that frightening occasion. But it is true to say that in rural areas unemployment is cloaked by the gradual erosion of the population from the countryside. There are problems which are peculiar to isolated districts where work must be created on the spot. People cannot go to other areas to work because of the difficulties of transport, and so on, and unless we have a diversity of opportunity we shall not be able to retain in our part of the country the young people about whom so much has been said in this debate. Places

    295
    which have been on the D.A.T.A.C. list only fairly recently have not had time to get the full benefit of being on the list. In our case it has taken about nine months to get a firm interested, and it seems to take another six months to get the necessary application through the Government Departments.
    I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his list from this point of view. He might include those places which were only fairly recently put on the D.A.T.A.C. list, even if only for another six months, giving warning when he put them on that he might have to take them off fairly soon if, as we hope, the unemployment figures drop. That would give us a chance to continue to attract an increase in light industry which we have done in our part of the country as a result of being a D.A.T.A.C. area. I am afraid that our exclusion from the list may nullify the good which has already been done and that we may qualify under the phrase "imminent" in the autumn as a result of the delay meanwhile.
    I ask my right hon. Friend that he should leave those places on the list. I ask that he should all the time reconsider the situation in places such as Bideford and that the moment its unemployment figure rises at all he should put it on his new list.
    8.36 p.m.
    The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: We have been discussing today the very worst feature of the Local Employment Bill. All the arguments which have been adduced in the debate are the inevitable consequences of the Government's determination, in the first instance, to change what I thought was a very workable arrangement of thinking in terms of developing industry within development areas. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade at the Box in a debate some time ago say that in development areas there were localities which did not need any assistance. He said that administratively, therefore, we did nothing whatever to help them.
    The debate has been rather unbecoming and indecorous to the House in the sense that it has been a scramble amongst hon. Members arising from the simple fact that the Government did not
    296
    adhere to that first arrangement which we had under the Distribution of Industry Acts. Inevitably we have found ourselves ranged one against the other. Every speech today has been a constituency speech. That is not the House of Commons at its best, and yet we must do it. We cannot do otherwise. For the life of me, I cannot understand, nor can other hon. Members, why some areas are included in the list and others, which as mortals we think have quite as much justification, or more justification, for inclusion, are in fact excluded.
    It may be that I am a very suspicious-minded fellow, and if I am wrong in my suspicion no doubt the Minister will put me right, but I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been going behind the scenes to see the President of the Board of Trade and that they have put pressure on him to have their areas included in the list. That is very unworthy of a deliberative Chamber such as the House of Commons, and it creates bad feeling.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I represent a constituency included in the list. Does my hon. Friend suggest that I have been behind the scenes or that it is my habit to go behind the scenes to cajole, browbeat or blackmail Ministers to do anything which I want done? Unemployment in Merthyr Tydvil has been running between 4½ and 5½ per cent. for over four years.
    The Rev. Ll. Williams: I do not accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) of having done it. What I am saying is that I have to look for some explanation. I cannot understand why localities having a continuous unemployment percentage figure no higher than the unemployment percentage figure in a large part of my constituency should be included in the list and yet my constituency is excluded.
    If one is suspicious in one's thinking, one is rather inclined at least to think that there has been a little chat somewhere behind the scenes. The Minister may think that this is an impertinent question, but I think that it is very pertinent because many questions have been left unresolved in our minds. I hope that when he winds up for the Government tonight he will give a categorical assurance that that is not so, and that

    297
    no preference has been given to any locality because of pressure brought to bear on him by hon. Members on either side.
    I notice that Monmouthshire, with the exception of Blackwood, is excluded from the list. Monmouthshire is a very mixed industrial type of county. The argument is, "Why worry about Monmouthshire? Look how prosperous the Newport area is. The coastal area of South Monmouth will be one of the most prosperous areas in Britain in the very near future. The huge steel works at Llanwern is now in process of being erected, and this will absorb a tremendous amount of unemployment which now exists in the county".
    I am not satisfied about that. I am not so much concerned with the southern part of Monmouthshire, which I readily admit is doing very well. There is prosperity there. Its future prospects are very bright indeed. I am concerned about the tops of the valleys, the old industrial part of Monmouthshire—Tredegar, Rhymney, Nantyglo and Blaenavon, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). In those areas there is, and has been for a long time, a hard core, a solid nucleus, of disabled workmen who cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to be re-engaged in such a heavy industry as mining and for whom there are very few facilities for a lighter type of employment.
    I do not want to start any warfare between Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, but in Glamorganshire there are four trading estates. In the west there is Fforestfach. In mid-Glamorgan there is the Bridgend Trading Estate. In North Glamorgan there is the Hirwaun Trading Estate. In East Glamorgan there is the Treforest Trading Estate. In Monmouthshire there is no trading estate, and Llanwern is not the answer for the tops of the valleys.
    The transportation is incredible. Abertillery is only 16 miles from Newport, but there are sixteen railway stations between them. What sort of transportation system is that? The journey by rail from Abertillery to Newport takes one and a quarter hours, and then there are another five miles to go to Llanwern. It is one of the most difficult areas in South Wales for easy communication. Disabled people whose
    298
    disability is largely respiratory because of pneumoconiosis cannot be expected in our winters, which are very different from London winters, to undertake that journey every day to Llanwern in the hope of being re-employed.
    I beg the Minister to have another look at this question. My final point was very effectively made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I underline very strongly what he said. Even assuming that we have not, as is admitted, as strong a case on grounds of unemployment alone as have some localities in the new list, we are very concerned about that part of the Bill which deals with lack of amenities—with slag heaps and pit heaps. We are excluded from the benefit of that part of the Bill.
    I ask, as my right hon. Friend asked, for some Government assurance that notwithstanding the inevitably circumscribed distribution of industry envisaged in the application of the Bill, we shall be allowed some assistance under that part of the Bill which deals with the clearance of slag heaps and pit heaps, those shocking ruins of the industrial system of yesteryear. I make my protest very strongly, and I again ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that over the allocation of these places on the list there has not been any backstairs intrigue.
    8.46 p.m.
    Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I know that some of my hon. Friends from the North-East have spoken recently in this debate, but as I had to visit someone in hospital during the last hour I missed those speeches. I hope that the House will accept my apology if I repeat some of the points they made.
    I have lived since I was born in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who, although I have consistently voted against him, has as consistently been returned to this House. We had mass unemployment in Jarrow during the inter-war years, and nobody can really understand what unemployment means unless he has actually experienced it, or seen it at close quarters.
    When I was a child, my father, like thousands of other people in that area, was out of work. That meant that my

    299
    mother, my father and I had to live on a little over £1 a week. Those were very dark days, indeed, and days that I hope will never again return to this country. The great horror of unemployment is for an able-bodied man who wants work and who tries to find it but is unsuccessful. In a way, that must be a living death for that man. Unemployment is a social evil that must be stamped out by whatever means we have at our disposal.
    I want to raise the voice of the North-East, because I feel that that area deserves more attention from the Board of Trade. There, as has already been mentioned, we depend very largely on two main industries, coal and shipbuilding. We have a recession in coal mining, whilst the outlook for shipbuilding is not as bright as we would like to see. I am very concerned that the north-eastern part of the country is now running third in the unemployment stakes. Only in Northern Ireland and in Scotland are the unemployment percentages higher.
    It is, therefore, all the more urgent that new industries should come to the North-East, and we are entitled to ask exactly what the Board of Trade is doing to provide them. It is said that when car manufacturers looked over the North-East with a view to expanding there, they were not shown one of the sites that many of us think would have been very suitable for them. If that is the case, the North-East is entitled to an explanation.
    An article in yesterday's Daily Express stated that the Ford concern was not now as happy as it was at the prospect of expanding on Merseyside. If that concern decides not to expand there, can we have some assurance that they will again look at the North-East and, in particular, at the Seaton Valley site? If the Ford concern is to settle on Merseyside and other car firms may, perhaps, wish to expand there, they should be asked to consider the North-East before making up their minds.
    What is wrong with the North-East? Why must we always be regarded as the forgotten area? Are our communications unsatisfactory? Is our road system not as good as it should be? If so, I urge the Minister of Transport to give us priority so that new roads may
    300
    be built in our area to enable us to attract new industries to the North-East.
    Does the North-East present an unattractive image to industrialists? Do they fear the rigours of the climate? We are a hardy people in the North-East. Perhaps the tales of pre-war unemployment and the atmosphere of depression and gloom of those days are what influence industrialists against expanding in the North-East. If that is the reason, they are entirely wrong. I know many people who have moved to the North-East to do a job who hated the prospect in the first place because they thought they were going to the back of beyond, but, once they settled there, they grew to love the place and in fact, became part of it.
    Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman will be voting with us tonight.
    Mr. Montgomery: Not likely. I believe that north-eastern England is an ideal area for expansion because the years of unemployment we have experienced will make us very grateful for any new industries we are able to attract there. We have a record of excellent labour relations. No one finds any "screwy" strikes taking place in the North-East. We have, I believe, the best workers in the country. Our ports are very favourably placed, particularly for exporting to Scandinavia and Russia.
    Why has the North-East been a neglected area? Perhaps we should, as an area, take the initiative ourselves. During the past few months our local newspapers have been proclaiming that there should be one man whose job it would be to go out to find industries planning to expand and try to "sell" to them the idea of moving to the North-East. I believe that the Government also have their responsibilities. Whilst I am delighted that the President of the Board of Trade is to visit us in the North-East, I do not believe that it is enough for him just to visit us and then forget us.
    When my right hon. Friend is there, he will find that I have not been speaking tonight merely as a patriot of the North-East, but that what I have said about my area is absolutely true. We look forward with some hope to his visit, and, if there comes out of it a

    301
    greater understanding in the Board of Trade of the problems of the North-East, his visit will be extremely worth while.
    I urge my right hon. Friend to do all he can to persuade industries to move to our area and thereby help to remove the dread of unemployment which has been with us continually in the North-East of England for the last twenty or thirty years.
    8.54 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross: This has been a very strange debate. At times it has been flattering to the President of the Board of Trade and, at other times, it has been very disappointing. It has been strange because we have heard hon. Members opposite speaking on the subject for the first time and talking about a Bill and an Act, although we have not yet got an Act. It is still a Bill. We are here dealing with one of the administrative provisions of something which is not even on the Statute Book. If there is one lesson to be learnt, it is that it would have been far better if this matter had been incorporated within the actual legislation itself, thus enabling us not to make single speeches or brave speeches such as the one we have just heard from the hon. Member far Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery), rather late—
    Mr. Montgomery: Rather late? Certainly not.
    Mr. Ross: —but probing speeches in Committee when we are entitled to have a Minister answer them and, if he does not satisfy us, we can bring him to his feet again in answer to further questions.
    Mr. Montgomery rose—
    Mr. Ross: I am sorry; I am very pressed for time. I have only four minutes.
    Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman should not make accusations.
    Mr. Ross: This debate has at times been flattering to the President of the Board of Trade because there have been speeches from this side of the House—on which there was not undiluted praise for his Bill when it was passing through this Chamber—which seemed now to indicate that there is considerable value in getting one's area on to the list. One
    302
    would almost think that a new car industry was to be handed out to every place on this list—from Bishop Auckland to Whitby, from Aberdeen to Stranraer and from Ammanford to Rhyl—as a result of persuading the President of the Board of Trade. He knows that the easiest thing is to draw up a list. The most difficult thing is to get anything done. I am not therefore handing out any bouquets.
    It is also a disappointment to the right hon. Gentleman that for the first time we have had voices from his side of the House raised against the Government in this matter. I do not know how many speeches the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has made—
    Mr. Montgomery: One.
    Mr. Ross: —but it was not our fault that we were kept up during Second Reading, the Committee stage and Report Stage in this House. The Scots were blamed for this. The Scots should be praised for it. Now the silent supporters have become critics because they realise that they should have had something out of the Bill. There is a certain measure of retribution in view of the way that the President of the Board of Trade dealt with the Bill in the Committee. There will not be an end to the matter tonight, because obviously we shall have Adjournment debates on unemployment.
    I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the position in Scotland. Scotland has not done too badly in relation to the number of areas, but if the localities are extended—and there is a limited amount to work with—the assistance will be spread pretty thinly. There are places in the list which will wait a long time before they get any assistance, if any. This is one of the weaknesses of the Bill, as I said in Committee. As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said, rings have been drawn round small places which have then been put on the list whereas the matter could have been dealt with much more easily by designating larger areas. However, I appreciate the advantage of putting in places like Stranraer and Sanquhar which have hitherto been left out.

    303
    Let us consider the position. In Scotland, there are about 100,000 unemployed. The areas listed cover about 71,000 of the unemployed, so that there are still about 30,000 unemployed in Scotland who are not covered by the Bill. These are the figures which I obtained from the Ministry of Labour last week. I want to deal with the position in Ayrshire. I do not know exactly what motivated the President of the Board of Trade in the selection of the areas in Ayrshire. Every area in the list should be in the list and I hope that something will be done for them.
    What I want to draw attention to is this. There are 6,200 unemployed in Ayrshire. In North Ayrshire, there are 3,950 unemployed. The districts in the list cover 2,580 unemployed. For some reason or other, despite the fact that it is an area in which many of these unemployed people, when they were working, were working, the right hon. Gentleman has cut out Kilmarnock, where there are 1,100 to 1,200 unemployed. Kilmarnock has a higher percentage of unemployed people than some of the areas listed—in fact, the unemployment figure is double that in many of the areas listed.
    The right hon. Gentleman may say that some of these people are on short-time work. He probably has a crystal ball all of his own in which he can see what will happen, but we in Kilmarnock know that there will be more unemployed in a particular engineering industry where short-time working has been going on for nearly two years. But there is still unemployment. I had hoped that at last we would get an extension. We were led to believe that this would be so during the election. The place where the Prime Minister spoke in Ayrshire, Stewarton, is one of the places left out of the list. That was where he told us about his major Bill to deal with unemployment.
    Why has Ayr been left out of the list? Ayr is only eight miles from Kilmarnock, which is only ten miles from Irvine and some of the other areas that are in the list. Ayr and Kilmarnock have about 2,500 unemployed—more than one-third of the total unemployment figure in Ayrshire. There will be no help for them. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows
    304
    quite well what we said about Prestwick, where unemployment has been growing as a result of the running down of the aircraft factory and where there is no likelihood of any increase in employment. We were told that we would get new industries there, but we are not getting them from any persuasion or inducement by the Government. A much larger area should have been designated so that it would have been possible to deal with the serious unemployment problem of Prestwick and Kilmarnock.
    I wonder how many hon. Members on the Government side have read the terms of the Amendment that was moved by the President of the Board of Trade. It states that this House
    "supports Her Majesty's Government in their determination to ensure that assistance, as planned in their list of development districts"—
    Where is the plan? A list was thrown to the Press and later to the House and it is called a plan. These words are nonsense. The Amendment continues:
    "is made available where it is most needed as part of a comprehensive policy for the progressive solution of the local employment problem."
    Where is the "comprehensive policy"? I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has arrived, for my last word is to him. We were charmed by what we read in the Scottish Press today:
    "Springboard to prosperity. Scottish survey will spotlight economic problems … A gigantic undertaking which will be of the greatest significance to every man, woman and child in Scotland."
    It is starting now, with the Secretary of State's support. We are to find out the future economic prospects and all the rest. I quote:
    "Once we know that, we can work out the measures which we consider necessary to improve the situation."
    This committee is to start out on its gigantic task in Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade already knows the answer. He tells us that in his Amendment. He has a comprehensive policy and yet here is the Secretary of State saying, "We do not know what is wrong; we do not know what we will do about it". When will the Government make up their minds and when will they give us that comprehensive policy that we in

    305
    Scotland need instead of this patchwork that omits important areas like Kilmarnock?
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Tom Fraser.
    Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order. On Second Reading, the Bill took two days to go through the House. I waited from half-past two until nine o'clock on those two days. Today, I have waited since half-past two until now to have an opportunity of expressing my point of view. It would appear—I would like to know whether this is true that it is necessary for a Member who wishes to speak in this House to put his name before Mr. Speaker, and that if Mr. Speaker feels it desirable or necessary he can call that Member.
    Is that in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House? If it is not, I would like to know on whose authority this is being done.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The whole House appreciates the position of hon. Members, on both sides, who sit through a debate hoping to get called and find that there is not time for them to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. It is with the Chair to select speakers and the Chair does so. If hon. Members speak for a long time, there is a shorter time for other hon. Members to get a chance of speaking. No point of order has been raised.
    Mr. Baxter: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. No point of order has been raised with which I can deal at this time during the debate. Mr. Tom Fraser.
    Mr. Baxter: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have waited since half-past two until this hour and I am asking, on a point of order, whether—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose—
    Mr. Baxter: —there are any rules—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I have waited long enough. I want to know whether there are any rules that give anyone the power to have his name on that list.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I dealt with the hon. Member's point of order. I said that no point of order had been raised with which I could deal at this time during the course of the debate. That is the best Ruling that I can give. Mr. Tom Fraser.
    Mr. Baxter: I protest against the Ruling.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: This has been an interesting and, in many ways, a fascinating debate. First, may I say that there were three maiden speeches in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) both made speeches which I did not have the good fortune to hear, although I heard very good reports of them. I heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) and it was excellent. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I congratulate all three hon. Members on having got over their first hurdle. We look forward to hearing them on many occasions in the future.
    This has been an interesting and fascinating debate, because everyone who has spoken, with the exception of the President of the Board of Trade, has supported the Motion put down by the Opposition. Every single hon. Member on the other side of the House who has spoken in the debate took the opportunity of saying that he would not support the Motion and then went on to make a speech to show that the constituency which he represented ought to be included in the list. I think that the only way of marking their view that their constituencies should have been on the list would be for those hon. Members to support the Motion, which says that the list is too narrowly drawn at present.
    Mr. Percy Browne: I made the point that we understood that there had to be an order of priorities. It is because we take a slightly more responsible view of this that we have decided not to support the Motion.
    Mr. Fraser: I listened to every word which the hon. Member said and if he reads his speech he will see that he begged his right hon. Friend to add his constituency area, or part of it, to the list for at least another six months. Our

    307
    complaint is that the list is too narrowly drawn, and if the part of the country for which the hon. Member has pleaded is not included in the list, we agree with him that it should be in the list.
    We had the amazing position of listening to speeches of some hon. Members opposite who were so upset because the Bill which is before Parliament and the list of development districts which are to be assisted under the Bill fall very far short of what they told their supporters at the General Election would happen under a new Tory Administration.
    The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) made a very strong speech on this matter. He said that the Bill was not what the electors were expected to believe at the General Election, but he went on to admit that extravagant language is sometimes used at a General Election. But the idea was thrown about by leaders of the Conservative party and by candidates throughout the length and breadth of the land that if the Conservatives were successful at the polls once again there would be a bold new Bill which would deal with the unemployment in this country once and for all.
    What happened? We got a Bill which largely repeats existing statutes but which takes away the Schedule to the 1945 Act and gives to the President of the Board of Trade the right to draw up a list of areas to be assisted. After he draws up his list, he comes to the House of Commons and tells us that the list now covers only 12 per cent. of the population.
    The areas listed in the Schedule of the 1945 Act covered about 19 per cent. of the population. Many areas which had the advantages of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958, were taken outside the development areas, and my case is that 23 per cent. or 24 per cent. of the population were covered by the administrative list drawn up by the President of the Board of Trade in the Schedule of the 1945 Act until this Bill.
    When the Bill becomes an Act we shall have the number of insured population, the number of working people covered by the special assistance which can be given to work-needy areas, reduced from about 24 per cent. to 12 per cent., and all hon. Members who have spoken think
    308
    that the 12 per cent. is wrong. They have all given reasons why their constituencies should be included in the list. I listened with great interest to the pleas made by hon. Members opposite. They all know that each, in turn, pleaded for the inclusion of his own constituency or of part of it in the list drawn up by the President of the Board of Trade.
    But the right hon. Gentleman gave us what he regarded as good reasons for keeping this list, as he said, until after the Bill was passed. He slipped up there, because the Bill is not yet passed. He refused to give us the list until the Bill left the House of Commons, but we received it before the Bill reached another place. Why should another place be treated in this privileged way? The answer is very simple—the members of another place do not have constituents. They are not elected Members.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he would listen with great interest to the debate and that may be his list would be amended after he had listened to hon. Members. If it is his view that it was desirable to have a debate such as this so that he could listen to the pleas of hon. Members for the inclusion of their constituencies or parts of them in such a list, is he not conceding the case for having the list under the control of Parliament? Ought we not to have had a list written into the Schedule, as in the 1945 Act, or a list subject to the control of Parliament? If that is not desirable, is the right hon. Gentleman not saying that it is desirable that the Opposition should use a Supply Day to debate a list published by the Board of Trade so as to give the Government an opportunity of consulting hon. Members? Surely, that is what he is saying.
    I should have thought that it is clear now that it would have been desirable to have this list subject to the control of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had a smaller proportion of the insured population in his list than was the case in the existing D.A.T.A.C. list because he wished to raise the sights a little. Instead of taking 4 per cent. of unemployment as the level above which he would list an area he had now taken 4½ per cent., though I think that he gave the impression that because he is expecting unemployment in certain areas he has included

    309
    areas with less than 4½ per cent. unemployment.
    However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in replying to the debate, ought to tell us what areas have less than 4½ per cent. unemployment and what is the lowest percentage rate among the districts on the list. [An HON. MEMBER: "The lowest is 2·8 per cent."] Yes, but that is a place which is said to be a very special area subject to special considerations. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was 2·2 per cent."] Whatever it was, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us a little more clearly than the right hon. Gentleman did what considerations the right hon. Gentleman had in mind in drawing up the list.
    We might be told whether the right hon. Gentleman took a figure of 4½ per cent. and included all areas with more than 4½ per cent. unemployment now. Perhaps he will tell us what is the lowest percentage rate of unemployment in an area which is listed, and whether the areas with a low percentage rate which have been included are there because they are areas in which an increase in unemployment is expected in the near future.
    It is understandable that hon. Members would be concerned in this debate with the effect on their constituencies which were previously listed under the D.A.T.A.C. list or scheduled under the Distribution of Industry Act when they found they were not included in this list. The importance of the Bill has all along been proclaimed to be the power which it gives to the President of the Board of Trade to anticipate unemployment.
    When the Bill came before us we discovered that this was nothing new and that there was this power in the 1945 Act after all. Indeed, we did our best to get the President of the Board of Trade to take out the word "imminent" and to insert the words in 1945 Act. In promised that he would try to find alternative words to the ones used in the 1945 Act which he hoped might be an improvement on the word "imminent", which was the word on which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite almost fought the General Election, particularly in areas where there is some unemployment.
    310
    Will the Parliamentary Secretary please tell us what areas were listed because of anticipated unemployment, or because of an increase in unemployment? At this point, it is not possible to ignore the circumstances in which the Bill was introduced. The then President of the Board of Trade went into a cotton town in Lancashire, and because it was believed that this was the area in which it was possible to anticipate unemployment he described the great new Bill to deal with it which would come when the Conservatives were returned to power. Yet no town in that area is on the list.
    Now I turn to the coal areas. It is not good enough for the President of the Board of Trade to take comfort from the fact that a large proportion of the miners declared redundant at pits that are closed are absorbed elsewhere. He must hear in mind that in the past twelve months 50,000 fewer people have been employed in those areas. In other words there are 50,000 fewer jobs in the mining areas today than there were twelve months ago. I know that some of the miners have been transferred from one pit to another, but there has been a rundown in the mining labour force in those months.
    This means, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) clearly pointed out in his speech, that there is far less opportunity for the young people growing up in those areas. Indeed, we find now that there is no possibility of employment in those areas for the boys leaving school because what mines are still working are not recruiting young people. So, in many cases, as there is no alternative industry in the areas, the only possibility the young people have of getting employment is by leaving their homes, by leaving their people, by leaving their fathers and mothers and going into digs and looking for employment in an obscure part of the country.
    Surely it would have been better for the President of the Board of Trade to take these things into account and to cover some of the mining areas in which there is now a considerable run-down in employment. The way to have done this in most cases would have been to make the development districts bigger, instead of restricting them in the way that he has done in the list. I will give an

    311
    example from the part of Scotland in which I live, South Lanarkshire. North Lanarkshire, which is the greater part of the County of Lanark, is listed. Indeed, we could not have had a list which did not include North Lanarkshire, because there is more concentration of unemployment there than in any other part of Britain. The examples I am giving are these: the Lesmahagow and Lanark Employment Exchanges are excluded from the list, yet the whole of South Lanarkshire was scheduled under the 1945 Act. In South Lanarkshire there are Lanark and Lesmahagow, two exchanges covering three other mining villages. All these mining villages have a population of 4,000 to 5,000. There are the three villages of Coalburn, Douglas, and Douglas Water. All of them are excluded from the list.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland, who was the Member for Lanark in the last Parliament, bombarded the President of the Board of Trade with Questions over a long period, because last year the last remaining colliery in Douglas closed, and for some months now the Scottish Special Housing Association, which has built many houses for miners in Douglas, has been advertising houses to let because those who could move have gone away. Yet this is still a community of 4,000 or 5,000 people with no employment in it. There is no employment other than mining in these four large villages.
    The only possibility of the unemployed man or woman getting a job is to go into North Lanarkshire, which is listed as a development district. It seems that the only way to get a job is to go into an area listed as an unemployment area, but the President of the Board of Trade is denying himself the opportunity to attract industries into these areas where there is no industry at present.
    Under previous Acts something was done. A fine factory was built at Lesmahagow under the 1945 Act and the tenants contemplate some extension, but this cannot be done by the Board of Trade because it is not in a development district and will not relieve unemployment in North Lanarkshire, for people will not go from there to villages in South Lanarkshire to work. The traffic is in the opposite direction.
    312
    If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to stand idly by and see these villages perish and this terrific social capital going to waste—some of it built at Government expense—he really ought to include these areas in this list. What I have just said about South Lanarkshire applies to a good many other parts—to Ayrshire, where pits are being closed in areas which are not listed, and to Fife County, where closures have also taken place and where it has been known for ten years that there should be some balancing industry to mining. Yet no part of Fife County is listed, so the President of the Board of Trade is denying himself any opportunity of giving some assistance to these areas, which thousands of miners will leave in the next two or three years.
    Why does the right hon. Gentleman restrict himself in this way? The same can be said for part of Stirlingshire. There is the whole area of Kilsyth, a town of about 10,000 people with a great many mining villages around it. This whole area is becoming derelict because the mines are closing. Although it would not always be possible to steer some industry to these areas, if they had been listed—and their unemployment touches on 4 per cent.—the local authorities could have applied for assistance to clear up the mess left as the last pits worked out, so as to make them more attractive to industrialists.
    I am quite certain that what I have said about the part of the county I know best applies equally to the north-east of England and to the cotton towns, where this great reorganisation of the cotton industry is taking place under the Act passed in the last Parliament. The same argument also applies to the Welsh valleys which are suffering from the closing of coal mines and where the Government are doing nothing to ease the position.
    It is not good enough for the President of the Board of Trade to wait until later before deciding to take action in many of the places I have mentioned, because in many of them the last of the coal pits are known to be closing this year, so that if we get beyond the point at which the colliery closures take place, most of the able-bodied people will have left the area and the old-age pensioners and children will be left behind. The

    313
    population will be so reduced in those areas that there will never be a high percentage of unemployment and it will not in future be possible to bring those areas into the list.
    The debate today has again given the impression which we have had throughout our discussion of the Bill, that somehow or other the President of the Board of Trade was taking to himself great new powers to deal with unemployment. There should not be any hon. Member who believes that any more. There are no great new powers in the Bill now in another place. The list is only a list of areas in which the right hon. Gentleman may exercise the powers.
    Many speakers have assumed that the cost of the distribution of industry policy was heavy and they have spoken about spreading the jam and about there being a limited amount of money available. It is nothing of the kind. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the cost over ten or fifteen years back to the end of the war. What has been the cost of loans to industrialists—although those are hardly long-term costs since they are repayable? What has been the total spent in grants to local authorities? What has been invested in the building of Government-owned factories in unemployment areas? I guess that since the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934; twenty-five years ago, the total amount invested in Government-owned factories has been considerably less than £100 million. That has been the extent of Exchequer assistance to areas of heavy unemployment. It has never been a heavy financial burden for the Exchequer and much nonsense has been talked about the limit of available capital and the need to spread the jam effectively where it is most required.
    If the areas were larger, as the Motion asks, or if more areas were listed, as the Motion could be said to ask, the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would decide how much money was available and the President of the Board of Trade would decide where to apply it. The right hon. Gentleman must know by now that there is a very strong case for including many areas not now included, or for enlarging many to take in fringe areas which were previously in the
    314
    D.A.T.A.C. list and which have been excluded from this list.
    Let the Parliamentary Secretary admit that this is a matter of judgment and that hon. Members with great experience of these problems are just as likely to be right as the right hon. Gentleman. If he does that, he will find himself in the position in which so many of his supporters on the back benches find themselves. He will find himself in the position of supporting the Motion without being able to vote for it.
    The debate has been worth while. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown their dissatisfaction with the list that the President of the Board of Trade has put before us. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer some of the questions that have been asked. I also hope that those hon. Members on the Government benches behind Her Majesty's Ministers who spoke on behalf of an extended list will support the Motion in the Division Lobby.
    9.30 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): Geographically at least we have covered a very wide area in the course of this debate. We have had three excellent maiden speeches. I join the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in paying my tribute on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the fluency, confidence and grace with which those hon. Members expressed themselves. It is a pity that their constituents were not present in the Gallery to hear how well they advocated the case for their constituencies. They proved themselves worthy hon. Members, and I am sure that we shall all look forward with great interest to their contributions in future.
    I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clarke). Although Ulster is not one of the development districts and is not on the list we are debating today, I assure him that the claims of Ulster rank with us at the Board of Trade equal to the most deserving of the districts of the United Kingdom. They rank with Scotland, South Wales, the north-east of England, and other areas, and we try to use the powers that we have of refusing industrial

    315
    development certificates to help to steer industry to Northern Ireland.
    Also, our regional organisation at the Board of Trade is at the disposal of the Ulster Government and, as hon. Members may recall, we have quite recently jointly set up and opened an office in New York to try to attract further American investment to this country, some of which will go to the United Kingdom and some of which will go to Northern Ireland. That joint venture should help to produce more new jobs in this country. That is an example of the way in which we try to co-operate with Northern Ireland to solve a difficult problem.
    Hon. Members in all parts of the House have tended to use figures which look very small compared with the unfortunate figures to which Ulster has become accustomed. I therefore assure hon. Members who represent Ulster constituencies that we will do our best to try to help them to solve their problems while we are, we hope, solving the problems of other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Speeches by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have testified to the deep concern that we all feel for those of our fellow citizens who cannot use their skills, their brains, and their powers in the service of their fellow countrymen. Wherever we sit in the House, I am sure that all of us would like to alleviate and to cure unemployment wherever it exists. I am sure that there is no difference between hon. Members on either side of the House. We would all like to cure unemployment wherever it exists, and we are sincere in our endeavours to try to do so.
    What we are really debating today is whether the first list—and I stress that this is the first list—which my right hon. Friend announced a few days ago should be added to immediately, on the ground that this list fails to include many places for which the special powers are needed. Inevitably, and very naturally, many speakers have advanced the claims of individual constituencies to be added to the list. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) went so far as to say that he thought that most people would say the list was all right so long as it included the constituency of the
    316
    hon. Member who happened to be speaking at the moment. Several hon. Members took a wider view and wanted larger areas added. It is right and proper that in a debate of this kind hon. Members should bring the claims of their own constituencies vividly before the House and the Government, who, after all, have a responsibility in this matter. The point at issue is whether the Government's policy of trying to ensure that assistance is made available where it is most needed is the best policy to achieve a progressive solution of local unemployment problems.
    As my right hon. Friend said, we believe that by keeping the list of places as short as possible we stand the best chance of steering firms to those areas where the need is greatest. Many hon. Members have talked as if, by the mere addition to the list, something happens to the place concerned. That is not so. Addition to the list merely makes it possible for us to steer firms to those areas, or to add to the number of places competing for the favour of various firms.
    Although it is true that by places being removed from the list local authorities lose certain powers which were available to them when they were on the list, there are other powers, mainly the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, of which they can still avail themselves, and which allow them to build factories, and even industrial estates, and to proceed with a great deal of site clearance and improvements. These powers exist in other places beside the Local Employment Bill, although they are admittedly lessened by removal from the list. The House is aware of the powers, both positive and negative, which will exist under the Bill when it becomes law, which we hope will be at the beginning of April.
    In administering these powers we are dividing the United Kingdom into three categories. The first includes areas such as London, Birmingham and Coventry, where, for the time being, we wish to see no further development except in the most exceptional circumstances. The second includes those areas in which we desire to see expansion, and in respect of which industrial development certificates will be freely granted, although we reserve the

    317
    right to steer some firms to the third category, which includes areas not only where certificates will be freely granted but where inducements of one kind and another will be offered to persuade firms to set up new projects, and which will include offsetting the cost of their doing so.
    It is the third category that has been under fire today. During the various stages of the Local Employment Bill my right hon. Friend made it clear that he had it in mind to cover roughly the same percentage of the insured population as was covered under the old legislation. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, the first list issued covers only 12 per cent. as against the former 14 per cent. of the insured population. The hon. Member used much larger percentages. He referred to 18 per cent. and even 24 per cent., but he was referring to areas in respect of which the powers had not been exercised for many years. In the D.A.T.A.C. areas the figure is 14 per cent., as against the proposed 12 per cent.
    Mr. T. Fraser: But in respect of those areas that had been scheduled and were merely administratively descheduled local authorities had the right at any time to apply to the Board of Trade or to the appropriate Minister for assistance under Section 3 of the 1945 Act. The Minister then was merely saying, "For the time being we are not exercising the powers Parliament has given us."
    Mr. Rodgers: That is true, but this administrative descheduling had gone a long way and the powers had not been exercised. The real comparison should be made between 12 per cent. and 14 per cent.
    I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. Coulson), who made an excellent maiden speech and wanted to be assured that we co-operated with other Ministries in drawing up the list, that the first list has been drawn up in full consultation with various other Departments and has the approval both of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Welsh Affairs. It is not merely a Board of Trade list.
    Some hon. Members have suggested that places should be listed on the ground that they have a substantial pool of unemployed, regardless of the pre-
    318
    vailing rate of unemployment in the area. It is true that an individual who is unemployed feels equally humiliated whether he be one of a large percentage of similar unfortunate people or one of a relatively small percentage. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North advanced the claim for his area because there was a certain aggregate number of unemployed in Hull and he thought this should justify it being placed on the list.
    We cannot accept this argument, as hon. Gentlemen will agree if they pause to think. We cannot put on the list as eligible for assistance places which have a large aggregate number of unemployed because, were that the case, London would immediately have to go on the list, as the greatest number of unemployed is in the London area; it amounts to about 45,000. But no one would advance such an argument in the case of London although the same argument on a smaller scale has been advanced in this debate in relation to other areas.
    In deciding whether a high rate of unemployment exists or is likely to persist we must have consideration in the first place to certain statistical criteria. It is generally known that an annual rate of 4 per cent. was taken as the criterion for including an area on the D.A.T.A.C. list, though there were important exceptions such as the cotton towns which, in fact, did not reach that percentage. When the original D.A.T.A.C. list was prepared the national average of wholly unemployed was 1·7 per cent.
    For the list of development districts which my right hon. Friend announced the other day, the national average of those wholly unemployed was 2 per cent., which would suggest that a higher criterion, namely, a figure of at least around 4·5 per cent. is required to be comparable with the old figure of 4 per cent. which was the basic criterion which we adopted in respect of the D.A.T.A.C. list. This, of course, is the average of the wholly unemployed over the whole year 1959.
    It was obvious that hon. Members—indeed, they did so in their speeches—would produce figures to show that for one or two months of the year this unemployment figure would be greatly

    319
    exceeded in their areas and that, therefore, their areas ought to qualify for assistance immediately. But we have to take into account the overall figure of unemployment over a period of twelve months when deciding what is the height of the unemployment figure and whether it is persistent. Equally, it should be remembered that on the basis of the calendar year the unemployment figure may be overstated because in many places unemployment was generally higher in the early part of 1959 than in the latter part of the year.
    In addition to the basic and statistical criteria which we examine in selecting places to go on the list, we take into account the threatening imminence of unemployment. In drawing up the list we at the Board of Trade had to be satisfied that in the near future there would be a sufficient number of redundancies forecast which would result in the rate of the wholly unemployed rising to and remaining at above 4·5 per cent. Obviously, when deciding whether a certain place ought to be included in the list or excluded, there is always a margin of places which just fall on one side or other of the line.
    We experienced difficulty in reaching a decision regarding Dunfermline, North-East Tyneside, Plymouth, Barrow-in-Furness and Hull, to mention only five places. We shall watch those all the time and if there is any deterioration in the position in those areas they can be added to the list very quickly. I should like hon. Members who represent those areas to know that it caused us a great deal of concern in deciding whether or not these areas should be added immediately. In the end we decided that we would hold them in reserve and be prepared to add them almost overnight if the position deteriorated in any way.
    The hon. Member for Hamilton asked me to give him a list of places which would not have qualified on purely statistical grounds but which were to be found on the list. My right hon. Friend mentioned four in his speech—Dundee, Haltwhistle, Bishop Auckland and Pembroke Dock. Haltwhistle is only a small place, but it is a typical example of how we operate. The average figure of unemployment for 1959 was 1·9 per cent. but the amount of unemployment which
    320
    is expected there, and regarded as imminent, is at least 4·5 per cent. because of the closing of the pits. We therefore added it immediately to the list. Equally, the imminence at Pembroke Docks, we think, will raise the rate to more than the present 3·7 per cent., at Bishop Auckland to more than the 4·1 per cent. and at Dundee to more than the 4·3 per cent. Government action, through changing the price of jute, may make 800 to 1,000 people redundant in Dundee, and we therefore took action to compensate for that by including it in the list.
    As well as taking into account the imminence of unemployment, we must also consider the jobs in prospect. In drawing up the first list the Board of Trade took into account not only the expectation of unemployment but also the expectation of employment. I would point out to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who raised this point, that the figures which we quoted of how many jobs were in prospect are taken from firm I.D.C.s which have been issued. Often the true figure is greater than that, because we have no control over premises which are bought for people to move into or to expand into and which do not require an I.D.C. We therefore give a fairly conservative estimate, and hon. Members can rely on it.
    It was the fact that we took into account employment as opposed to unemployment which led us, for example, to take Swansea off the list. The number of unemployed in Swansea is 2,942, so that statistically Swansea would have qualified, had that not been offset by 4,000 or more jobs in prospect from the Pressed Steel Company's project. We therefore took Swansea off the list.
    A similar comment can be made about Widnes. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) himself made the point. We did not list Widnes because the Ford extention at Halewood is only four or five miles from Widnes and the unemployed in the area can expect to find very good work there once the Ford project is established.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Member say whether this Ford project is a certainty or merely a possibility?
    Mr. Rodgers: I have every hope that the company will proceed with the plans

    321
    which it announced of building its main factory at Halewood. There are certain differences which we are discussing with the firm, but I have every hope that the firm will continue with its plans.
    I should like, next, to take up some constituency points which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), who made a most excellent maiden speech, referred to an application for an I.D.C. by a large engineering firm and said that Thursday was D-day in that respect. He will not expect me to anticipate what the decision will be about that I.D.C., but we shall give the most sympathetic consideration to this application for an I.D.C. in Cardiff. If it is granted, it will be another example of the fact that although an area is not on the list, it need not give up hope, because if this I.D.C. is granted a very large project will go to Cardiff without any Government financial assistance.
    Mr. George Thomas: How long are we likely to have to wait before we know whether the I.D.C. is being granted for this motor firm?
    Mr. Rodgers: We shall make up our minds pretty quickly this week but it will be up to the firm to decide when it will make the announcement. I cannot say when it will announce it.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn also raised a point about firms that had applications outstanding with D.A.T.A.C. I thought that I had cleared up that point during Third Reading when I said that those firms which have already made applications to D.A.T.A.C. would be considered. I said:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1134.]
    We cannot guarantee that the Committee will consider all the cases, but it will certainly do its best to consider as large a percentage as possible.
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has not cleared up the point at all. Can we have a firm assurance that all applications made before the new provisions come into force will be considered on their merits? One minute the hon.
    322
    Gentleman says "Yes", and the next minute he says that the Committee will deal with as many as possible. Is there not a point of principle involved? The man who got his application in first should not be penalised for delays which may arise in the hon. Gentleman's own department.
    Mr. Rodgers: I have not the power to say that it will be considered after 1st April or whenever the new Local Employment Bill becomes an Act. The Committee will do its best to consider and pronounce on as many of the applications before it as possible. I cannot say if it will manage to pronounce on all the applications it now has before it, but it will do its very best.
    I should like to make some reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes. He accused my right hon. Friend of bringing pressure to bear about excluding Clause 12 from the Lancashire County Council Bill. I have consulted my right hon. Friend, who tells me that he has never considered any such Bill and certainly has taken no such action. Nor can I state that anyone else from the Board of Trade has done what was alleged by the hon. Gentleman. I ask the hon. Member for Widnes to withdraw that allegation.
    Mr. MacColl: I can only say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I have in my possession a photostatic copy of a letter from the county clerk of Lancashire to the town clerk of Widnes which makes that categorical assertion. That is an official letter. If the county clerk of Lancashire was not making a correct statement, I withdraw my allegation. If it is not the county clerk of Lancashire who is at fault, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw.
    Mr. Rodgers: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can get together and investigate what the evidence really is. I shall be very happy to do so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), asked what would bring Plymouth on to the list. Unfortunately, the only thing which can bring Plymouth on to the list will be a deterioration in the present situation. Plymouth is an area which we watch very sympathetically. The area is too dependent on one industry, namely the dockyard. By strange chance, it has

    323
    a higher birth rate and a bigger bulge problem than any other area in the country, and if we can assist we shall do so at the right moment.
    I will now deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) about the building of dry docks.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the hon. Gentleman intend to say anything about north-east Lancashire?
    Mr. Rodgers: I thought that my right hon. Friend dealt with that very fully in opening. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He certainly did. He gave the facts and figures to show that the percentage—
    Mr. Silverman rose—
    Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend spent a considerable time, as a study of HANSARD will show, dealing with north-east Lancashire and the cotton towns. He quoted from the unemployment figures and showed that they would not even have qualified for the old D.A.T.A.C. statistical criterion, let alone the new one. Like any other area, if it is proved that the closing of the weaving sheds after 31st March leads to persistent unemployment and the men and women released do not find alternative employment, we shall consider adding the area to the list.
    Mr. Silverman: I have given the Government the figures.
    Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman gave the figures of people who would he released, but it is not necessarily true to say that because they are released they will not find alternative employment. The experience we have to date shows that a lot of people have been released from the mines and the cotton industry and absorbed into other industries, and that now, far from cotton being the backbone of industrial Lancashire, industry has been so diversified there that engineering is a far greater employer of labour than is cotton.
    The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) asked why that town had been taken off the list—
    Dame Irene Ward: What about Tynemouth?
    Mr. Rodgers: —but the fact is that since Wrexham was added to the D.A.T.A.C. list in 1959 the rate of unemployment there has fallen from 4·7 per cent. to 3·9 per cent. Last month there were 1,536 unemployed, and the average rate of unemployment for the last twelve months was 3·6 per cent. Moreover, we expect 400 jobs to accrue there in the near future as a result of projects in hand or in prospect. With those figures to hand, there was no point in retaining Wrexham.
    I now turn to the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—yes, my lady friend—the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). She argued that my right hon. Friend's undertaking that dry docks were covered by the Bill had been revoked by the change in Clause 1 which brings in the words.
    "… with due regard to the proper diversification of industry …"
    It is argued that since ship repairing takes place in places in which employment is already largely concentrated on ship repairing it would not be within our powers to assist this industry. Within limits, and very narrow limits, that argument has some validity. Obviously, what we would like to do for these areas would be to introduce new firms so as to bring about diversification, but if there are any dry docks firms that wish to extend, or to build new docks, they can, of course, apply under the Bill for assistance, and those applications will be judged on their merits. The fact that money has been made available, for instance, to Greenock proves the way in which the old Act worked, and how this new Measure will work. I hope that that will, to some extent, allay my hon. Friend's fears—
    Dame Irene Ward: It is the dry dock owners, not me.
    Mr. Rodgers: Then perhaps my hon. Friend will convey these thoughts to her dry dock friends.
    A lot of other points have been raised by various hon. Members, but I am afraid that time does not allow me to deal with them in the detail that I would like. There was an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. LI. Williams), and one from my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall), with which I cannot

    325
    deal now, and the points raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) were dealt with by my right hon. Friend.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Percy Browne) asked us to define the use of the word "seasonal". He seemed to think that by saying that under the Bill we take account of seasonal unemployment that meant that if a place had, in the off season, qualified statistically for help, it would be on the list. Our interpretation of the use of the word "seasonal" is that that figure can be averaged with the low unemployment in the summer months. If the average qualifies, we can then say that the unemployment there is persistently high—
    Mr. D. Jones: I asked three very simple questions. Can the hon. Gentleman give me a reply?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am afraid that time is getting on.
    The list that my right hon. Friend has issued is the first one, and can be added to at any time when the position dictates. Our machinery for changing the list is flexible, and we can add a place overnight if the situation deteriorates. In
    determining the places to be added we shall, of course, look at the prevailing rate of unemployment in relation to the country as a whole, the average rate of unemployment during the previous year, together with such information as we have about the prospects of new employment and new unemployment in the future.
    I think that the whole House will agree that, although the new Measure has not yet come into force, we have had some measure of success in steering the motor industry to areas of high unemployment, and I hope that there will be some more good news in this regard in the next few days or weeks.
    I therefore hope that the House will reject the Motion.
    Mr. Herbert W. Bowden rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 307.

    Division No. 42.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Darling, George

    Gunter, Ray

    Ainsley, William

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Awbery, Stan

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Deer, George

    Hayman, F. H.

    Baird, John

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Healey, Denis

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Beaney, Alan

    Dempsey, James

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Diamond, John

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Dodds, Norman

    Hilton, A. V.

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

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Holman, Percy

    Benson, Sir George

    Driberg, Tom

    Holt, Arthur

    Blackburn, F.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Houghton, Douglas

    Blyton, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Howell, Charles A.

    Boardman, H.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hoy, James H.

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Bowles, Frank

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Evans, Albert

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Finch, Harold

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Fitch, Alan

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Janner, Barnett

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Foot, Dingle

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Callaghan, James

    Forman, J. C.

    Jeger, George

    Carmichael, James

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Chapman, Donald

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

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

    Chetwynd, George

    Ginsburg, David

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Cliffe, Michael

    Gooch, E. G.

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Collick, Percy

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Gourlay, Harry

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Cronin, John

    Grey, Charles

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Crosland, Anthony

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Grimond, J.

    Lawson, George

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Swain, Thomas

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Paton, John

    Sylvester, George

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Logan, David

    Peart, Frederick

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Pentland, Norman

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    McCann, John

    Popplewell, Ernest

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

    MacColl, James

    Prentice, R. E.

    Thornton, Ernest

    McInnes, James

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Probert, Arthur

    Timmons, John

    Mackie, John

    Proctor, W. T.

    Tomney, Frank

    McLeavy, Frank

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Randall, Harry

    Wade, Donald

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Rankin, John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Mahon, Simon

    Redhead, E. C.

    Warbey, William

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Reid, William

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

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

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Manuel, A. C.

    Rhodes, H.

    Weitzman, David

    Mapp, Charles

    Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Marsh, Richard

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Mason, Roy

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Ross, William

    Whitlock, William

    Mellish, R. J.

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Wigg, George

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Millan, Bruce

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Willey, Frederick

    Monslow, Walter

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Moody, A. S.

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Williams, Rev. Ll. (Abertillery)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Small, William

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

    Neal, Harold

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Snow, Julian

    Winterbottom, R. E.

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

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Woof, Robert

    Oram, A. E.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Stonehouse, John

    Zilliacus, K.

    Owen, Will

    Stones, William

    Padley, W. E.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

    Mr. Short and Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Allason, James

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

    Erroll, F. J.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Farr, John

    Arbuthnot, John

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Fell, Anthony

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Balniel, Lord

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Forrest, George

    Barber, Anthony

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Foster, John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Barter, John

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Batsford, Brian

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Gammans, Lady

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Cole, Norman

    Gardner, Edward

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Cooke, Robert

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Corfield, F. V.

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

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Costain, A. P.

    Godber, J. B.

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Goodhart, Philip

    Bidgood, John C.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Bingham, R. M.

    Critchley, Julian

    Gower, Raymond

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Crowder, F. P.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cunningham, Knox

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

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Green, Alan

    Bossom, Clive

    Dance, James

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Box, Donald

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Braine, Bernard

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Brewis, John

    Doughty, Charles

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Duncan, Sir James

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Brooman-White, R.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Eden, John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Bryan, Paul

    Elliott, R. W.

    Hay, John

    Bullard, Denys

    Emery, Peter

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    328

    329

    Hendry, Forbes

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Hiley, Joseph

    Maginnis, John E.

    Sharples, Richard

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

    Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

    Shepherd, William

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Simon, Sir Jocelyn

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

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

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

    Holland, Philip

    Marshall, Douglas

    Smithers, Peter

    Hopkins, Alan

    Marten, Neil

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Speir, Rupert

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

    Mawby, Ray

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

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

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Mills, Stratton

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Morgan, William

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Morrison, John

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Jackson, John

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

    James, David

    Neave, Airey

    Talbot, John E.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Tapsell, Peter

    Jennings, J. C.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Noble, Michael

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

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Teeling, William

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

    Temple, John M.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Page, Graham

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Partridge, E.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Turner, Colin

    Kimball, Marcus

    Peel, John

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Kirk, Peter

    Percival, Ian

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Kitson, Timothy

    Peyton, John

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Leavey, J. A.

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Pott, Percivall

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

    Pcwell, J. Enoch

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Wall, Patrick

    Lilley, F. J. P.

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

    Lindsay, Martin

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Watts, James

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Webster, David

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Ramsden, James

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Longbottom, Charles

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Whitelaw, William

    Longden, Gilbert

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Rees, Hugh

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Renton, David

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Wise, A. R.

    McAdden, Stephen

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    McLaren, Martin

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Robertson, Sir David

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Woollam, John

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

    Roots, William

    Worsley, Marcus

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Russell, Ronald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    McMaster, Stanley

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

    Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield.

    Proposed words there added.

    Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

    Resolved,

    That this House supports Her Majesty's Government in their determination to ensure that assistance, as planned in their list of development districts, is made available where it is most needed as part of a comprehensive policy for the progressive solution of the local employment problem.

    DISTURBANCES, NOTTING HILL (SENTENCES)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]
    10.13 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Tomney: In a general debate on immigration in December, 1958, I intimated that I would return to this question of the sentences on my constituents who were convicted following the riots arising out of the Notting Hill disturbances. I am conscious that in appealing to the opinion of the House of Commons on an issue of this nature I must bear in mind the long struggles which have taken place in the development and the history of the British legislative system as we know it. Our respect for law and order, our obligations to the Commonwealth, and the wider issues involved in race relations, were all contained in the incidents which led up to the Notting Hill riots.
    Every man, no matter what his status or however famous, has something to gain from emotion and experience. The eminent and learned judge in his summing-up of the case brought against my constituents was also subject to a degree of emotion, which may or may not have led to the imposition of the sentences which caused a great deal of concern in legal and social institutions throughout the country.
    Let us consider, first, the background of the case as it affects my constituents. These were nine youths, aged 17, caught up in a subject which is so complex that over the centuries the answer to the problem has not been found—the subject of race relations. They were caught up in an emotional issue which was fanned by political agitators in the area. Arising from those emotions, riots took place and attacks were made by white people upon coloured people and my coloured people upon whites. Against that background, let us in the House of Commons, with its mixture of the various degrees of our civilian life, and which calls men from all quarters—from elementary schools, private schools, public schools and universities, and from all professions—look at the issue as it affected these boys.
    Here were boys brought up in an atmosphere and in a district where
    332
    justice is swift. They were brought up in working-class family backgrounds, nevertheless having the same deep love and care bestowed upon them as is bestowed upon people who are born more fortunate. In this trouble cauldron, these boys found themselves. Nobody in the constituency takes the view that they should not be punished by law, and punished swiftly, for what they did. That is exactly what occurred. The sentences on these boys were four years in gaol.
    Eighteen months have elapsed and the time has now arrived when further consideration may be given to a reduction of these sentences if it is not possible to quash them altogether. I spoke, in the earlier debate, of the extent of the problem which was affecting Notting Hill and I rejected completely the Home Secretary's structures at that time that these riots were due, in the main, to woman jealousy. These riots were due mostly to the difficulties arising out of a very bad housing situation. Every man's home is his castle. Our people, who have developed our institutions and our law, have also developed an insularity which extends to our homes. We regard our homes as private and sacred to ourselves.
    Into this huge city, where people scramble for houses and where the Rent Act is in operation, streamed thousands of colonial nationals. They had a perfect right to come here under the Constitution of the country and their associations with the Commonwealth, but, nevertheless, they aggravated a problem which was already acute.
    On 5th December, 1958 I gave figures, which I will read again, which illustrate the size of the problem of the number of foreign nationals within our borders. In the debate on immigration control, I said:
    "My researches show that prior to the war, there were 240,000 aliens in Great Britain. After the war, we had the European voluntary workers scheme by which 57,000 men and 30,000 women entered the country. Then we had the 110,000 Poles from General Anders' army, and in addition, students, prisoners of war and miscellaneous groups who accounted for another 10,000. Whereas, in 1931, we had 268,000 people of foreign birthplaces, in 1958 we had an estimated 800,000 and this does not take account of the coloured population which has been coming in in recent years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December. 1958 Vol. 596, c. 1590–1.]

    333
    This does not take into account the influx of Commonwealth nationals which now total, I am told, about 240,000.
    This situation gives rise to housing difficulties. I am investigating every one of these cases as they affect my constituency. In every case there has been trouble either between white landlord and coloured tenants or vice versa. In these circumstances, among people who have been reared in working-class districts, one gets a slow simmering to boiling point extending over two years, finally erupting in the mob violence which the learned judge punished very severely. I am the last to decry the ability, the impartiality and fairness of our judges but, as I said in my speech on that occasion, it is impossible, in matters of this character, for a man to divorce himself from his environment, his emotions, his upbringing, and his passions.
    I want to consider for a moment some of the words which the learned judge used when he came to deliver his judgment. Addressing the youths he said:
    "It was you men who started the whole of this violence in Notting Hill."
    With due respect to all the authority of British law, this was not so. This trouble has been simmering to a great degree over two years. It is only those who live with it and those who have constituencies where this problem exists who know the difficulties in getting these people to live together. The learned judge, with all the majesty of the law behind him, and the long-established institutions of British justice at his call, came to the conclusion that these boys started the violence. There had been incidents many times before this. This was only the climax of incidents which had been slowly developing over a period of years.
    We should ask ourselves what kind of homes these boys had and whether they were lawless and violent by nature and why they found themselves in this situation. All nine had never been convicted before. In the "pubs" and clubs of West London where people said that they had respect for the law and wished that the law should be upheld and justice demanded, let alone in circles of a more insalubrious character, it was
    334
    intimated that the sentences on these boys were extremely severe.
    It may well be that the learned judge had in mind that this trouble might spread. He may have thought that to impose a deterrent which was seen to be effective would be a means of stamping out this trouble. That may have actuated him in his judgment and have led him to impose these sentences. We do not know, but we do know that since the judgment things have been a great deal quieter in the Notting Hill and Shepherd's Bush districts, though there have been isolated incidents.
    But if that judgment had the desired effect, is it not time, in mercy and humanity, for the public opinion which can be expressed in the House of Commons to ask the Home Secretary that Her Majesty he petitioned to secure a reduction or the abolition of the remainder of these sentences? We have a job as Parliamentarians distinct from the Legislature. Part of our job as humanists is to try to rescue for society those people who may be worth the effort. These boys, having incurred the penalty, having been in prison now for eighteen months, should, in my view, be offered the full mercy of the law.
    Tonight, I am asking the Home Secretary, through his right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, to petition Her Majesty to reduce or quash these sentences, because it is not only the boys who suffer from the penalty of imprisonment. In two cases the fathers of the boys have died and the mothers are hard put to it to manage without the earnings which the boys formerly brought into the households. Two were articled apprentices, whose firms are most anxious to get them back so that their apprenticeships shall continue. We ask, in fairness and equity, that those boys shall now receive the full mercy of the law. Let it be shown to them that while the law operated against them at the time, and justly, for the crime they committed, the law can also be merciful. Let us see if we cannot rescue them at this juncture and give them a chance to become better citizens.
    I ask the indulgence of the House for just a few moments more. This is a difficult question to raise. It is full of passion, prejudice and violence. In representing a mixed constituency such

    335
    as my own one has to be careful not to hurt the feelings of any one section in putting a case of this character. I have raised the question tonight because I think that the time has now come for interested bodies to work together to procure the release of those boys. I am, therefore, asking the Home Secretary to petition the Queen to pardon them so that they can be given a chance to become decent citizens again. If we can do this by example and precept, it will be much better than making them serve the full rigours of a four-year term of imprisonment, bearing in mind that at the tender age of 17, three years after leaving school, they were sentenced with the full severity of the law in an atmosphere which they did not themselves engender but of which they found themselves part. If we in the House of Commons can do that, we shall have done something worth while, and I therefore ask the Home Secretary to do it.
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I wish to support the plea which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), who has presented a strong case skilfully and persuasively.
    We are speaking tonight of heavy sentences on boys who became caught up in some big questions without really knowing what they had got caught up in. It is so easy for such an atmosphere to generate into lawlessness. Of course, when that happens the people who are lawless must be punished, but we must also have regard to the age of the people concerned and to the motives that should be imputed to them. They should be punished, surely, only for the violence of which they were guilty, and not for the nature of the persons against whom it was directed.
    In assessing the sentences, I asked myself whether those boys, with the character which they had, would have been given exactly the same sentences if they had inflicted the same degree of violence not upon—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What the hon. Member is now saying is a plain criticism of the sentences inflicted. That is out of order in the context. He may, of course, urge that the matter should now be reviewed. That is different.
    Mr. Bell: I was doing that, although from a slightly different direction from that followed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. I was trying to show, and, I hope, succeeding in showing, that these sentences were inflicted in the circumstances of the time, a time of great emotion, when it was thought that race riots might continue in the neighbourhood if they were not stopped.
    I was trying to point out that if one takes those cases out of that context the sentences would then seem to be rather heavy, and I was postulating the case of the same degree of violence used by similar boys against not coloured people, the context in which these cases occurred, but against, say, white people, possibly on the other side of the controversy, perhaps too strong advocates of race discrimination.
    Let us suppose that the boys had attacked them and let us postulate that they did so because of their very indignation of people who advocate race discrimination. Would the same sentences have been imposed in that case?
    Sir Leslie Plummer: Would the same iron bars have been used?
    Mr. Bell: We do not have much time in Adjournment debates.
    I suggest that in those circumstances much lighter sentences would have been inflicted. Those circumstances, happily, have passed away and I ask my right hon. Friend to represent to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that these punishments should be reconsidered in the context of February, 1960, to see whether these very young, very immature, and undoubtedly, at the time, violent people have not now purged their offences against the community and are now subjects fit for clemency.
    10.32 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) has tonight raised a subject which received great publicity eighteen months ago, a subject which he has taken up with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the intervening eighteen months. He has said, and I agree with him, that it is not an easy matter to raise and I

    337
    think that he will appreciate that it is not an easy matter to answer.
    Before dealing with this case, I should like to make clear, and I think that the hon. Member is aware of this, the position of my right hon. Friend in these matters. He is not, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, a reviewing authority, nor is he a further court of appeal. His duty of advising on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative enables him to intervene as an exceptional measure if it becomes apparent that an injustice has occurred which cannot be corrected by the ordinary methods of appeal, or if compassionate or other circumstances come to his notice which warrant the remission of part of a sentence.
    Normally, this means if circumstances arise which were not before the court when it imposed the sentence. For example, a man may be released slightly earlier than he would otherwise be because his wife has been taken ill and he is needed at home to look after children who would have to be taken into care by the local authority; or perhaps on another occasion information has come to light about a man's circumstances which, had they been known to the court when he was sentenced, would have caused the court to impose a lighter sentence than was in fact imposed.
    It would be wrong, and I am sure that hon. Members appreciate this, for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in considering an application for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which is what the hon. Member asks, to ask himself, "If I had been in the judge's shoes, should I have imposed a lesser sentence?" That is something which he cannot do, because it is the function of the judiciary to decide what sentence is appropriate in a particular set of circumstances. It is important that the Executive, in the shape of my right hon. Friend, should not interfere in the exercise of that judicial function.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Did not this case also go to the Court of Criminal Appeal?
    Mr. Vosper: All the men concerned sought leave to appeal.
    There is a class of case in which it may occasionally be appropriate to reduce a heavy sentence because circumstances not related to the individual in
    338
    question have changed; for example, where a sentence includes a substantial exemplary element, and the circumstances in which that element was considered necessary no longer exist, as when an exceptionally heavy sentence has been imposed for an offence which in time of war it is essential to discourage and, when the war comes to an end, it may be thought no longer necessary for the whole of the sentence to be served.
    I have mentioned this class of case because it seems to me to be the only one of the grounds for clemency advanced on behalf of the nine youths on which my right hon. Friend could possibly act, and he is by no means convinced that this ground in these cases provides sufficient justification for clemency.
    Mr. Charles Pannell: The right hon. Member has referred to nine youths. Should not the number be five?
    Mr. Vosper: There were several cases involved. In the case raised by the hon. Member nine youths were concerned. I should like to give the history of the case. The youths in question toured Notting Hill late one night in a car in which were found four iron bars, four pieces of wood, a table leg and a starting handle. They attacked five coloured men in four separate incidents. The men were strangers to them who were going peaceably through the streets. Three of the men were seriously injured; indeed, one was in hospital for three weeks.
    As Mr. Justice Paull said in giving the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the youths' appeal:
    "It was clear that this was a perfectly deliberate gang affair in which these nine youths deliberately made up their minds to injure, not coloured men who had taken part in the past in any events of violence which might have occurred, but any innocent person walking in the street, provided that his colour was not the same as theirs. This was just about as serious a matter of this sort as the court had to deal with."
    At a time when violence, particularly crimes of violence by young men, is increasing, a gang of youths who deliberately go round hunting for and beating up innocent strangers must expect to be very severely dealt with.

    339
    In these circumstances I am unable to indicate a prospect that the Home Secretary will find it possible to recommend any remission of the sentences which the court considered right and which were upheld on appeal. I can undertake to report to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) have said, and I can give an assurance that the cases will be kept under review. I regret that I cannot do more than that.
    Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I was sorry to hear what my right hon. Friend has said, not because I underrate the heinousness of this offence but because I believe that some moderate show of clemency in this case would have a good effect on race relationships in this country. The coloured population here is not vindictive—although I cannot speak for all of it—and I think that clemency would have a good effect. The circumstances which quite rightly called forth this devastating sentence have passed by, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again.
    10.39 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I would also urge the Joint Under-Secretary to represent to the Home Secretary very strongly the feelings which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all feel the importance of the principle that justice should be upheld, but it is strongly felt that there was a considerable element of exemplary punishment in this sentence, no doubt calculated to have a deterrent effect, which we believe has served its purpose.
    Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. My hon. Friend has used words in the sense of speaking on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that he will make it quite clear that
    340
    he is not speaking for anybody except himself on this occasion.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is an objection.
    Mr. Fletcher: I was saying that opinions have been expressed from both sides of the House which will, no doubt, be conveyed to the Home Secretary. I sincerely hope—I am speaking only for myself—that the Home Secretary will find justification for asking that the Queen's pardon should be extended to these young men, who have already served a very large part of a heavy sentence.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. John Dugdale: I would not have intervened in the debate had not my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), perhaps unwittingly, given the impression that he was speaking for hon. Members on this side of the House. He was, as he said afterwards, speaking only for himself.
    Many of us feel that although we certainly think that justice should be tempered wtih mercy, we are not at all sure that in this case there is more reason for mercy than in other cases where people have had very heavy sentences indeed inflicted on them. I do not think that a case for any remission of the sentences has been proved.
    I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at the matter before recommending any alteration in the sentences. If, of course, it is proved that there should be such a remission then certainly that should be given, but in present circumstances I do not think that my hon. Friend has proved his case. I think that the sentences should remain as they are with, of course, the usual remissions for good conduct taking place in the ordinary way.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Victoria Tower
  Victoria Tower
  FINANCE CORPORATIONS (PROPERTY LEASES)
  FINANCE CORPORATIONS (PROPERTY LEASES)
  ADMIRALTY COURT (SIXTH CENTENARY)
  ADMIRALTY COURT (SIXTH CENTENARY)
SCOTLAND
  Registration of Title to Land (Committee)
  Registration of Title to Land (Committee)
  Industrial Rehabilitation Units (Psychiatric Patients)
  Industrial Rehabilitation Units (Psychiatric Patients)
  Accident, Old Perth Road
  Accident, Old Perth Road
  Industrial Injuries (Awards)
  Industrial Injuries (Awards)
  Repertory Theatres (Financial Assistance)
  Repertory Theatres (Financial Assistance)
  Mental Health (Expenditure)
  Mental Health (Expenditure)
  Technical Education (Part-time Day Release)
  Technical Education (Part-time Day Release)
  Glasgow Firms (Overspill Areas and New Towns)
  Glasgow Firms (Overspill Areas and New Towns)
  DEFENCE (CO-ORDINATION)
  DEFENCE (CO-ORDINATION)
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  MISSILES (EARLY WARNING SYSTEM)
  MISSILES (EARLY WARNING SYSTEM)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Central West Fife
  Central West Fife
  Trade with China
  Trade with China
  Wool Textiles (United States Tariff Quota)
  Wool Textiles (United States Tariff Quota)
  Local Employment Bill (Development Districts)
  Local Employment Bill (Development Districts)
  Horticultural Produce (Import Duties)
  Horticultural Produce (Import Duties)
  Hire-Purchase Sales
  Hire-Purchase Sales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Income Tax (Travelling Expenses)
  Income Tax (Travelling Expenses)
  Building Societies and Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
  Building Societies and Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
HOUSING
  Cwmbran New Town (Rents)
  Cwmbran New Town (Rents)
  New Towns (London and Home Counties)
  New Towns (London and Home Counties)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  National Parks Commission (Sussex Downs)
  National Parks Commission (Sussex Downs)
  Closed Cinemas (Rateable Value)
  Closed Cinemas (Rateable Value)
  Private Streets (Survey)
  Private Streets (Survey)
  Dartmoor National Park
  Dartmoor National Park
EAST AFRICA
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
SOUTHERN CAMEROONS
  Bamanda Citizens (Arrests)
  Bamanda Citizens (Arrests)
KENYA
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
  Detainees and Prisoners
  Detainees and Prisoners
NYASALAND
  Mr. C. C. Mtawali
  Mr. C. C. Mtawali
ST. HELENA
  Educational Expenditure
  Educational Expenditure
  Teachers
  Teachers
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Kariba Lake (New Schools)
  Kariba Lake (New Schools)
UGANDA
  Constitution
  Constitution
ROYAL NAVY
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
  Admiralty Court (Sixth Centenary)
  Admiralty Court (Sixth Centenary)
SHIPPING
  River Severn (Navigation Regulations)
  River Severn (Navigation Regulations)
ROADS
  Road, Corby (Flooding)
  Road, Corby (Flooding)
BASUTOLAND
  Election Results
  Election Results
  Paramount chief
  Paramount chief
EMPLOYMENT
  Burntisland, Kirkcaldy and Buckhaven
  Burntisland, Kirkcaldy and Buckhaven
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Medical Eye Centres
  Medical Eye Centres
  Ophthalmic List (London Executive Council)
  Ophthalmic List (London Executive Council)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Forces (Retirements)
  Police Forces (Retirements)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester
Lord Macpherson of Drumochter—Took the Oath.

BIRTH OF A SON TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
2.5 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM) rose to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to congratulate Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, on the birth of a Son; and to assure Her Majesty that every addition to Her Majesty's happiness affords the highest satisfaction to the House of Lords."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I rise to move a Motion which I feel will command your Lordships' unanimous assent. Before I do so, I have been asked by my noble friend the Leader of the House to express his regret to your Lordships at his inability to be here on this occasion.
It is more than 100 years since a reigning Sovereign gave birth to a Royal child, and the restrained and traditional language of the Motion that I have just moved can only, I think, convey a small part of the sincere and profound feelings which your Lordships will wish to convey to Her Majesty and the Prince Philip on this occasion. It is actually 107 years since a Motion in virtually the same words was last carried here to congratulate Queen Victoria, herself the common ancestress of the Royal Parents on this occasion, on the birth of a new Prince of the Royal House; and, speaking for myself, I find this circumstance alone most moving. In an age when so much has passed away, the love and devotion of your Lordships' House
194
and of the British people, and, I would say now, of our entire family of nations, for the Crown and the wearer of the Crown have not passed away, but rather have increased and grown in depth and sincerity with the passage of the years. That this has been so has been due in no small degree to a succession of generations of Members of the Royal Family, not only confined to the Sovereign, who have won the love of this people by lives of example and service which have inspired us all.
My Lords, we now have to welcome a new Member of a new generation to carry on this tradition. We welcome him with joy at the birth of another precious human life to a Family which all are united to honour. We welcome him also with thankfulness at the safe delivery of a beloved Sovereign from a human ordeal which, because of its universality, must serve in itself to knit her and her subjects ever more closely together in mind and spirit. I have found myself reflecting in recent days, as no doubt others of your Lordships will have done, when I saw the crowds beginning to gather about the Palace as they always do when something affecting the Royal Family is taking place, how immensely fortunate we are in this country with our system of government under which the symbol of authority is carried, not by an individual tarnished even to the smallest degree by political controversy, past or present, but by the head of a Family all the more loved because its work is shared by many members and all the more intimately united with the people to-day because it is presided over by a young and radiant mother who is the Sovereign of us all.
My Lords, the young Prince will, God willing, grow up with our children and our children's children to a life of service and opportunity, and to-day the hearts of a united Parliament, a united people, and, I would say, a united Commonwealth, will go forth in congratulation to his Royal Parents, and in prayer for the blessing of Almighty God upon what we hope will be a long, a fruitful and a happy life on earth. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to congratulate Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh on the

195
birth of a Son; and to assure Her Majesty that every addition to Her Majesty's happiness affords the highest satisfaction to the House of Lords.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
2.13 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, my noble Leader had every intention of being here to support this Motion this afternoon, but I presume he has mistaken the hour and so has not arrived in time. Therefore, on behalf of noble Lords who sit behind me on these Benches, I have the deepest satisfaction in associating ourselves with the remarks made by the noble and learned Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House. We feel very keenly in support of what he has said; his remarks have found an echo in all our hearts. We know that not only is there respect and loyalty to the Crown, but also there is a deep feeling of love and affection which is reflected in the hearts of all the citizens of this country and of the other parts of the Commonwealth.
We feel drawn to Her Majesty by the familiar signs of ordinary human life: by the children that she has already had; by this new baby that has come into her home; and, if I may add a further note, by her grief which she has suffered only in the last few days since the little baby was born, in the loss of two Members of the Royal House. I have the greatest pleasure in asking that those sitting with me on these Benches should be associated with the remarks made by the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House and in the terms of this Motion.
2.15 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support wholeheartedly and without reservation the Resolution so finely moved by the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House. Throughout the civilised world during this last week-end there has, I think, arisen a personal happiness in the hearts of many millions of people. There is, of course, the inward happiness that a new and so welcome little life has started (as most human life does) with love and with all the cherishing and good wishes of unselfishness. But there is also an outward happiness that this infant prince who
196
"… wears upon his baby-brow the round And top of sovereignty"
as Shakespeare said, comes to give joy to his own circle and to his own Family, whose happiness we so sincerely desire, not only from loyalty, not only from gratitude for the magnificent way in which they apply themselves to their duties, but also from the plain human emotions, as the noble Lord has just said, of admiration and particularly of affection.
To Her Majesty and to His Royal Highness the Duke we respectfully offer, with our humble duties, our most sincere felicitations; and to the infant Prince, whose public life will inexorably start almost as soon as he has a name, might I venture to quote a little poem of William Blake:
"'I have no name:
I am but two days old.'
What shall I call thee?
'I happy am,
Joy is my name.'
Sweet joy befall thee!"
My Lords, I beg to support the Motion.
2.17 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, in the absence of the most reverend Primates, both of whom have expressed their regret that they cannot be present to speak upon this Motion, I am proud to have the privilege of adding a word. We are indeed thankful to Almighty God that our Queen's joy in motherhood—a joy so apparent to all her people already—has been increased by the birth of a Prince. Princess Beatrice, the last child to be born to a Queen regnant, was always, to use the words of another of the prayers authorised for this present occasion, "a comfort to her mother". Some of us may have the impression that Queen Victoria was a rather absorbing mother. We are sure that this little boy whose birth we are now celebrating has parents who will wish him to lead a life of his own and to make his own contribution to the life of this Commonwealth.
Finally, may I say that in our rejoicings at the safe birth of this baby to Her Majesty it is right that we should remember and be thankful for the progress of medical science. Though it may be that there is still improvement to be made, never has childbirth been safer for mother and child than it is at

197
present; and never, I suppose, has a people been able to feel more confident about the outcome of a confinement than on this happy occasion. It is right that we should remember this and be grateful for it.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BRITISH PRE-WAR CLAIMS AGAINST JAPAN
2.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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—

(1) Whether, under the Japanese Peace Treaty of 1952, Article 18 (b), the Japanese Government announced its intention to encourage negotiations in respect of pre-war claims and obligations;

(2) Whether, some seven years later, in a joint communiqué of 5th July, 1959, the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Kishi, gave an assurance that the Japanese Government would do its best to settle at an early date the approximately £1,000,000 pre-war claims of British nationals against Japan which were filed in 1946; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any information to show that the Japanese Government will implement its expressed intentions and assurances and will settle these long outstanding claims at a very early date.]

EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Viscount's first Question is that the Japanese Government did announce such an intention. As regards the second Question, it is true that the Japanese Prime Minister said that his Government would do their best to bring the matter to a conclusion at an early date. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Japanese assurances, but, as my noble friend has already said in answer to previous questions from the noble Viscount, we are disappointed at the slow rate of progress.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his Answer. Would it not be as well if Mr. Kishi and his Government realised that they cannot have it both ways and expect the maximum of goodwill on the part of Great Britain in trade and other matters whilst they adopt this dilatory and unsatisfactory attitude to the long outstanding pre-war claims of British nationals?

TRADE WITH CHINA
LORD SHEPHERD: 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—

(1) to state the reasons for limiting imports to the United Kingdom of silk grey cloth from China (Board of Trade Notice to Importers 921);

(2) whether they have evidence that this action has had adverse effect on our export trade with China, and

(3) whether they are aware that the present quota limit of £380,000 is inadequate to meet the requirements of the United Kingdom textile industry, with special respect to exports of processed silk dress fabrics.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, imports of silk grey cloth are subject to import control from the countries of the Soviet bloc and Japan. When the licensing arrangements for China were put on the same basis as those for the countries of the Soviet bloc, silk grey cloth became automatically subject to control. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question is in the negative. As regards the third part of the Question, I have no reason to believe that the amounts to be imported under the quota, together with the amounts licensed to cover outstanding orders and supplies from other sources, are inadequate to meet the needs of the United Kingdom textile industry. There are no restrictions on imports of silk grey cloth required for the re-export trade.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his full Answer,

199
but is he aware that applications for Chinese silk have been made to the Board of Trade, as I know, from two well-known print houses in this country, and that they have not been given any quota because they had no past performance? Is the noble Earl aware that these two particular firms are making for stock of which a large percentage goes for export, and that they are facing very severe competition from countries like Italy and France?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have no concrete evidence of adverse effects of these regulations on exports to China. If the noble Lord has any case which he wishes to be considered, I should be most grateful if he would send it to the Board of Trade, because they are ready to consider sympathetically, with trade organisations and authorities, any difficulties which may arise in practice. The recent increase in the quota, as I have told your Lordships before, was made after consultation with the trade interests.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in the first part of his Answer to the noble Lord who has just sat down he gave no reason whatsoever for taking China out of the relaxation area originally and putting her into the Eastern bloc? Perhaps the noble Earl can give an answer to that question. Further, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that there are firms who have come into this business and who require and are asking for licences but who still have not got them? Will the noble Earl see to it that they do get the licences for which they are asking?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Viscount's question, the reasons for having these restrictions in dealing with countries in the Soviet bloc are that State-trading countries cannot reciprocate our methods of allowing traders to import freely, and it would be illogical to put China on a different basis from countries which pursue State trading. That is the reason why China was brought into line with other countries who are State traders. The second part of the noble Viscount's
200
question, I think, does not arise out of the one on the Order Paper, but I shall be glad to consider any information he may like to give about any difficulty in obtaining licences.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that it is State traders in China and in the Soviet bloc who are actual purchasers of British manufactured goods, and that, therefore, any action which, as the noble Earl has said, is to prevent or curtail State trading in those countries with Britain must affect our trade both ways?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the answer is "Yes", but the principle is to treat all countries in the same way. I believe it happens to be the case that the classes of imports from China which fall under this import restriction are only about one-quarter of our total imports.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is not the noble Earl aware that the illogical attitude to which he refers had applied to China for nine years, when suddenly Her Majesty's Government jumped in and took them out of this relaxation area and tried to solve the difficulty by making the position still more illogical?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if we have been illogical for nine years, surely it is time we started being logical.

POULTRY IMPORTS FROM AMERICA
EARL FERRERS: 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—

(a) whether imports of poultry from America are in general banned;

(b) whether poultry has been imported from America for American forces stationed in the United Kingdom;

(c) if so, what quantities have been imported each year for the last five years;

(d) whether Her Majesty's Government consider that any such imports have had any bearing on the incidence of fowl pest in the United Kingdom.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, under orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, landings of live poultry and of uncooked poultry carcases from the United States are prohibited. Nevertheless, as a special and exceptional arrangement, uncooked poultry carcases are allowed to be landed from the United States under licence for exclusive use in United States Air Force messes in this country. The conditions attached to the licence are stringent and include the requirement that facilities must be given to the Agricultural Departments to carry out such inspections, examinations and tests as they may consider necessary. In addition, the Ministry's veterinary staff make periodical reports on the efficiency of the plants used for the disposal of waste products from these poultry. Figures of the quantities of poultry landed under these arrangements are not readily available, but I understand that in 1959 the total was about 350 tons. The Ministry, which carefully investigates every outbreak of fowl pest in this country, has not attributed one single outbreak to poultry procured from the United States for consumption in the United States Air Force messes.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his detailed reply, but would not he agree that if a ban is to be effective it must be a total ban? And would he not further agree that after Her Majesty's Government have spent some £4 million in compensation to people who have suffered through fowl pest, the American authorities should be asked not to import any further chicken carcasses, as an aid to preventing the spread of this most unpleasant form of disease?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, all the evidence we have is that imports under these very strict licences to the American Air Force bases do not result in the spreading of this disease.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government make representations to the United States Government to the effect that it is quite unnecessary for American poultry to be imported into this country when we ourselves are very large producers of excellent poultry?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, that is not a question that I think should be addressed to Her Majesty's Government. Anybody who feels that way should address that question to the American authorities.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON AND SURREY (RIVER WANDLE AND RIVER GRAVENEY) (JURISDICTION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
2.29 p.m.
Amendments reported according to Order.
Clause 1 [General provisions for registration of users of radioactive material]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am advised that this is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to make it plain that the Minister can stipulate that markings conform to an accepted standard and thus introduce a system of standard markings, and not leave it to the individual to decide what markings he should apply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("and (in either case) complying with any requirements specified in the conditions in relation thereto").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Supplementary provisions as to authorisation of disposal and accumulation of radioactive waste]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is the first of two Amendments designed to give effect to a promise made in Committee to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that the provisions of Clause 8 would be so amended as to promise local authorities copies of certificates of authorisation relating to the accumulation of radioactive waste in their areas, as well as of those relating to the discharge of radioactive waste. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 2.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount very much for seeing that this Amendment is put in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 7, at end insert ("or accumulated").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is that if, before granting an authorisation covering the discharge of waste by the Atomic Energy Authority or a nuclear site licensee, the Minister or Ministers have consulted under subsection (2) with any public or local authority other than the local authorities for the area, that authority shall be entitled (subject to considerations of national security) to receive directly from the Minister a copy of the authorisation resulting from that consultation. This has, in fact, been the normal practice of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the exercise of their powers, which are now vested in the Minister by virtue of Section 5 (4) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954. The Amendment has been put down at the request, I think, of the River Boards' Association, who have indicated they would like to see an assurance in the Bill to that effect. It goes some way, I hope, to meet some of the criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, made during the Committee stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 7, at end insert ("and, in the case of an authorisation to which subsection (1) of this section applies, to any other public or local authority consulted in relation thereto in accordance with subsection (2) of this section.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment, which meets the point that we made during the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble and learned Viscount that those of us who were interested in the river boards' side of the matter are very grateful for the steps which have been taken. I was asked particularly by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who is confined to his house to-day, to say that he apologises for not being here to deal with the matter from his own point of view.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thank the noble Viscount very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 22, after ("a") insert ("public or").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 24, leave out ("local").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Additional facilities and powers for disposal of radioactive waste]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() Where, in the exercise of the power conferred by the preceding subsection, the Minister proposes to provide, or to arrange for the provision of, a place for the disposal of radioactive waste, the Minister, before carrying out that proposal, shall consult with any local authority in whose area that place would be situated, and with such other public or local authorities (if any) as appear to him to be proper to be consulted by him.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment again arises out of Amendments of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who at the Committee stage moved Amendments to Clauses 9 and 10 which would have had the effect of providing for consultation with the local authority before the Minister, in the exercise of his powers under Clause 10 (1), provided "facilities" for the safe disposal of radioactive wastes in their area. I informed my noble friend that the Amendments were acceptable in principle but that the Government would like to reconsider their drafting. This Amendment is designed to give effect to the general undertaking I then gave. It also provides for the Minister to consult any other public or local authority that he considers it proper to consult. River boards and water undertakers may have an interest in the drainage from dumping grounds, and the further consultation provided for is intended to help them in the like case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20 at end insert the said subsectiori.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think this Amendment is an improvement, and the addition is an even greater improvement. I think that the clause is now satisfactory and I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Application of Act to Crown]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"() Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall apply in relation to any premises occupied by or for the purposes of a visiting force (that is to say, any such body, contingent or detachment of the forces of any country as is a visiting force for the purposes of any of the provision of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952) as if those premises were in the occupation of the government department by arrangement with whom the premises are so occupied."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, as the Bill stands at present, its provisions as regards both the keeping and use of radioactive material and the authorisation of disposal of radioactive waste would apply to premises
206
occupied by visiting forces as though they were in private occupation. Such premises are occupied by foreign Governments, and the more normal practice is to achieve the objects of our legislation by agreement between the Governments in such cases. The Amendment is designed to secure this. It is drafted in terms (for which there is a precedent in the Clean Air Act, 1956) which ensure that any Minister by whose agreement premises are occupied by visiting forces will be under an obligation to make sure that arrangements for the control of radioactive waste discharged on or from the premises shall be as effective as if the premises were in the occupation of his own Department; that is, to make sure that, in the words which I used on Second Reading,
"the same control will be applied by administrative rather than by legislative methods."
I need hardly tell your Lordships that the main practical application of this provision is to the premises occupied in the United Kingdom by the United States Air Force. The United States Air Force have now satisfied the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that they do not at present dispose of any radioactive waste in the United Kingdom, and they have given an assurance that they will not do so in the future without prior agreement on our part.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Meaning of "radioactive material", radioactive waste" and "mobile radioactive apparatus
".—(1) In this Act 'radioactive material' means anything which, not being waste, is either a substance to which this subsection applies or an article made wholly or partly from, or incorporating such a substance.
(2) The preceding subsection applies to any substance falling within either or both of the following descriptions, that is to say,—

(a) a substance containing an element specified in the first column of the Schedule (Specified elements) to this Act, in such a proportion that the number of microcuries of that element contained in the substance, divided by the number of grammes which the substance weighs, is a number greater than that specified in relation to that element in the appropriate column of that Schedule;

207

(b) a substance possessing radioactivity which is wholly or partly attributable to a process of nuclear fission or other process of subjecting a substance to bombardment by neutrons or to ionising radiations, not being a process occurring in the course of nature, or in consequence of the disposal of radioactive waste, or by way of contamination in the course of the application of a process to some other substance.

(3) In paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection the appropriate column'—

(a) in relation to a solid substance, means the second column;

(b) in relation to a liquid substance, means the third column; and

(c) in relation to a substance which is a gas or vapour, means the fourth column.

(4) In this Act radioactive waste' means waste which consists wholly or partly of—

(a) a substance or article which, if it were not waste, would be radioactive material, or

(b) a substance or article which has been contaminated in the course of production, keeping or use of radioactive material, or by contact with or proximity to other waste falling within the preceding paragraph or this paragraph.

(5) In this Act 'mobile radioactive apparatus' means any apparatus, equipment or appliance which is radioactive material and is constructed or adapted for being transported from place to place.
(6) The Minister may by order vary the provisions of the Schedule (Specified elements) to this Act, either by adding further entries to any column of that Schedule or by altering or deleting any entry for the time being contained in any column thereof; and, in relation to any time after those provisions have been so varied, any reference in subsection (2) of this section to that Schedule shall be construed as a reference to that Schedule as it has effect for the time being."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think I said on the Second Reading of this Bill that I was not myself quite content with the Definition Clause. This Amendment, together with the proposed new Schedule entitled "Specified elements" completely revises the definitions of "radioactive material" and "radioactive waste" in Clause 18, subsections (1) to (3), of the Bill as it stands. The definition of "radioactive material" in Clause 18 was based on the Report of the expert panel which was appended to the White Paper to which I referred on the occasion of the Second Reading. It provided, in effect, that "radioactive material" was, first, any material which had been rendered radioactive artificially—for example, by irradiation in a nuclear pile; and, secondly, any naturally radioactive material which, as a result of any
208
process, contained a greater concentration of radioactivity than existed in the material in nature.
On reviewing the second of those two arms of the definition, however, we have realised that a person holding radioactive material which comes from a natural source would not necessarily know, or be able to establish, the level of radioactivity in the parent material from which it was derived. For example, if he has a compound of uranium, the subject will not necessarily have any means of knowing from which of the world's natural uranium deposits it came, as each of these deposits is likely to have a different natural concentration of uranium. It would therefore have been correspondingly difficult to substantiate a prosecution which depended on proving that the concentration of radioactivity in a substance was greater than that possessed by the parent substance. The only way we can think of to overcome this difficulty is to list the more common naturally radioactive elements, and to specify in relation to each (in its solid, liquid and gaseous form separately) what concentration of radioactive substance it must contain before it is to be regarded as "radioactive material" for the purposes of this Bill. This is done in the new Schedule, and subsection (5) of the new clause, which I am now moving, enables the Schedule to be amended if other naturally radioactive materials come into common use, or if developments in scientific knowledge make some alteration of the specified limits of concentration desirable.
The concentrations specified in the new Schedule are, as regards the liquid and gaseous forms, about one-tenth of those which informed opinion regards as capable of being ingested for a lifetime without harm, and they take into account the fact that the International Commission on Radiological Protection is likely to publish revised maximum permissible levels shortly. I should perhaps explain that the concentrations are in terms of microcuries per gramme. A curie is the amount of a radionuclide in which 3·7 multiplied by 1010 disintegrations occur per second. I should explain that this disintegration is the process of spontaneous breakdown of nuclei of atoms resulting in the emission of particles. In the case of radium, this amount is one gramme, and in that

209
of strontium-90 about one two-hundredth of a gramme. I should also explain to those of your Lordships who are curious that a mircrocurie, like other micro elements, is one millionth of a curie.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, might I ask the noble Viscount what is the effect of that?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It means that it has a millionth of the amount of radiation that it would have if it was a curie. We had previously attempted to avoid the use of scientific terms, but I would suggest that their introduction in this case is not necessarily a criticism of the Amendments which I support. Those who will have the most need to understand the definition will be technicians using the materials, who will be familiar with the terms used, and they are likely to prefer a scientific and precise definition to one which lawyers had thought out for their own purposes.
As the definition of radioactive waste is linked to the definition of radioactive material, natural radioactive substances whose degree of radioactivity is not sufficient to bring them within the meaning of "radioactive material" will not be caught by the controls over wastes when they are disposed of. We are, in fact, satisfied that substances with concentrations below the level specified would not produce any hazard from radioactivity, no matter what method of disposal was adopted. The opportunity is being taken to simplify the definition of "radioactive waste" in subsection (3). Subsection (4) of the new clause virtually repeats the definition of "mobile radioactive apparatus" which was contained in Clause 18 (3) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Cause 17 insert the said new Clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Amendment, which goes some way into, shall I say, the forest of scientific understanding on this problem. As the Bill is at present drafted, I am advised that it would be almost impossible of operation. The wording would catch virtually all waterwork laboratories, even if they merely evaporated samples which contained artificial radionuclei, from fall-out or from natural sources. If they disposed of the
210
residue after evaporation, the wording of the Bill would catch so many processes as to make the measure almost unworkable. I understand that there have been somewhat prolonged discussions between the Ministry and the representatives of the statutory or local authorities, and I am sure that all of them will be encouraged that the Minister has found it possible to clarify so far as language at present understood permits of such clarification, the definition of what is radioactive material for the purposes of the Bill. It is a valiant attempt, and one can only hope that it will succeed.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to explain a point which is not clear to me, at any rate? I understand this definition as relating to the proportion of radioactive material which there may be in any particular substance, and no doubt the smaller the proportion the less dangerous it is: but does it not make a difference how much of the substance you have? Although the proportion may be the same, the absolute amount of radioactive material depends upon the total quantity of the substance which you are handling; and if you have a thousand times as much of it, you have a thousand times as much radioactive material. I would be grateful if the noble Viscount would explain where the safeguard in this lies.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the truth is that the test of the question is whether it constitutes a hazard. Roast beef is in fact radioactive, and if you had a thousand million carcases of roast beef you would have a quantity of radioactive substance which, taken by itself, would be dangerous; but the fact is that, as it is diluted in the tissues of the roast beef, it is not dangerous. It is therefore thought that if you define the hazard by relation to the concentration you do get an approximation to the real danger. The Dispatch Box from which I am speaking now is radioactive. The point is that the radioactivity is of a very low concentration; and in order to get a quantity whose degree of radioactivity might in itself be dangerous, you would have to get so many Dispatch Boxes that I could not speak from them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Interpretation]:
2.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (3).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it has been suggested that the words "railway wagon" imply the absence of a motive power unit. By substituting "vehicle" for "wagon", the provisions of subsection (5) will apply to any railway vehicle, whether it has its own motive power or not. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 32, leave out ("wagon") and insert ("vehicle").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the new paragraph (b) excludes from the application of the Bill any premises used to house a nuclear-propelled vessel, so long as the radioactive material in the vessel is there only for the purpose of the nuclear propulsion unit of the vessel. This, of course, lies in the future, but the reason is that radioactive waste from nuclear-propelled ships will need to be considered together with the other safety problems arising from the use of nuclear-propelled ships. The Government have been studying these problems and hope to make an announcement on them very shortly, which will involve separate provision by Parliament. Therefore I think it is better to keep it out of this Bill, as is now proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 32, leave out from ("aircraft") to end of line 33 and insert ("if either—

(a) the vehicle, vessel or aircraft is on those premises in the course of a journey, or

(b) in the case of a vessel which is on those premises otherwise than in the course of a journey, the material is used in propelling the vessel or is kept in or on the vessel for use in propelling it.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment is purely drafting. It is to satisfy the scientific purists who claim that radioactivity is a physical phenomenon which,
212
strictly speaking, should not be described in terms of concentration, although it nearly always is. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 2, leave out ("an increased concentration of") and insert ("increased").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Northern Ireland]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I am told that it will make sure that the expenses incurred by the Ministry of Health and Local Government for Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland will be met out of moneys provided by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and not, as in Clause 16, by the Parliament in Westminster. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 14, at beginning insert ("except in section sixteen of this Act,").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the new Schedule, which I have already explained.
Amendment moved—
After the Second Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—

("SPECIFIED ELEMENTS

Element

Microcuries per gramme

Solid

Liquid

Gas or vapour

1. Actinium

1×10-5

2×10-6

7×10-11

2. Lead

1×10-5

1×10-7

3×10-9

3. Polonium

1×10-5

7×10-7

6×10-9

4. Potassium

9×10-4

2×10-5

3×10-6

5. Protoactinium

1×10-5

9×10-7

3×10-11

6. Radium

1×10-5

1×10-8

1×10-9

7. Radon

—

—

1×10-6

8. Thorium

1×10-5

1×10-6

6×10-10

9. Uranium

1×10-4

2×10-5

2×10-9")

—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the House has made such excellent expedition with the Radioactive Substances Bill that I understand that we have caught my noble friend Lord Dundee slightly by surprise. I trust that he will very soon be here. I can only apologise on his behalf for his having detained

213
your Lordships. It is due to the excellent expedition with which your Lordships treated me.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I occupy the short interregnum by saying that I sympathise very much with the Minister, because also have been guilty of absence of mind to-day and must apologise to your Lordships because I was not here in my place for the beginning of Business? I had overlooked that we were meeting at 2 instead of 2.30 o'clock. I hope that the Minister, when he comes, will feel comfort from the fact that somebody else has gone astray.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to tell the noble Viscount that, although we missed him, his noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence made a most admirable substitute and I much enjoyed his speech.
2.54 p.m.

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PAWNBROKERS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DISTRESS FOR RATES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons; agreed to.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL
2.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has now been before Parliament since the beginning of last November, when it was introduced in another place. I think that the most general comment that has been made about the Bill, both by its supporters and by its critics, is that the contents of the Bill are much less important than the use which will be made of the Bill by the Government, and I am sure that that is what will be of most interest to your Lordships.
214
Some redistribution of industry has been the aim of every Government since 1934, and most of the powers contained in this Bill have been possessed by every Government since 1945. We have always had the power of prohibition. We can prohibit a firm from building a new factory or adding to an old one in any place where we do not want more industry by refusing to grant an industrial development certificate. On the other hand, we have always had certain powers of inducement. A firm which agrees to go into a development area may be helped, sometimes by a loan and occasionally by a grant, although grants are given only in exceptional cases. But by far the strongest inducement is the building of the factory by the Government, so that the firm to whom the factory will be rented is relieved from the necessity of raising the capital to pay for it, Since 1945, the total amount of money spent by the Government on factory building in the development areas amounts now to £83½ million, compared with only £17 million in the issue of loans, of which £9 million are loans under the original Act and the other £8 million under what is called the D.A.T.A.C. Act of 1958.
The effectiveness with which these powers can be used must always depend, in some degree, on the economic condition of the country. When industry is expanding rapidly and there is a high rate of industrial investment, it is not so difficult to steer a new industry into the development areas as it is when expansion is slow or when there is a trade recession. An industrial development certificate may be refused to a firm which wants to expand its business in Birmingham and it may be told that we will build a new factory for it on Tyneside instead. If the firm replies that it would prefer not to expand at all rather than go so far away from its own neighbourhood, we may still refuse a certificate on the ground that it is undesirable anyway to add to industrial congestion in the Midlands. But, of course, Tyneside will not get its new factory; and your policy will have a better chance of success when the industry is so keen to expand that it would rather do so a long way off than not to be allowed to expand at all.
I think the greatest challenge to our modern economic policy is the difficulty of reconciling full employment with

215
stable prices, and certainly the greatest curse of our post-war economy has been our all-too-frequent failure to check inflation. If British prices become inflated in a highly competitive world, we shall not be able to earn our living by trade and we shall then have heavy unemployment, not only in the development areas but everywhere. All the recurring balance-of-payments crises, each of which has carried with it a threat to national solvency, have made it difficult to do as much as we should have liked in the development areas. One of the measures taken in 1956 to combat inflation was a temporary reduction of Government building, and progress has always been handicapped by the fear that high Government expenditure as it often does, would add to inflationary pressure. But although our progress has not been so rapid as we could have wished, it has been considerable.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote to your Lordships the example which I happen to know best—namely, the industrial estate at Dundee. At the beginning of the 1950's, Government-financed factories there were already employing 3,000 people; a year or two ago the number had risen to 6,000, and it is now just on 7,000. The new factories now under construction will, it is estimated, employ nearly another 1,000, and under plans which have already been approved, but on which work has not yet begun, it is estimated that a little more than 1,000 additional workers will be employed. There is also one of the largest firms which, without any new licence, is expected to employ a further 700. So that it looks as if, before long, about 11 per cent., or more, of the insured population of Dundee will be employed in Government-financed factories. If we take the country as a whole, the number actually employed now in Government-financed factories in the development areas amounts to 190,000; and the number of people employed or estimated to be employed in privately financed factories which have received industrial development certificates during the same period is a good deal higher—probably about 260,000.
But now, at the beginning of 1960, I think we are entitled to hope that the
216
economic climate is a little more favourable to our purpose. For two years prices have been stable, and for one year industrial production has been rising at a record rate. And while, of course, it is true that the danger of inflation can never be far away, and we have always to be on our guard, as your Lordships know the recent rise in the bank rate was a measure of prevention rather than of cure, and there are reasonable grounds to hope that our economy can now stand, without undue inflationary pressure, not only a fairly high rate of Government expenditure, but also the greatly increased amount of industrial investment in the private sector which is expected. Surely in these circumstances we ought to be able to direct and guide a greater proportion of our new industrial building into the development areas.
The Welsh strip mill at Newport; the Scottish strip mill at Ravenscraig, on which work has begun, and the proposed graving dock at Greenock, on which we hope that agreement may be reached before long, are valued not so much, perhaps, for the direct employment which they will provide as for the ancillary industrial development which we hope will follow them. Of all the larger industries of Great Britain the one which is expanding most rapidly at the moment is the motor trade, and it seems to be doing so with every confidence in its future. If the project which was published a short time ago—although it has not yet been decided upon—to extend Ford's motor works on Merseyside, should be realised, that would be a major contribution to the industrial balance in that particular area. The plans which have been decided on now by the British Motor Corporation to build a double factory at Bathgate, in West Lothian, for the production of tractors and heavy commercial vehicles, and the Rootes Group's plans to establish a branch factory at Linwood, in Renfrewshire, taken together, ought to employ between 8,000 and 9,000 people. Whilst that is only a small step towards fulfilling the need of Scotland, the motor trade is paying high wages; it adds to the purchasing power of any district where it goes and that all helps to persuade other trades to go there, too.
This Bill, my Lords, is not intended to introduce a new policy, but is intended

217
to bring the instruments of our present policy which we already possess more up to date, so that we may be able to take better advantage of the economic opportunity which now presents itself. If I were to explain everything in this Bill I should be reciting a long catalogue of legislative provisions with most of which your Lordships are already familiar, and I think it would be more acceptable to your Lordships if I referred only to the changes which are proposed by the Bill, such as the new building grant, proposed in Clause 3; the new methods, contained in Clause 1, for selecting the development districts, which will no longer be permanently fixed by Statute; the transformation of the industrial estate companies into Management Corporations, in Clauses 8 to 13; and the tightening up in Clause 19 of the conditions under which an industrial development certificate may be refused.
I think that the provision in Clause 3 enabling the Board of Trade to make a building grant amounting to 85 per cent. of the difference between the estimated cost of building a new factory and the estimated selling value of that factory when it is complete, both of which estimates will be made by the district valuer, is perhaps the novel feature of this Bill. For the first three years or so after the war, most of the Government building done in the development areas consisted of advance factories, built to some standard design, without knowing who was going to be the tenant or what kind of machinery was to be put inside them. Since it was almost impossible at that time to get any building done at all, these advance Government factories were very popular, and they went very well. Later on, when building became easier and quicker, the prospective occupiers naturally preferred that the Government should provide them with factories built to their own specification and designed to suit their own particular needs. And that is almost universal practice now.
The year before last the Government were strongly pressed by the Party opposite—and, perhaps I ought to add, in a much more humble way by myself before I was a member of the Government—to start building more of these advance factories. Our argument was that it would put the Government in a stronger position if they could say to a
218
firm: "Look, if you agree to go to that development area we have there a new factory that is all ready for you, and you can have it to-morrow if you will do what we want." As your Lordships may remember, the argument against that idea was that the time it takes to build a factory now is about the same time that it takes for the firm to order its machinery and to put it in, so that you do not save so very much time. But the Government agreed last year to build three advance factories as an experiment—one is at Coatbridge, another is on Merseyside, while Anglesey was chosen as the site for the Welsh one. These factories are being built, I should say, mainly for psychological reasons, in much the same way as you may put a china egg into the nest of a henhouse—not because you think the china egg is ever going to turn into a chicken, but because you think it will have a good psychological effect on the hen, which will think that this is obviously the right place to start operations. These three advance factories are now nearing completion, and I am afraid that so far there is not the faintest sign of anybody wanting to occupy them. But I am glad that they are being built, and I hope that they will eventually prove to be more fertile than the china egg.
Factories built by the Government are either let on a long lease to the occupier or sold by instalments over a long period, like a building society house. We now think that there are some firms who would prefer to be given a third choice by having the chance of building their own factory with the aid of a Government grant. We have therefore put this provision in the Bill, because we want to cater for the preferences of all kinds of industries who are willing to take the risk of going where we want them to go. The extent to which this provision is likely to be used cannot be estimated, I think, until we have seen how it works in practice. Suppose that the current rent of a factory in a neighbourhood happened to be 3s. 6d. a foot, and suppose that the district valuer's figure of a reasonable economic cost for building the factory was one which required a rent of 5s. 6d. a foot, to meet all the charges we would presumably then value the selling price of the factory at about two-thirds of the cost of building it, and 85 per cent. of

219
the remaining one-third would be rather more than 25 per cent. of the building cost. But that is only a guess. No doubt most firms, after they have obtained estimates from the district valuer, will want to work out very carefully, before they make their decision, the financial results of both alternatives.
I rather doubt whether the changes proposed in the first clause of the Bill on the selection of development districts are quite so far-reaching as they are sometimes supposed to be. Up to now the geographical frontiers of the development areas have been fixed by Statute under the Act of 1945. When the last Distribution of Industry Act was introduced in 1958, there had been some changes in the pattern of industry. There were some places—maybe a large area like Cornwall, or a small town like Stranraer—outside the development areas, where the percentage of unemployment appeared to be abnormal and a good deal above the national percentage for Great Britain as a whole. On the other hand, there were some sections of the development areas—not very large, but appreciable; places like Middlesbrough, for instance—which no longer appeared to need special treatment under the Act.
The Government dealt with that situation by leaving the frontiers of the development areas alone—the Board of Trade, of course, was under no obligation to use the Act, and was not, in fact, using it in areas like Teeside, where it seemed no longer to be necessary—and a supplementary list of places was introduced which became eligible for certain advantages. These are known as D.A.T.A.C. areas, because the loans for industry were given on the advice of the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee. Quite a lot has been done under the 1958 Act, but it has also created a great deal of confusion, even in the minds of well-informed people who have to co-operate locally in administering the Act and who find it extra-ordinarily difficult to grasp the distinction between a development area and a D.A.T.A.C. area. Certainly there seems to be no very good reason for preserving this distinction.
The Government have felt that it would be simpler and more realistic not to have development areas permanently defined
220
by Statute, but to empower the Board of Trade to use the provisions of the Act in any place in any part of the country where unemployment is high, or where unemployment is expected to become high, and also in places which are within "travel to work" distance of such areas. In the last resort, the selection—that is, the interpretation of this clause—must depend upon the opinion of the Board of Trade; and, therefore, Parliament is naturally concerned to define its intentions very carefully, so that the Board of Trade should be in no doubt about them; and a great deal of time was spent in another place discussing Amendments to Clause 1. I think we know pretty well what we all want. We all want to get as many industries as possible, of any kind, into the industrial belt of Scotland; into Tyneside; into South Wales; and into other places with high percentages of unemployment. In the Scottish Highlands, we want to get as many industries as may be suitable and acceptable to conditions there. We all want to bring in as many places as need help, hut, at the same time, we all realise that if we make the list too wide then the butter will be spread too thin.
We want, of course, greater diversification of industry in these development areas. That has always been a prime object of our policy, and after very long discussion in another place an Amendment was introduced inserting the word "diversification" in Clause 1 (1) of this Bill. But I hope the Board of Trade will not take that too literally, because if they did it might mean they would feel bound to refuse to allow an industry to go into a development area on the ground that another industry of the same kind was already there and Parliament intended them to wait until they could get some different kind of industry to come along. That is not what we want the Board of Trade to do at all, and it is an example of the possible dangers that may attend over-definition. I would suggest to your Lordships that the present wording of this clause as it has left another place is probably the best definition we are likely to get of the intentions which we all have in mind.
The administration of our policy under this Bill will now be a matter entirely for the Board of Trade. The Treasury will no longer have any part in it, and the Development Areas Treasury Advisory

221
Committee will now become the Board of Trade Advisory Committee. As for the industrial estates, which are the agents of the Board of Trade in carrying out our policy, they are at present limited by Statute in their work to the existing frontiers of the development areas. Now that the Board of Trade is seeking powers to acquire property in any part of England or Scotland or Wales, we have to alter the character of these agents of the Board. It is proposed to convert them into Management Corporations. In England the three existing Industrial Estates Companies are to be merged into one Management Corporation. In Scotland and in Wales there is only one Estate Company in each, so that they will not have to be merged with anything. There will be one Management Corporation for Scotland and one for Wales. I am very glad to say that Sir Robert Maclean, the present Chairman of Scottish Industrial Estates, who has done such very good work as Chairman, has agreed to be chairman of the new Management Corporation into which the old Estate Company will be converted. In England, Mr. Sadler Forster has agreed to become Chairman of the English Corporation. He is at present chairman of the North Eastern Industrial Estate Company which manages our policy in Tyneside. In Wales, the Chairman will be Captain H. Leighton Davis, who has previously been on the Board of the Steel Company of Wales, and who is also Chairman of the Welsh Board for Industry. I am very glad that these gentlemen have accepted the work, which is of such very great importance. They are all people of very long experience, and I should like to thank them and all their colleagues for the work which they have already been doing in the different capacity of the Industrial Estate Companies.
The industrial development certificates are dealt with in Part II of this Bill. At present it is not necessary to apply for an industrial development certificate unless the proposed extension is more than 5,000 square feet, and it is possible to evade the necessity of making any applications if you are able to make a large number of additions each a little less than 5,000 square feet which go on cumulatively time after time. Clause 19 of the Bill closes this loophole, and it also provides that it will in future be necessary to apply for an industrial deve-
222
lopment certificate if you wish to convert a non-industrial building into an industrial one. We are often asked whether we now intend to be more tough in administering these industrial development certificates, and some critics have even suggested that we should make a rule not to allow any new industrial building at all in great congested areas like the London conurbation. We cannot go quite so far as to say that, but it is our intention to use our powers under this Part of the Bill is such a way as to ensure that as many new factories as are reasonably practicable will go into the development areas.
A number of minor changes are made by the Bill, such as the widening of the definition of derelict areas (which appears in Clause 5), the power to erect buildings on land not owned by the Government (which is in Clause 2), the relaxation of the conditions under which grants and loans may be issued (which have previously been rather rigorous), and a few other provisions with which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships at the moment. As I shall be replying to the debate, I shall have an opportunity of hearing any questions on which your Lordships would particularly desire to have further information.
I am very glad indeed that I am being followed from the Front Bench opposite by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who has taken a lifelong interest in the subject before your Lordships, not only in this House but for a long time as Member for Ince in the other place. Many of your Lordships, including myself, often debated this subject there with the noble Lord more than twenty years ago. In those years, unemployment in the country as a whole was usually somewhere between 12 and 20 per cent., and in the special areas, as they were called then, sometimes 30 per cent., and sometimes 40 per cent. I remember one place where at one particular time it went as high as 70 per cent. Now, the average for the country as a whole is a little under 2 per cent. It is unusual when it rises above 5 or 6 per cent., even in development areas. But that does not mean that the problem has been solved or that its solution does not deserve our highest endeavours.
I should be very surprised if the noble Lord in his speech were to express unqualified satisfaction with the rate of

223
progress which has been so far achieved. Nor, indeed, should anybody express satisfaction so long as it is possible to do better. The term of this Bill is seven years. That does not mean that we think nothing more will have to be done after seven years. It means that we think it probable that before seven years have elapsed we shall need to review our legislation once more. The problem may not be solved, probably will not be solved, in seven years. But although we may not finally achieve our objective in that time, I think it is possible that before the term of this Bill has expired the new standards of industrial prosperity which have been evident for some time now in the Midlands and in the south east of England may be visibly, and, I hope, rapidly, extending themselves into all other industrial parts of Great Britain. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, may I at once express my appreciation of the fine reference that the noble Earl made to myself. He and I have dealt with this question for well over a quarter of a century. We have oft-times agreed, but there have been occasions when we have disagreed. I was pleased that in his presentation of this Second Reading he has shown a little enthusiasm for the Bill. That was as he used to be in another place. I have looked word for word through the debate in another place, and I have been amazed at the lack of enthusiasm for the Bill on the part of the supporters of the Government. Let me add at once that I was also, not amazed, but I did notice that even the Opposition did not show any raging, righteous indignation against the Bill. I began to wonder why there was this lack of enthusiasm on the part of Government supporters and lack of indignation on the part of the Opposition. What kind of a Bill was it? I looked at it most carefully. This is really a machinery Bill—to hand over machinery to the Board of Trade to utilise in the way that they think best from their point of view in the interests of the country.
I wonder now why there is this lack of enthusiasm for the Bill. If there is
224
such great faith in it, why has no keenness been shown about it? I found an explanation which I think your Lordships will be pleased to hear, in looking at a statement made as far back as September 14 of last year by the then President of the Board of Trade. We were not just at that time in the Election period—we had not quite got there, but we knew it was very close. Here is the statement as quoted from the Daily Express of September 14. It was referred to by an Honourable friend of mine in another place, but I think it ought to be on record too in your Lordships' OFFICIAL REPORT. If I read it, it may give your Lordships some idea of the disappointment, as I see it, of the supporters of the Government. It says:
"Sir Davis Eccles, President of the Board of Trade, will to-morrow reveal full details of a 'revolutionary' Tory plan for tackling unemployment. A new Bill embodying it is already drafted. If the Tories win the Election, this will be the biggest and most important measure they will put through in the opening Session of the next Parliament. Sir David will announce the plan in a speech at Heywood, Lancashire"—
that was quite a good place to choose—
"He told me last night: 'It brings a totally new approach to the problem. We intend to tackle unemployment with the methods of mobile warfare'. The chief need, said Sir David, 'was no longer to provide aid for large development areas. Unemployment was now mostly concentrated in small pockets. 'Our aim is to bring them quick remedies—and in particular to attract the really big firms to the spot. You can't do that by bullying or direction. I believe our plan will make it really worth while for big concerns to come in and stay in'. Inducements to the firms to open up in the black spots' will, I understand, include subsidised rents and big capital grants."
That is what the Tory Party put out before the Election. One can understand the lack of enthusiasm of the Tory Party in the House of Commons. What comes along is this Bill—a tame, timid, tepid attempt to deal with a most difficult problem. That is what they got as a "revolutionary Tory plan". That brought forth something very strange when I saw this Bill. I could well understand how it achieved its purpose, in that speech and in other speeches. The Tory Party were returned, and now we are dealing with this difficult problem. I am not one to minimise the magnitude of the problem. It is a most difficult one.

225
With regard to the lack of indignation on the part of the Labour Opposition in another place. I tried to explain that to myself also. I did not consult anybody in the other place; I simply came to my own conclusion that they said to themselves, "If this is the best they can do, whilst it may be a feeble, futile effort, why should we do anything to hinder it? Let us wish it luck and let them go on with it." That is what they did to a large extent—just hoped for the best. Before I deal with some of the principles in the Bill there are one or two small matters I would refer to, including one which the noble Earl mentioned. Why this period of seven years? What is there in the figure seven? Why make it a temporary Bill? Why not leave it as one leaves an ordinary Bill? Why not remove the seven and leave it alone? Then Parliament, in its wisdom, can decide whether or not it ought to continue. I cannot understand why the figure is put in. It may be that it should be less than seven. It may be that it will require a longer period. Why make it a temporary measure? Leave it alone, and leave it to the Government to decide whether or not it is worth continuing.
The other point concerns the list which has now been published. I should like the noble Earl to tell me why the President of the Board of Trade was so reluctant to tell another place what the districts were to be. The moment the Bill was brought from another place the President gave them. The list is here—and a very big list it is. England, Scotland and Wales are all here. Yesterday in Cardiff I had not had the list, so I asked somebody to contact the Board of Trade in Cardiff and to inquire whether they could supply me with the list then available. This they did, and I was told that it was a more extended list than that given to the House of Commons a fortnight to-day. That list had not lasted long; it had now been added to within the fortnight. I noticed that the only place mentioned in North West Wales was Rhyl. In the new list we have Rhyl and Prestatyn, which is where I live. Looking over my shoulder my friend said, "There you are; they are spiking your guns straight away. They have put in Prestatyn." I do not think that that place would be inserted in that way, but I am anxious to know why Rhyl and
226
Prestatyn are the only places mentioned in North West Wales. There is much discontent in some parts of the North West because they are not included. A deputation from Wrexham will be seeking to be received by the President of the Board of Trade, to know why they are not included.
I should like to know why the Minister did not make this list known earlier. What was he afraid of? Was he afraid that each Member of Parliament would look at the Bill and say, "This place is in my Division but it is not on the list", and that they would all make speeches and thus prolong the debate in another place? The House of Commons were entitled to know before in fact they did. What is happening now? To-day there is another debate on this issue of the list, and we in your Lordships' House can now deal with the question, including the list. We can comment on this list, but our colleagues in another place could not do so. I do not quite understand why the President was so reluctant in making the disclosure to another place. But here we are, and we have the Bill.
What do we expect from this Bill? We have had legislation since 1945, when there was a National Government, and this Bill was largely sponsored in the House at that time by a noble Lord who I am sorry is not present here today—my noble friend Lord Dalton. He could have spoken on this Bill with more authority than any of us. We are told in the first sentence of the Explanatory Memorandum what the Bill does:
"The Bill repeals the Distribution of Industry Acts, 1945 to 1958,"
Earlier in his remarks the noble Earl referred to the need for efficient administration. I would submit that had the Acts of Parliament now on the Statute Book been administered efficiently up to date, we should not need this Bill; and this Bill will serve no useful purpose whatever if it is administered in the same happy-go-lucky way that previous legislation has been administered. We depend entirely upon administration, and in fact the whole Bill is arranged in that way.
What is the problem? We have in different parts of the country, as the noble Earl has said, numbers of unemployed, men who have spent their lives in certain areas and who are today out of

227
work and with no prospects of getting work. Someone has to help them to find work. How are we to help? We are to say to industry: "There are these hard-hit areas in North Wales. Is there a chance of your going over there to help them out?" What is the first question the industrialist will ask? It is the first question that I myself would ask if I was in industry: "Is it worth it?" Is it worth my while? Do not forget that remote places in North Wales are a long way from my market, and that means that the cost of carriage and my general costs are increased. What about it?" I am not blaming the industrialists for saying that, and the first essential is to convince them that it will pay them to go there. If we fail to convince them they will not go. What will be the result? The areas specified in this list vary from centres of populous areas to the remotest areas, and the cost is greater the further industrialists move away from their markets, so that the last places to get attention will be those which are likely to cost the most.
Her Majesty's Government say they will try to persuade industrialists to move. I noticed that the right honourable gentleman the Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke) who was in Cardiff yesterday (though I did not meet him there) told people in Cardiff that Her Majesty's Government wanted to see more industry coming into the Cardiff area; but Cardiff is not on this list at all. We outside our capital city in Wales have no objection whatever to industry going to the Cardiff area, but we say that this Bill is to help areas outside the Cardiff area and that it is not to help that type of area at all. There is no need for the right honourable gentleman the Minister or anyone else to urge industry to go to the Cardiff area because industrialists will go there for the same reason that they will go anywhere else—because it pays them to do so.
It is very difficult indeed to attract industry to some of the remote areas and I do not believe that this Bill is going to do it. One does not want to make gloomy forecasts now. I want to give this Bill a perfect chance, and if and when it is in operation I will help it on its way if I can do so, so as to get factories in remote places, in North
228
Wales in particular, but throughout the United Kingdom. We should not try to make this a Bill to serve the interests of particular local authorities except in areas hit by local unemployment.
The £5 2s. a week that is paid to thousands of unemployed men, covering themselves, their wife and two children, means 4 very substantial lowering of their standard of life, as we should bear in mind; and I have always thought it unfair that so much of the burden of unemployment should fall on a certain section and that the rest of us should not carry much. We carry some of the burden in taxation and insurance contributions, but we put the heaviest burden on those few hundreds of thousands. I am hoping that the day will dawn when their share of the burden of unemployment will be no more than ours. If we can find them work, well and good; if not, the burden of unemployment which they carry—a very heavy share—should not be as heavy as it is.
Those men are not only deprived of £5 or £6 a week but they have many undertakings, with television and various gadgets bought for the house. One cannot blame them for that, because they got them when wages were good. When there are no wages they cannot keep up the payments, and so back must go the television and other things, when there is only £5 2s. a week for a man and his wife and two children. What in the world is that amount worth in these days? The noble Earl referred to the importance of stable prices. Ask these men—they will tell you how important stable prices are.
I am certain that the money going to keep thousands of men on that amount of pay could be utilised to better advantage than it is. There is a personal friend of mine, a man who worked shoulder to shoulder with me underground, who came out of work months ago. He is in his fifties and has no chance at all of getting a job. We must consider whether this Bill will bring work to the areas where the unemployed workers are, or will persuade those workers to go from where they are to where the work is. It must be one or the other. There is one noble Lord who could have spoken from past experience with great authority on this—the noble Lord, Lord Adams. He made a great contribution

229
during his work in the North West, and in Cumberland in particular.
We must find some way by which work will go to these people. I do not want to see remote areas in Wales, areas of beauty, with nobody there because it does not pay industry to go there. But I am afraid this Bill is not going to do what we want. I hope that it does. I must say I welcome the provision for getting the worker to areas where work is available, if we cannot bring work to the workers in their own districts. But, speaking for Wales—and others will speak for other parts of the country—that means that thousands must leave their native land in order to get a job. Thousands have done that before, of course. In the last century my parents landed in Lancashire from North Wales for the very same reason—there was no job in North Wales but there was a job waiting in Lancashire, so my father went there, and there we stayed. There are times when the choice has to be made but I want to ask: to what extent does this Bill make provision should that removal have to take place?
There are those who sometimes say that the Welsh people are being driven from Wales. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, whom I am very pleased to see with us to-day, has tramped Wales, north, south, east and west, trying to find out the problems and to discover any solution. He has had a very difficult job. I remember when the predecessor of the present Minister for Welsh affairs—now the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—also tramped Wales. In the last ten years there is no part of Wales that has not been seen or heard of by Ministers responsible for Welsh affairs. Their knowledge of Wales cannot be added to. There is no need for any more tramping to get knowledge, for they have the knowledge.
I want to ask: How far will this Bill help them deal with difficult problems in the quarry areas of North Wales? In North Wales are some of the finest men in Britain, out of work; and they will remain out of work—except for some electricity works on which a number of them are employed at the moment. I do not believe that young Welsh men and women are being driven from their homes. We may try to force them out, but circumstances in these areas are such
230
that something has to be done if we are to keep them there. I am not going to refer to the Bill in any detail in that sense. That will be done later on, I expect, on Committee or Report stage. But I am sorry that the Bill at the moment seems to reveal the thought that a little playing about here and there is going to solve the problem.
I believe, as I have said already, that it is no use appealing to industrialists and saying, "Will you take a part of your industry to Anglesey?" We tried that. I went with a deputation to meet the Mayor of Birmingham and others to find out whether they would come and help. They came and dined in Anglesey. There were a lot of inquiries. We were turned down. Why? For the same reason that most people turned us down: because there was no security for their investment. I do not expect a man to invest labour or skill or money in industry without the likelihood of a return. I do not expect it, and no one in his senses would. But the Government have a responsibility outside all three.
What I feel is this. If the Bill is necessary, I want something more drastic than this. And I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for a definite undertaking that the administration of this Bill from the time when it becomes an Act will be different from the administration of the previous Acts. We are talking about going forward seven years. Look back over the last seven years. Acts have been in existence the whole of the time and have not been used. They will go; they will be replaced by this Bill. The only hope is that the administration will be more effective and more efficient.
Do remember those who are unemployed. Though they may be few in number, they feel unemployment keenly. I agree with the noble Earl: when he and I were on the job 25 years ago the position was terrible. I remember in those days going to the South Wales valley. A man met me at the station to take me to a meeting place. I said, "Are you working?" He said, "No." I said, "Are you married?" He replied that he was. I asked him whether he had any children, and he said he had two. I said, "What was your job?", and he replied, "I have never worked since I left school". That was the position then, and the noble Earl says that

231
it has improved. Indeed, it has improved; it has improved immensely. But there are still thousands of unemployed people. And do not let us forget that unemployment is a dreadful experience. I was very fortunate; I never experienced it; but many of my friends did. I was at a coalfield that did not close and kept me going. But the feeling of a man who is unemployed is that he is not wanted. It is a dreadful feeling. I want work for all. I do not think this Bill will provide it, but I hope that it will be used in the best possible way to try to provide it. We on these Benches have no intention of dividing on the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.54 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, as this Bill comes to us from another place it seems to me not inappropriate to look at one or two of the things that happened to it in the other House. To me, the most surprising thing was to discover that on Second Reading there were no fewer than four maiden speeches, and all were consecutive, so that each maiden speaker after the first had to start by congratulating his predecessor. There should have been three maiden speeches to-day. I may say that I came here in the hope of listening to my very old friend Lord Dalton. But as we have only two maiden speeches, I am glad to see they are not consecutive, and so the maiden speakers will not have to congratulate one another.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I explain that Lord Dalton, unfortunately, will be absent for a few days with an infected throat. His absence is due to indisposition.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I am glad that that has been explained. I knew it, but I am very glad that the noble Viscount has made that clear.
I came here to-day to hear others speak on this subject, and therefore I shall be very brief. I am going to concentrate upon one question, which was raised also in the other place and which has in fact been raised by my predecessor in the debate in this House. This Bill repeals the Distribution of Industry Acts of 1946 to 1958 and replaces them by a Local Employment Act. In
232
all the world, why not amend the old Acts? And may I say, why not keep the old, much better and less narrow name? The old Acts were introduced with two very distinct and definite purposes. One aim or purpose of this Bill is to secure a proper distribution of industry over the country, especially in areas where there is a special danger of unemployment. The Bill is directed against unemployment, but that is one purpose only. Another aim has been stated—the aim not of developing industry but of controlling industrial development where that seems to be desirable for economic, social or strategic reasons.
What I want to suggest to this House is that bad distribution of industry has two possible evils, not one only: not merely the fear of local unemployment, but the fear of congestion and conurbation of the great cities into which the citizens move from the places where there is unemployment. This Bill, by its Title—the Local Employment Bill—is obviously aimed at preventing unemployment and not at the prevention of congestion and conurbation. I am going to suggest that conurbation, when it means workers spending endless time as straphangers, is almost as demoralising as unemployment. After all, the straphanger can do nothing except push his elbow into his neighbour. The unemployed man can look after the baby; he can do the garden; he has something to do. Nobody in this House will think that I underrate the evils of unemployment. But I want to say that I rate much more highly than some people do the evils of conurbation and endless travelling to and from one's work. And this Bill, by its Title—by its very Title—suggests that it is to deal with one thing only and not both things.
What I should like to ask on that question, among other things, is this. A good deal of play has been made of the enormous powers of the industrial development certificate. May I have an assurance that that certificate will apply to the erection of offices; will be able to lay down conditions for the making of more and more offices in the heart of London, or any other great city, which is going to cause more and more congestion and conurbation? I hope that is what is intended, and I ask for that quite explicit statement. That is really the one point which I want to make. I

233
hope that the Government will, in practice, make this Bill, which looks like a Bill for clearing up pockets of unemployment, effective against unemployment and congestion alike, as the repealed Acts were intended to be.
One of the things I was most delighted to hear from the noble Earl who introduced the Bill was the statement that there was to be no change of policy because of the change of name. Can he get that into the heads of the officials of the Board of Trade? Because I know officals: I have been an official of the Board of Trade myself. Let there be no change of policy. Under this new name (which, for some strange reason, this Government prefer to the other name) let them do exactly as they could have done, and would have done, under the old Acts. My Lords, this is a tiny island with a large population, and with appalling facilities of travel and traffic. We should not allow the location of industry, and so the living places of our workpeople and their dependants, to be determined by a free play of forces and irrelevant interests, irrelevant, that is, to their real happiness.
4.1 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships for the first time, and I would crave your indulgence. I wish to speak on this Bill as it affects Scotland, and with particular reference to the industrial belt, of which I have an intimate knowledge, where, in spite of the efforts of successive Governments, of local authorities, of voluntary bodies and of private individuals, the overall figure of unemployment still stands at double that for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Since the war I have been engaged in heavy industry, and during these thirteen or fourteen years I have seen for myself the extent to which Scotland depends upon heavy industry for her prosperity. At this stage I must declare an interest in this Bill as a director of a company which is receiving a Government loan to widen and increase its activities by the building of a new strip mill at Ravenscraig in Lanarkshire. Being aware of Scotland's dependence on heavy industry, I have seen how the pattern of these industries is changing, and why there is a particularly pressing need to diversify existing industries and to attract new ones of a different type altogether.
234
I do not wish to create the impression in this House that the future of the heavy type of industry is gloomy, but one must take note of facts. To mention only two, the shipbuilding industry is facing a period of very intense competition, and the pattern of the coal-mining industry is rapidly changing. The many firms which are suppliers to these two great industries are looking to their future, and are naturally considering ways and means of broadening the scope of their own operations; and they are doing this in order to keep their factories and workpeople fully occupied. It is true that in the last ten years great strides have been made in Scotland to build up a pattern of new industries, but even now only a small number of these are producing goods for the private consumer.
Last summer the third Scottish Industries Exhibition since the war was staged, and, as vice-chairman of the committee running that exhibition, I had the opportunity to meet many industrialists and Government representatives from at home and overseas. They were unanimous in expressing surprise and pleasure at the increase and the variety of goods displayed which were made in Scotland. Those who had visited the two previous exhibitions especially remarked on the progress that had been made in this direction in recent years. The pattern is therefore obviously changing, and there is now, as never before, an awareness in all quarters that the future prosperity of Scotland depends on making a still greater effort to widen the range of her industries. The steady rise in the standards of living of the people at home, the challenge of new markets in Europe and the development of overseas territories, mean that vast new markets are being created for domestic and consumer durable goods. Up until now, Scotland has not produced her share for these expanding markets. That is why to-day her industrial capacity is not being used to the full and she is not sharing to the same extent in the prosperity of the United Kingdom as a whole.
A completely new range of possibilities will shortly be opened up when steel sheet and strip become available from the new plant at Ravenscraig. Now, however, is the time to interest

235
and attract companies which can establish manufactures based on this material; and in this task of attracting new industries we must not be put off or discouraged by those who magnify the disadvantages of manufacturing in such a far-off place as Scotland. While I should be the first to admit that there are certain cases where there are difficulties, these are not insurmountable, and they can to a considerable extent be offset by suitable Government action and assistance. The fact that, in the last few years, a very considerable number of new firms have set up in Scotland in the industrial estates and elsewhere, and have made a success of their operations, shows clearly that Scotland is indeed an economic base for successful productions and for export trading.
It is because of these developments, and because there is a mood ripe for further exploitation, that I welcome this Bill in general terms. I hope and believe that, with certain alterations and modifications, and provided that it is efficiently administered, it will supply a powerful instrument in the hands of the Government to encourage the setting up of new factories and the creation of new opportunities for employment in those areas which are most in need of them. It would be inappropriate for me, as a maiden speaker and as one who is only too well aware that there are many noble Lords in this House with great experience in such matters, to deal with the Bill in detail. It has been framed as a single instrument to replace a number of earlier measures in the light of the changing economic situation of the country. It is designed to concentrate specifically on the problem of high-level unemployment, and in that it may be too limited as it stands just now—although, of course, this may be amended, and no doubt will be the subject of further discussion.
However, the point which I wish to make—and I am speaking as an industrialist myself—is that the Bill seems to me to be lacking in the definition of the facilities available. In general, it does not recognise that selling is an essential factor in the attraction of new industrial development to particular areas. By that I do not mean that it is desirable or even necessary to present an exaggerated or inaccurate picture of the facilities
236
offered, or of the economic attractions of the areas concerned, to possible investors. However, I know from my own experience of meeting with manufacturers who are planning new development that it is essential to provide for them a positive and precise statement of all the advantages which in fact exist. This must be done in terms and in a manner which carry conviction to the prospective investor. Manufacturers, like others, have more demands upon their time than they can readily satisfy. They therefore respond most favourably to those who take the greatest trouble in presenting the facts of the case, and to those who are able to state these facts specifically and in a form in which their financial value can be quickly measured. To overlook this essential element of selling is to ignore facts and, to my mind, to endanger the value of the facilities which are being provided by this Bill. It seems to me that, as present drafted, the procedure for determining rent levels and grants is too cumbersome and is not in accord with the best practices of salesmanship.
The Government are continually urging, and with justification, manufacturers to sell their products vigorously in the world markets. The situation in respect of attracting industry to those areas in which it is desired it should exist is precisely analogous. As your Lordships are aware, this Bill is designed to make it attractive to manufacturers to set up new plants in the areas where there is high unemployment. It is not only firms from this country for which we wish to create these conditions; it is also to attract investment from abroad. In Scotland, we are only too well aware that we are not the only country which is likely to be considered by potential manufacturers from overseas. The element of competition in this field is increasing constantly. In the United States, for example, vigorous compaigns to attract manufacturers are now being prosecuted on the greatest scale by most of the European Continental countries, by countries of the British Commonwealth, by the South American States and by many others.
In circumstances such as these, only energetic initiative in the presentation of the precise advantages that Britain can offer, and willing service in pursuing these offers, will achieve for us an

237
appropriate share of the market of potential investors. I am concerned lest this Bill fail to have the desired effect, not because of the facilities which, in its final form, it would offer, but because I feel that there may be lacking a sense of urgency and an element of salesmanship in the presentation of these facilities. I hope that more consideration may be given to this point.
4.13 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am particularly glad to speak in the debate at this moment because it enables me, on behalf of your Lordships' House, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, on a lucid, well-informed and interesting speech. Many of your Lordships will remember his father in this House and others will remember him in another place as John Colville, one of the greatest Secretaries of State for Scotland we have had. He was a man who gave himself selflessly for Scotland, for his country and for the Commonwealth, and his son is following in his footsteps, both in business and in service to his country. He modestly referred to the part he played in the Scottish Industries Exhibition last year, but I know how very great that part was. I hope that his business and public duties will allow him to come and make many more speeches to us.
While endorsing everything that my noble friend has just said, I should like to say a little more about the question of local employment. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, told us in introducing the Bill, there are a few parts of the country which have not shared fully in the prosperity which the past fifteen years has brought us. Those of us who are deeply concerned with these parts of the country must surely be grateful to the Government for taking a new look at this problem. I think that we should remember that the greatest credit must go to the former President of the Board, Sir David Eccles, for the work he did in laying the foundations of this measure in the last Parliament. For a long time some of us have been pressing for a new look at the policy for the distribution of industry. But some of the credit must undoubtedly go to the electorate in the areas concerned, which last October gave an unmistakable hint that it was time for something new to be done.
238
There are, on one extreme, those who believe that industry should be free to develop exactly when and where it wants, without any restraint or encouragement: the workers would have to go where there is work and not the work to the workers. In this small and crowded island, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, so aptly put it, we cannot afford such a policy. Through lack of work, some areas would decline to a point where the communities were no longer viable and living standards there would decline disastrously.
On the other extreme, there are those who would direct industry to places where it is needed. In this small island, which has to maintain a highly competitive position in world trade, I do not believe that that is possible. I think that there is a point to be made here on the question of the competitive disadvantages of certain areas. I think that too often these are exaggerated, either through ignorance or through prejudice through ignorance of the advantages which exist, and which could be made available to industry, or through prejudice against moving into a strange and unknown part of the country.
I consider that the right course is a middle one between these two extremes, one of encouraging industry in these areas by dispelling the ignorance and prejudice, and by giving enough inducement to overcome such genuine disadvantages as there are, though often they will be only initial disadvantages. This is a task not for Government alone or for industry alone. The Government have big responsibilities, but so have industry, the local authorities, the trade unions and many others. I think that we are fortunate in Scotland in having a body which focuses the opinions and efforts of all these, in the form of the Scottish Council, of which I am privileged to be the chairman, and so are other parts of the country fortunate in their respective development bodies.
The most significant part of this Bill, I believe, is its Title and the Title of the Acts which it repeals. It is the Local Employment Bill, and it repeals the Distribution of Industry Acts. Other noble Lords have fastened on this point. While the noble Earl who introduced the Bill said that it implied no change of policy, all I can say is that I sincerely hope that it does imply some change of policy. I also am not entirely satisfied that the Bill

239
is going to achieve all we hope. The Government's efforts have to be concentrated on ambulance work for the employment "black spots." That is something of which we must unreservedly approve. But this alone is not going to get rid of the economic malaise from which some of these parts of the country are suffering. There are many other problems—declining industries, towns that have only a single industry and parts of the country that are suffering from a steady drift of population to bigger centres.
In the seven years between 1951 and 1958, for example, Scotland lost by migration to other parts of the United Kingdom no fewer than 54,000 insured workers. Wales lost 33,000, and the North East area of England lost 27,000. At the same time, London, South, South East and East England gained a total of 163,000 insured workers, all by migration from other parts of the country and not by the increase in the total working population. I am certainly not against migration. It has enabled the Scot to exercise a much greater influence on the world than if he had stayed at home, and I think that probably the same goes for some other parts of the country. But if this migration is all in one direction there is no question that it saps the vitality of the place the people leave. To concentrate blindly on figures of unemployment is inevitably a short-term measure and can lead to trouble.
We must all congratulate the Government on their firm stand which has led the motor-car industry to plan to expand in new and untried parts of the country, which I am sure will be for the good of the industry as well as for the good of the place they are going to. But, not surprisingly, there is trouble already. We hear to-day that the Ford Company, not unnaturally, are disturbed at the prospect of finding themselves in the centre of a new Coventry upon Merseyside. It is no good just looking at the number of jobs which these new companies will create and putting them alongside the figures of labour available. You have to look at the highly complex new industry that is bound to be started and built up when you move a major sector of industry into a new area. The Bill does nothing to face these wider problems. Some of them are, as yet, imperfectly understood.
240
We in Scotland set on foot a thorough inquiry into the factors affecting the location of industry in general, not just in Scotland. I do not think that that has been done before. We are grateful to the number of busy men, Englishmen as well as Scotsmen, who are voluntarily giving their time to this research, as well as to the Government for the help they are giving us to carry out this inquiry.
Within its narrower scope there is much in the Bill that I welcome. First must come the fact that all forms of Government help will be available equally in all the districts covered by the Bill. This will make life much easier for those of us who have to deal with this problem. Then there are the arrangements for defining the new development districts, which will be a great deal more flexible than the old development areas. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I think it is a good thing that already some new areas have been added to the schedule, because it shows that it is possible to be flexible and to meet needs as they arise. Then the availability of grants for industrialists who want to build their own factories is, I think, a progressive step and will be welcome, subject to one qualification to which I will come later. The provisions for dealing with derelict and unsightly land are valuable. More and more industrialists are realising the value of working in pleasant surroundings. This is a wonderful opportunity to clear up some of our worst industrial eyesores and at the same time to give employment. I also welcome the fact that it will be possible for help to be given to the improvement of basic services, such as transport. I particularly hope that the Government will not be slow to use this power—indeed, that they will use it speedily, because a firm assurance of basic services is needed by an industrialist in an early stage in the planning of any new development.
Having said all that, I must add that there are two matters which cause me some concern. The first is the division of responsibilities and functions which is implied in the Bill and was expounded by the President of the Board of Trade when the Bill was in Committee in another place. He said, first of all, that the question of trying to get firms to go to particular areas by the use of industrial development certificates, on the one

241
hand, and by the use of the inducements in the Bill, on the other, was clearly the responsibility and duty of the Board of Trade. Secondly, he said, he thought that what he called the general promotion and virtue of a particular district was exactly the function of the development councils and development organisations, such as the Scottish, Welsh, Cumberland and North Eastern Councils. At the same time he expressed the hope that these organisations would continue to do their work—and, so far as one of them is concerned, I can at any rate reassure him in that respect.
The third function, he thought, was managing Board of Trade properties in these areas. He added that when the Board of Trade had got industrialists and induced them to consider certain areas, the people running the Board of Trade factories in these areas would be selected by the Board of Trade and could talk to these industrialists in terms which they understood. But he made it clear that the third function was solely to manage these projects. I think this is a grave limitation. I do not propose to go into it further, because my noble friend Lord Bilsland will take it up later on in the debate from a long personal experience of the matter. It does seem to me, however, that the precedent of three categories, while it may look nice and tidy on paper, is a purely theoretical conception and one that could lead to trouble. Do the Board of Trade in fact "get industrialists", as the President of the Board of Trade expressed it? So far as I can see, the Board of Trade can deal only with firms who go to them with a plan to develop and who are already considering development. I do not think they make any attempt to promote the idea of expansion in the minds of industrialists. That is one thing which bodies like ours can and do accomplish.
We go not only to firms in Scotland and England, but to firms in America and on the Continent, seeking out likely firms to expand, encouraging them to do so and suggesting that they come over here. We urgently think about expanding, and we suggest that they should expand in Scotland. But if that does not suit them, we are quite happy for them to go anywhere else in Britain. The general promotion of the virtues of Scotland or anywhere else, I should have thought, was a waste of time and
242
money. We have had a lot of experience, and there is really no such thing as a general selling of a particular area to industry. You can talk generalities, but you cannot sell generalities. You can sell only things which are known and specific; and, of course, as other speakers have said, only to customers and not in a vacuum. We have no intention of confining ourselves to selling generalities. We shall continue to go out looking for companies and trying to induce them to come to Britain and establish themselves. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will abandon the idea of the division of functions and will agree that all parties to this plan should co-operate in the general effort of expanding industry where it is needed.
In some respects we of the private bodies are much better placed than the Board of Trade to seek industry. We probably have a wider range of connections, both here and overseas; we have a specialised knowledge, and also the means to use certain approaches which cannot be done officially. I think that should be encouraged and that we should all work together on this job. I feel that we must give some credit to the Government in this field—namely, on the appointment, which your Lordships may have seen, of an industrial development officer in New York for the attraction of American industry to Britain as a whole. We have been pressing this for a long time, because we have found many people in America expressing surprise that all the other European countries, and countries in other parts of the world, have offices in New York which give them, the American industrialists, all the facilities they can expect, and yet we have not. We are glad that this appointment has been made. I hope that it will receive rather wider publicity in America than it has received in this country, and that the Government will remember the little jingle:
"He who whispers down the well
About the goods he has to sell
Will never earn as many dollars
As he who climbs a tree and hollers."
The noble Lord who spoke before me mentioned the importance of being specific about what we can offer. Let us be quite clear about this. It is all very well to talk about grants for factory buildings of 85 per cent. of the

243
difference between the estimated cost of construction and the district valuer's notional market value. Nobody other than the district valuer can know what that will mean in terms of money. The same applies to rents of Board of Trade factories at market levels, because here again, until the district valuer says what is the market level, nobody knows what he is going to have to pay in shillings per square foot, which is what he wants to know about the factory.
I must say that this involved method of determining grants and rents fills me with some alarm. We are not going to look very sensible going to, say, an American industrialist if we tell him that he can expect to get a factory at a cost of 85 per cent. of the difference between something and something else.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to interrupt, to get clarification? Is he suggesting that the aid the Government are now offering should apply to foreign investors who come to this country?
LORD POLWARTH: Yes, my Lords. I am not aware that Government aid has never been available to foreign investors coming to this country, and I think it is a policy which has been fully justified. Surely, it would be a great deal simpler and more to the point to give a sliding scale of land levels, based on remoteness from the centre. Let us have figures that can be published and made known, so that industrialists know what they can expect.
If I have been somewhat critical of some parts of the Bill, it is not so much because of the Bill itself as because of the limits of its efficacy and some of the thinking which underlies it. Despite this, I believe that it can be of real help in solving one part of this problem of the distribution of industry. As other speakers have said, it is not on the clauses of the Bill itself that it will stand or fall, but on the way in which it is administered. A very heavy responsibility lies, particularly, on the Board of Trade who now virtually control all the areas. They must apply the Bill's provisions, not to reject but with an open mind; not driving the hardest bargain they can, but with a measure of liberality. And they must co-operate openly with the rest of us who are active
244
in this field. If they do so, then I believe the Bill can make a considerable contribution to spreading more fairly through the country the prosperity which the rest now enjoy.
4.32 p.m.
LORD RIVERDALE: My Lords, if I may venture to address your Lordships' House on this Bill, I do so with an industrial background, and with special knowledge of an area with which I am long familiar and, perhaps, naturally familiar. In listening to the debate, I find that I assume common ground on several points. One is the objectives of the Bill. Industry would certainly welcome its success in the sense that a proper, economically successful, industry, with no mass unemployment, in this country, would mean a wider home market and a more solid basis for export effort.
The point has been made more than once in another place that our competitive efficiency is vital to our survival, and the general health of the industrial economy is the broadest basis from which to achieve the objects of the Bill. It is also obvious that the administration of the Bill is the key to its operation and success. I am particularly concerned with the industrial development certificates and their administration. I have the greatest respect and admiration for the officers of the Board of Trade, but somebody must decide whether an industrial development certificate is granted or is not granted, whatever the anonymity with which that is done. It is a difficult task which I should hesitate to undertake myself.
Much attention has been paid, and naturally, in the debates on this Bill, to the areas of high unemployment, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to what are loosely called overspill areas, where industry has attracted the population and congestion has increased. But little has been said about what I might call a strictly normal area. It seems to me that Sheffield, with which I am familiar, is at this moment a strictly normal area. It has greater diversification of industry than it had in the past when, suffering from too much concentration, mass unemployment was well known. Its present position in that respect is better, and it is not one of the areas adduced on either side of the employment figures. It is not, I think,

245
an area which should attract industry in great volume. Indeed, there will be possibly some wastage owing to space for development problems. But against that wastage there must surely be normal development and the normal integration and growth of some rather specialised industries. I think particularly of the medium-sized firms—not the large groups that make the headlines, but the innumerable firms, often specialised, who contribute largely to the economy, to employment as a whole, and to the export trade. They also depend to a great degree on integration and regional rationalisation services with each other; and to leave an area, for an industry of that sort or a unit of the size I have in mind, is a very serious problem. You cannot split management, and you cannot re-create services which have grown up over many years.
It would be a bold man who would say that future development of such a normal area as I have outlined—and I think it is typical of others—would continue on that basis. Who can see what injection of new ideas is necessary to maintain industry in a healthy condition in such an area? Who can see what the long-term effect may be of indigenous manufacture overseas? Who can see what the effect may be of the uncertain outcome of the "Sixes" and "Sevens" in Europe? Whatever that may be, I think there will be many difficult problems in the administration of this Bill in such an area.
Examples are untrustworthy, but may I be permitted one? It is quite possible that a firm may in the past have looked ahead, perhaps for 20 years, in its acquisition of land. It may have developed with a view to future re-equipment, if not expansion, by constructing the nucleus of a new unit—levelling land, applying drainage, building sub-stations, bringing in power, gas or water, and perhaps building the services that a complete new factory will one day need, such as lavatories, wash-houses, canteens, and works offices. If that expansion depends on the future at a rate that cannot be foreseen, how can that expenditure be other than wasted unless the ultimate development in that area is permitted? I appeal, on broad economic grounds, that nothing be done in the administration of this Bill to damage or waste the resources that have been lodged in such a case.
246
I understand that there will be no appeal (or no appeal body) from the decisions on industrial development certificates, and I do not quarrel with that. I think it better that serious consideration should be given in the first place to the responsibility of avoiding causes céelèbres—headlines in the newspapers, Questions in the House. That is perhaps better than an appeal body which might provoke the attitude of mind, "What reason can we find for turning this down? It can always be heard on appeal." I think the practical work might be better without such an appeal body. In taking an instance of what I may term a normal area as against the publicised areas, nothing I have said detracts from the objectives of the Bill, and, with the last speaker, my noble friend Lord Polwarth, I appeal for flexibility and wisdom and broad economic considerations in its administration.
4.38 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I know it would be the wish of all your Lordships that I should begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Riverdale on the excellence of the maiden speech which he has just made. He occupies positions of great responsibility in Sheffield, which is itself a city with a very proud record, and he has brought a great deal of common sense and expert knowledge into this debate. I know that as a busy man we cannot expect to see him as often as we should like, but I hope that whenever there is an opportunity and we have a debate of this nature on which he has expert knowledge he will come and speak to us again.
I approach this Bill under two flags, the red dragon of Wales and the red ensign of commerce. In both guises I should like to give it a warm welcome. It seems to me that it goes as far as possible, without resort to direction of industry or of workers, in providing the Government with every possible opportunity for achieving a satisfactory distribution of industry. I was privileged, in seconding the humble Address in reply to the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament, to give a welcome to this measure as a Welshman, and I would repeat that to-day. I think it is a measure which we should welcome in Wales. I am not quite so lukewarm

247
about it as I think the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, was. I very much hope it will be able to achieve something of value.
My noble friend Lord Polwarth quoted some figures for Wales which I was going to mention. My figures, I am glad to say, agree with his. We have, between 1951 and 1958, lost 18,000 men by migration from Wales, which is 3 per cent. of the total insured employees in 1951; and 12,000 women in the same period, which represents 5 per cent. This is a very serious loss. We treasure our manpower, just as I am sure Lord Polwarth does in Scotland, more than our minerals. We believe that our working people in Wales are second to none. I believe it to be true that the time lost through industrial stoppages in Wales in 1957 and 1958 was less than in the rest of the country. Moreover, behind these figures there is more than just the loss of manpower. There is the break-up of homes, the disturbance to children's education and the disruption of family lives.
Like other speakers in this debate, I believe that what benefit the Bill will bring will primarily depend on how it is administered. I would stress also, as previous speakers have, the merit of its flexibility; and especially in naming the various districts I would ask that this flexibility be used to the full. I am delighted, as my noble friend Lord Polwarth was, that already additions have been made to the list, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, on having Prestatyn added to it; but so far, I regret to say, Aberdare has not been added to the list.
May I speak for a moment about that valley, because I happen to know it extremely well? It is in a situation which many other places must be in, as a kind of in-between area; it has certain difficulties because the valleys on either side, the Rhondda Valley and Merthyr Tydfil, are both on the list. Whereas we in Aberdare, I am glad to say, have fairly few unemployed at the moment, we are much too dependent on the coal industry, and we are striving so far as we can for the diversification which was mentioned by the noble Earl when he introduced this Second Reading. I do not think we have much hope of inducing an Indus-
248
trialist at the present moment to come to us, when five miles either side he can get Government help to go to one of those other two valleys. I am not complaining about this. I recognise that in the present circumstances their needs are greater than ours. I merely use it as an instance to ask that the flexible power of naming other districts, and, just as important, taking off districts where the Bill has already had an effect, should be used to the full.
Much as we in Wales welcome the Bill, I do not think any sensible Welshman would want it to put any obstacles in the way of the normal development of British industry as a whole; we are aware that Wales would suffer as much as any other part of the country were we to do so and were British industry to lose its competitive efficiency. If I may, therefore, I should like to lower the Welsh flag at the moment and speak as an honorary secretary of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. Certain serious apprehensions have been aroused amongst the Chambers of Commerce owing to the way in which industrial development certificates have sometimes been withheld. On the whole, I am sure I am right in saying that industry and commerce welcome the Bill. We all agree that new industries should be sited yin areas of above average unemployment. We all agree that every possible effort should be made for major development; where a whole factory is to be set up it should be steered into such areas also. But in the granting of these industrial development certificates there is equally a need for great flexibility if industry is not to be badly affected. I would suggest that every application must be most carefully considered individually, and that it is most unreasonable that small firms which are growing gradually should be prevented from doing so by not being granted an industrial development certificate in the area where they have sown their roots.
May I detain your Lordships for one moment on a specific case to show you that I am not talking generally on the subject and that there is indeed ground for serious concern? It is the case of Fox's Glacier Mints at Leicester. This firm is a family business, born and bred in Leicester; its work people come from Leicester, and it had no intention of leaving Leicester. But a new ring road

249
which was very wisely provided for in the town plan is cutting into its factory; and, very wisely, one would have thought, the directors decided that they would replace that part of their factory which was being destroyed by a new building just opposite to their factory where there had recently been a slum clearance scheme and there was land available. Now that they are going ahead with that project they find they cannot get an industrial development certificate.
It is alleged by the Board of Trade that they are expanding. In fact they are not expanding; they are moving into premises which are larger, but they are larger for very good reasons. The first is that the whole of the ground floor is going to be devoted to parking space. I am sure none of your Lordships would quibble with that, in view of the debates we have had in this House on the situation with regard to parking. Secondly, if you are going to build a modern factory nowadays and modern office accommodation with modern welfare services, you must have a bigger area than the area occupied by your old factory, which may be 40 or 50 years old. So in this case it seems to me that by withholding an industrial development certificate the Board of Trade are preventing this firm from providing better working conditions and more efficient output. At the same time they are causing a great deal of disturbance, not only to the firm concerned but to many other firms in the Leicester area and even further afield as this case comes to their notice. I would ask the noble Earl to exert any influence he has to try to get this case satisfactorily solved. I believe that there is plenty of goodwill in commerce and industry and that only by working closely in co-operation with commerce and industry can we get the best results from this Bill.
May I ask the noble Earl one or two specific questions on the Bill itself? I hope he may be able to give me some answers, if not now, perhaps at a later date. I would ask first 'whether there will be a Welsh representative on the Advisory Council. Then I would ask whether, under Clause 3, building grants cover the acquisition of previously erected buildings which were under repair and modification—in fact, a kind of rebuilding; or would such a rebuilding be covered under
250
Clause 4. Then, in Clause 5 (2), dealing with derelict land, these words appear:
"The Board may acquire the land by agreement or, if so authorised, compulsorily."
I would ask the noble Earl who authorises the compulsory acquisition, and what is the position of the landlord of such derelict land if in fact he has plans for its further development.
With regard to Clause 6 (2), concerning payments for removal and resettlement of key workers, may I ask whether, under Section 5 of the Employment and Training Act, 1948, these payments to key workers are to be tax free—I presume they are—and whether any account is taken of possible loss to the worker on hire purchase. Many people are nowadays involved in hire purchase through building societies, and I should hope that any lasses incurred by them would be taken into account on these transfers. Then, under Clause 7, which deals with financial provision for the improvement of basic services, may I ask whether the basic services are to be taken to include adequate recreational facilities? That, again, is an important question from the point of view of the people who are going to have to work in the particular area. Finally, I would reiterate my support for this Bill, and say that I am sure 'that if the machinery is properly worked it will be successful in its objects.
4.52 p.m.
LORD BILSLAND: My Lords, this is clearly a most important Bill, framed to deal with a most persistent problem. In moving the Second Reading this afternoon the noble Earl said that the Bill brings earlier legislation up to date. But I feel that many of the changes which it makes are not for the better, and I view it with some disappointment and disquiet because I feel that in certain respects it fails to face the needs of the situation, and also that it disregards much of the experience gained in this matter in the past.
Before I make a few comments on the Bill I should like to explain to your Lordships the background against which I view it. In 1937, the Commissioner for the Special Areas in Scotland invited me to set up the first Industrial Estate there, to form the organisation, to manage and promote it and to bring together a board of experienced businessmen to

251
direct the undertaking, all in accordance with the special areas legislation of 1937. I held that position as Chairman for eighteen years, and when I retired Scottish Industrial Estates had charge of 20 estates, 35 industrial sites, totalling 16 million square feet and with 355 tenants, giving employment to over 64,000 workers. I have also had a little experience of this subject from another angle, in connection with the work of the Scottish Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred. Notwithstanding all the activities in all these years of Scottish Industrial Estates, Ltd., the Scottish Council and other bodies, our unemployment in Scotland has persistently remained double the United Kingdom average, standing at the last count at 4·5 per cent., compared with 2·1 per cent. for the country as a whole. And, of course, in Scotland there are many places where there is a much higher rate of unemployment than 4·5 per cent. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said, that this is a serious problem.
Distribution of industry policy has had a very chequered history since the 1945 Act was passed. In 1947, 1948, 1951 and 1952 the provision of factories on a lease basis was held up or postponed for long periods, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, reminded us that in 1956 the Government announced that the provision of factories on a lease basis would be sanctioned for only very few projects of an urgent and most important character. Now the promotion of employment is to receive a further impetus, and one hopes that it may not suffer the chequered, though impressive but quite insufficient, record of the previous legislation. But, as has been said by many noble Lords this afternoon, it is quite clear that much will depend on the manner and the spirit in which this measure is administered. I must confess to some apprehension in that regard.
When the 1945 Act became law, the late Sir Stafford Cripps was President of the Board of Trade. I should like to say that the success achieved in the distribution of industry policy at that time owed a great deal to him. He showed an understanding of the problems which the 1945 Act was designed to solve, and gave active and invaluable assistance to
252
those who were endeavouring to operate the provisions of the Act. He was President for two years. Thereafter, the whole atmosphere seemed to change (I can speak on this point only for the position in Scotland), and that atmosphere of co-operation and understanding between the Board of Trade and Scottish Industrial Estates was never in my time restored. In place of it there appeared to be a growing desire on the part of the Board of Trade to draw everything in regard to administration down to the Board of Trade here in London. We in Scotland do not suffer that attitude. I do not speak in any nationalistic spirit, but I submit that that is bad administration. I record my experience in the matter to emphasise my belief that everything will depend on administration, and particularly on sustained interest, direction and understanding at the top—an understanding which I think is lacking in certain of the provisions of this Bill.
I should like to refer first to the proposal to remove the Boards and to replace them by three Management Corporations, one for England, one for Scotland and one for Wales. That is a radical change in administration, and in my judgment, drawing on my experience, is a major blunder. The right honourable gentleman, the President, has made it clear that the policy of trying to get firms into particular areas is a matter for the Board of Trade. I do not quarrel with that—so long as they get on with it. The right honourable gentleman has also explained that the Management Corporations will concentrate on the management of the physical assets alone. What is comprised in the management he envisages appears to be indicated by the qualifications he will require in members of these Corporations. As the Bill was framed, they were to include men experienced in accountancy, building or estate management. Now, under pressure in another place, a member experienced in the organisation of workers is to be included. The strange omission of such a member from the original draft reinforces my g feeling of a lack of understanding of the needs of the situation. When I was Chairman of Scottish Industrial Estates we had two senior trade union officials sitting on the board, and they made a most useful contribution.

253
In the qualifications required by members of these new Corporations, as defined in the Bill, there is no mention of what I regard as the most important qualification of all; that is, business experience. Management Corporations as envisaged by the Bill will be largely composed of specialists. In the course of a varied business career, including 36 years as a bank director, I have seen something of the ups and downs of industry and I have come to be a little distrustful of boards composed of specialists They are the essential servants of industry, but in my experience they have sometimes not proved to be very wise masters.
These Management Corporations cannot, of course, be regarded as boards in the accepted sense. They will operate only in a very narrow field for the management of physical assets. I would ask the noble Earl who will reply: who is to help the tenants to establish themselves? Who is to supply all the information they will need? Who is going to provide them with the essential contacts they will require? When I was engaged in this work over these eighteen years, management of the Industrial Estates was much the least part of the work which my colleagues and I directed. We were mainly concerned with the consolidation of our progress, which is a vital matter. I ask: Can a Management Corporation consolidate their progress? I think not—at any rate, not as they are to be constituted in the Bill.
I look at the position in Scotland today. Scottish Industrial Estates, Ltd., is directed by a board of experienced business men who are thoroughly conversant with business and with local conditions in Scotland. I was very glad to hear from the noble Earl the announcement—a fact which I already knew—that Sir Robert Maclean, the present Chairman, has agreed to continue. Sir Robert and I have discussed this matter frequently and I believe that he is very much in agreement with the points I am putting to your Lordships to-day. One of his lieutenants is the President of the Chamber of Commerce in Glasgow. Another, the Chairman of Jute Industries, Ltd., has special oversight of tenders regarding which the noble Earl spoke; and there are others of that calibre on the board. But the Board of
254
Trade do not think such a board of experienced business men is appropriate now. This board, so well qualified to interpret and promote the Scottish interest, which has proved a most effective instrument in securing and (what is equally important) consolidating the success achieved, is to disappear; and, as I see it, they will leave a vacuum in relation to the most important functions they have hitherto undertaken. I see no justification whatever for such a decision, and I must repeat that I feel that the Board of Trade are showing a sad lack of understanding.
When, in another place, a case was made for the retention of the boards as at present, the right honourable gentleman, the President, undertook that his Regional Controllers, and all concerned in the Board of Trade, not only would be instructed to obtain advice but would seek it at all times from people who understand these things so well. I submit that that is no substitute for the present organisation which works so well. Without disrespect of Regional Controllers, I should like to make the point which has been so often impressed upon me: that a business man coming to survey a district to consider whether or not to set up a plant, or one who has set up a plant and is facing considerable difficulties, would much rather discuss these matters with another business man than with a Board of Trade official who has neither training in nor experience of business. I apologise for dwelling upon this matter so long, but I feel that it is so important. I am convinced that the plan to remove Industrial Estates boards and replace them with Management Corporations, is a retrograde one and is in every respect unsound.
I wish to raise briefly two further points. As the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, said, to succeed in steering employment to areas where it is required, the Board of Trade must "sell" these areas to prospective inquirers and must offer adequate inducements to them. There is no real element of "selling" these areas in this Bill. I am sure I shall be told that that element will be seen in the administrative arrangements which will follow. If so, we must await these arrangements. But I wish to emphasise that they must make provision for a positive and precise statement of all the advantages which, in fact, exist in the

255
development districts (as they are now to be called) in terms which will carry conviction to the inquirer.
I would also emphasise that the terms and conditions under which factories are to be available for approved projects, and other necessary inducements, must be clear and precise, and must be available, on request, without undue delay and in a form from which an inquirer can readily build up a table of costs to decide whether or not to go on with a proposition. In this connection, I should like to draw attention, as other noble Lords have done, to Clause 3 which covers the provision of building grants. There is nothing precise or specific in that: on the contrary, it is a masterpiece of obscurity. The proposal for an 85 per cent. grant on the difference between cost and current market value appears to me singularly unrealistic. I ask: who is to assess the difference? I assume the district valuer. On what basis can he assess it? Surely, a more simple, straightforward formula can be devised than Clause 3. I plead for simplicity in all respects and for precise, effective inducements which can be defined, so to speak, to the inquirer on demand.
I recall that soon after the 1945 Act was passed Sir Robert Maclean and I, on behalf of the Scottish Council, decided to spend six weeks or so in America visiting the various centres to interest businessmen in the possibilities of operating in Scotland. I went to see Sir Stafford Cripps to tell him about the project, and I said, "Unless we can offer specific terms, including the financial regulations which would apply, I do not think there is any use in our going." Sir Stafford Cripps immediately agreed and gave us all the information and authority required to make that visit effective. It has been followed by visits by others of my colleagues, including my noble friend Lord Polwarth. I mention that fact, my Lords, to point to the importance of a package deal when trying to sell an industrial location to any large business concern. I hope—indeed, it is essential—that the administrative arrangements to follow enactment of the Bill will offer the type of package deal to which I have referred. The Scottish Council have an organisation in New York and elsewhere in the United States of America, and in other
256
countries abroad, and obviously its effectiveness in interesting people to consider setting up production in this country depends upon its ability to give clearly defined information.
My final comment on the Bill is that it leaves everything to the Board of Trade and makes no provision for consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. This point was put in a debate in another place, and was answered, I thought, most unconvincingly. Hitherto, the Secretary of State has been consulted, and I believe that his right to continue to be consulted as Scotland's Minister should be clearly stated in the Bill. My Lords, there is a major task to be done. In Scotland not only have we an average unemployment that is double that of the United Kingdom, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said, we still have continuing migration of workers from North to South to an extent which I believe is not healthy. Twenty years ago the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Industrial Population, the Barlow Commission, said that
"… it is not in the national interest economically, socially or strategically that a quarter or even a larger proportion of the population of Great Britain should be concentrated within 20 to 30 miles of London."
It is a sad commentary on this apparently forgotten Report that migration is still continuing and that the lack of balance in the industrial population remains. My Lords, I wish I felt more confident that the provisions of this Bill will restore the position.
5.14 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, it is purely as a statement of fact and not with the intention of paying any compliment that I say that the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, is probably the best informed and most experienced noble Lord in your Lordships' House on this particular subject. If one could add one word it would be this. If Members on this side of the House were part of the Government, instead of being in Opposition, and they had attempted to take upon themselves the duties and the functions which the Board of Trade are now being given under this Bill, they would be accused, and rightly accused, of acting as dictators, because that is the position which it seems to me the Board of Trade is assuming in this very complicated situation.

257
I speak with my eye on Scotland, and I am wholly in agreement with the general attitude of other noble Lords who have expressed their views about the Scottish position. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor said that this Bill was not really a Bill; it was a machinery measure. In other words, it was a blueprint of an administration the Government intend to set up. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that the Bill introduced no new policy. Indeed, it is not even perpetuating the old policy; and one wonders what it is that has persuaded the Government to take up this measure. The Bill is wrongly worded; it is wrongly named. This is not a Local Employment Bill; this is an Unemployment Bill, with a bearing upon certain pockets of unemployment which persistently have continued in Scotland and elsewhere. Surely, what we should be thinking of to-day is not so much the problem of attracting large motor-car manufacturers to certain particular areas—important as that is—but of trying to understand in the first place what it is that has placed Scotland in the unenviable position in which it now finds itself.
My own feeling is this—and it comes to my mind through the references which have already been made by several noble Lords to the proposals in this Bill to make grants or to grant loans for the purpose of clearing some of the ugly sites, some of the derelict areas, within our cities. It seems to me, my Lords, that in the evolution of industry in Scotland, as in this country, what we find is this. At one time, certain industries were developed which were very prosperous. We were able to depend upon our own natural resources, such as coal and ore, and, as a result of the possession of those natural resources were able to build up successfully ancillary industries. But now, unfortunately, through no fault of ours, and purely as a result of industrial development in other directions, the areas of those industries have become derelict. People live in them, not in affluence but more or less in penury, and those industries are now no longer able to support the people. The problem is this: what can the Government do about the position of the people in those particular areas?
I do not wish to repeat what I have said before in your Lordships' House.
258
Some years ago a Committee set up by the Scottish Council of Industry, under Professor Cairncross, issued a Report dealing with precisely this kind of point but from a somewhat different angle, in the sense that what he said was that it is important from the point of view of public policy to ensure that the communities in certain different parts of the country should remain as communities and that the people should not be compelled to leave those communities because industry was not available for them. Scotland is, as your Lordships know, becoming depopulated in many of its areas. Even in a place like Glasgow, where one would imagine that the number of the population was keeping up—although it is a little lower than it was—a large number of people are leaving. If the figures do not make it apparent that the population is becoming smaller, it is because the fact is disguised by an influx of people from other countries who are filling up the vacuum which is created by the people who are leaving Glasgow; and the fact is disguised that this loss of industrial labour has gone for ever.
Apart from the points of view submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who emphasised the importance of the evils of congestion and conurbation, which are largely, but not wholly, matters of amenity and health and industry, there are problems of another kind to be considered, and they are these. In Scotland, owing to the disappearance of certain industries because of development in other directions, we are now emphasising the importance of the new industry of car manufacture as one of the vital channels for the export of our products. But we must not assume or take for granted that this new industry is for ever going to replace the industries which at one time were prosperous and successful but which are now no longer. We are bound to assume that even that industry will one day be replaced by some industry of which we perhaps see only the early beginnings at the present time.
We have also to remember that, apart from the fact that we ourselves are developing as rapidly and as efficiently as any other nation, America, Germany and France—friendly people—are keen competitors of ours, and unless we are permitted to use the whole of our

259
employable population in the manufacture of our products we cannot hope to maintain the standard of living that we wish to enjoy. Let us also remember (and the country has not even been mentioned so far in the course of the debate) that, whatever our views may be about the political situation in Russia, as an industrial nation it is growing at a pace which should give us all cause for some concern. We ought therefore to see that in this country there remains no spot of preventable unemployment which we as a people can cure; and I venture the opinion that this Bill does nothing whatever to remedy that state of affairs.
In the course of his opening speech the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, gave us a very interesting account of the relationship between inflation and industry. I listened to it with care, but I confess that I found it hardly relevant to the purposes of this Bill. What we are dealing with here is not an increase in the employment of those already employed: what we are dealing with here is the position in those parts of Scotland and of England and Wales where the population is under-employed now and is suffering from unemployment and all the by-products that unemployment means to those people, through no fault of its own. But I believe that we ought to be doing something of a much more constructive nature than appears possible in this Bill. In other words, the emphasis ought to be not so much on helping the industrialist to bring his industry to the people, important as that is, as on seeing that the people of Scotland and England do not have to depend on the haphazard forces of industry for their livelihood and for their general happiness.
I do not know what should be done to the terms of this Bill in order to bring that about. It appears to me, from my reading of what was said during the debates, that there is nothing in the existing Acts which, if those Acts were carried out properly and adequately, would prevent something being done to remedy the position which we all agree is so deplorable. As many noble Lords have said, if the Acts we have already on the Statute Book were administered in the manner in which it was intended they should be administered when they
260
were first introduced, there would be hardly any need for the Bill which we have before us. Along with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and with the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, I hope that the Government, before pushing this Bill through, as they can because of their majority, will very seriously consider whether it is indeed an effective measure for the purpose of producing the results which ostensibly it means to produce—namely, an increase in employment in those parts of the country where unemployment is so big to-day.
5.26 p.m
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl who introduced the Second Reading of this Bill that it is the use that will be made of it rather than its contents which will be important. The chief topics in references to this Bill have been its possible application to particular areas or a desire for an expansion of its scope or powers. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has spoken of lukewarmness in relation to this Bill. I want to go a little further and question its value: to ask whether, on balance, it will not do more harm than good.
I know that, superficially, the purpose behind the Bill sounds attractive. It always sounds attractive to suggest doing something, particularly to legislators, who cannot resist the temptation; but, in the atmosphere in which we live to-day, there is a danger that the idea of Government exercising powers of overriding direction in fact, if not in theory, will be accepted. This, we know, is the aim of those who believe in a socialist economy, but it can only bring creeping paralysis to a free market economy, where the direction must come from consumer demand, and where the means of production must be influenced by competitive forces. Having regard to what has been achieved in Britain during recent years, I think we can agree that generally the outlook of management is not unintelligent. If labour is scarce in one area and is available in another, this is a factor which any intelligent management takes into consideration when planning expansion. Certainly a lot of consideration is given to-day to the wishes, convenience and welfare of the staff and workers in industry, and they are sometimes a good

261
deal more difficult to persuade of the benefits of a country life than are their employers. Some further consideration might be given to that aspect of this problem.
The attitude of the present Government appears to be that if they can avoid compulsion and use only inducement, no great harm can be done. But, my Lords, some of us deplore the breaking down of the sense of individual responsibility by inducing too great a reliance upon props supplied by Government. This Bill carries the process just a little further by breaking down management responsibility for industry. By the holding out of inducements, management is to be induced to do something which it would not otherwise consider doing. I will come to the inducements in a few minutes, but this process seems to be a process which could gradually bring industry into a quite undesirable relationship to Government. If losses are made, and if firms are induced to set up under uneconomic and uncompetitive conditions there will assuredly be losses, the Government will be blamed. As I see it, the rôle of Government is not to exercise an overriding direction but to keep the ring clear in a competitive economy. If we believe in a competitive economy, and if a competitive economy is the most stimulating and beneficial, then Government interventions of the kind proposed under this Bill can only aggravate in the long run—and I emphasise "in the long run"—the problems with which it is designed to deal. That is always the effect of Governmental intervention and interference with economic factors.
Rather would I ask whether a solution of the problem with which we are faced would not be assisted by the removal of existing restrictions which have made the economy too rigid: for instance, nationally based wage agreements as compared with regional agreements. Our trade unions, I believe, might well consider whether a policy of area variations in agreements on rates might not be more helpful in bringing about a natural high level of employment. It is flexibility in the whole buildup of the economy which is essential. The greater the general prosperity—and that is what matters—the wider it spreads its effects. This Bill misses this
262
point and moves in an opposite direction. Like the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I should like to see more variety introduced by facilitating movement where individuals or families desire to move. I sometimes wonder whether Ministers are not somewhat misled by the desire of industrialists to be co-operative. Perhaps sometimes they hesitate to press their objections to suggestions made by the Government lest they be thought to be putting their own interests above the general interest, and sometimes, for that reason, they may not emphasise sufficiently strongly the views which they really hold.
If I may comment briefly on particular provisions of the Bill which I find disturbing, I would say that I am appalled by the rigidity introduced into the grant of the new industrial development certificate, which appears to bring bureaucratic control down to the last inch of space. If frustrations could be maddening, I think that this could be one of them. Speaking of frustrations, I would ask your Lordships to consider who are involved in the administration of this Bill. The Departments involved, which are referred to in different clauses of the Bill, are the Board of Trade, in Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 12; the Advisory Committee, in Clauses 3 and 4; the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in Clause 5; the Ministry of Labour, in Clause 6, and "the appropriate Minister", covering, I suppose, any Department, in Clause 7; the Industrial Estates Management Corporations, in Clauses 8 to 12. Then, as we know, district valuers are involved in Clause 3. I do not think that industry can be run like that.
The Bill extends the right of compulsory purchase, as one noble Lord has already mentioned. We must remember that every extension of compulsory purchase seems to arouse new bitterness. No doubt it will be said to be necessary, as it always is to any Bill of this type, but I cannot help remarking that Government intervention introduces at once an undesirable psychological factor, so I am not delighted when it is said to be necessary.
I can only describe Clause 3, perhaps a little more strongly than the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, as posing a problem which perhaps would constitute a good question in an intelligence test for

263
students taking the examination of the Institute of Valuers. But from a practical point of view it is quite unintelligible. I would agree with the noble Lords, Lord Polwarth and Lord Bilsland in this. From the point of view of practical application I should expect some extraordinary and certainly the most varied answers to the sum which the district valuers are called upon to do. I have had some experience of looking at valuations, and this clause seems to me to set an impossible sum. For instance, where there is no existing demand for a new factory in a development area in which it is to be built, or for the type of factory which is to be built, because the demand is artificially created—in fact, imported—could the market value be said to be purely nominal? In this case the grant would be large. I think that you might get an answer like that in some cases, or the answer might be no grant or a minus quantity because the market value is held to exceed the building cost. If this is meant to grant a concession, surely Her Majesty's Government must look at it again and try to make some sense of what they are trying to put forward.
I wonder also what the possible effect of this sort of action is likely to be on commercial practice—for instance, on commercial building and on borrowing. If a factory is to be put up in one area to-day, and another factory in another area to-morrow, and they are let at uneconomic rents, or the cost of building is subsidised and this goes on to any extent, nobody will know in time the value of a factory anywhere, and I think that many firms will find it a great deal more difficult to borrow money, as they are in the habit of doing on factories which they are putting up to-day. I should like to ask where the money is coming from that is called for under Clause 4. I know that it is unpopular in these days to ask from what source money is to come but, after all, the Government have to find the money from somewhere, and I should like just a little enlightenment about how, if money is to be provided under these various clauses which are so difficult to understand, it is to be found.
In introducing the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, recalled the fact that no fewer than 190,000 people are
264
now employed on Board of Trade estates. If changes are to be made in control by the Boards, which I think have done some extremely good work, instead of transferring freeholds to the Board of Trade and leasehold interests to new Corporations, would it not be better to make a start in disposing of some of these holdings, and so help to get the Government out of rent collecting and rent fixing, which can more appropriately be dealt with by those with commercial experience? Such a policy might find favour among some supporters of Her Majesty's Government. I am sure that this Bill is well meant, but I do not think that either its provisions or its implications have been sufficiently thought out, and I suggest that there is a great deal in this Bill that needs further consideration.
5.40 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I cannot be expected to subscribe to the doctrine preached by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, because he preaches the doctrine of pure Liberal laissez faire, undistilled from the last century, whereas I believe the Conservative doctrine of Disraeli and our leaders at that time was more correct: that it was a Government's business to step in where economic forces appeared to be likely to be detrimental to the community.
We have heard a lot in this debate about Scotland. Scotland has enormous advantages in this world. It has a great reputation all over the world for business acumen, skilled workers, a wonderful banking system and a great expertise in the movement of money; it has great companies registered in Scotland, and it has great overseas connections all over the world. But in spite of this, it has a heavy unemployment problem. I should have expected that decadent Sassenachs would have been the people unemployed, and it is one of the great mysteries in this world to-day how people like the Scots can be unemployed.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, rightly said that unemployment rots the soul. I regard it, as we all do, as a challenge to our social conscience, but also as a challenge to our ingenuity. We must obviously do all we can to stop it. We have local unemployment at the moment, and the first thing to do is to discover how it is caused.

265
The causes would seem to be divided into fairly simple categories: dead or dying industries, insufficient growth to cope with the growth in population, or depressed but still alive industries. This Bill is certainly one means—and a very good one, too—of producing new industries in place of the dead or dying and to produce the growth that is otherwise insufficient. There are other means, too. Communications would be a great help. When the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaensygor, was talking about Wales and North Wales, I wondered for a moment whether, if a miniature M.1 existed from Birmingham to Caernarvon, that would not have meant that by now satellite factories to the Birmingham industrial area would have sprung up all along that road into North Wales. I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, that this Bill can be used to relieve congestion by preventing industry from coining into places where there is already too much of it. One hears of factories moving out into the new towns, and so on; and one hopes that the factories they have vacated may not immediately be allowed to be used for industrial purposes.
But, my Lords, we need other means to deal with this disease. We want to help where the old industries are temporarily depressed—and my impression is that this often occurs with industries that are dealing with capital goods for export. There are perhaps special reasons why these may be depressed at the moment. Typical things that I have in mind are an over-expansion in a short space of time in oil, which leaves a gap, and also in shipping. At the moment there seems to be a reaction going on in both of these industries against a previously high rate of activity. That, of course, is the fault of the unevenness of the trade cycle. We are still learning a great deal about the trade cycle and how to ride it. We can encourage consumer demand with bank advances, hire purchase and so on and that leads to more imports. That, in turn, leads to higher prices for raw materials; and that leads to more exports; then the capital goods at home begin to be bought, perhaps stimulated by investment allowances; and then, last of all, the capital goods abroad begin to get bought.
266
There is a danger that we are running on such a narrow path between inflation and deflation, as my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said, that we may have to try to damp down consumer demand just at a time when the trade cycle is beginning to exercise its influence on this Cinderella of capital goods for export. If we want to revive the capital goods export trade we have obviously got to try to think of some quicker method of doing it than through the trade cycle, which is altogether too slow (it is a year or two before it works round) because those are the last to benefit and the first to get cut back. Why should we not use the same sort of means as we use to give a fillip to business and the sale of consumer goods? Here we do it by hire purchase. In the world to-day there are many people who want to buy our capital goods but who just cannot afford to do so. Why should we not use our credit to help them to do it, letting them have goods on a pay-as-you-earn basis? It will not be the one-year or two-years business by which semi-durables are sold on hire purchase. I have in mind locomotives and other things being sold over a seven and ten years' period, to be paid for out of the savings that the modern machine can achieve as compared with the thing they replace. Why cannot we focus these particular credits on the places in this country where we want to see orders placed? The first idea is not new, but I have never seen this one suggested anywhere else, and I believe that it is new.
I can understand the reluctance of Her Majesty's Government to start what may be a sort of rat race in credit terms. I believe that there is some so-called gentlemen's agreement in existence to which gentlemanly people like ourselves are apt to adhere. But already there is provision for going beyond the five years to Commonwealth countries, and from an Answer given to me to a Question I put down a short time ago with a view to this debate I understand that the Government might be open to suggestions that these terms should extend outside the Commonwealth. That I believe would be important, because I suspect that many of these markets are in fact outside the Commonwealth, and many of them might well be in South America, where there is a great tack of means of payment.

267
After all, we should be doing only what the Export Import Bank is doing for America, and I do not believe they have had bad experiences in these matters. I know the balance-of-payments argument, but if we can lend abroad why should we not lend on our own terms in such a way as to benefit the industries we particularly want to benefit?
What industries might benefit in this way? The ones that immediately occur to my mind—others will occur to other noble Lords—are those producing materials for railways, harbours and docks. All over the world there are rundown railways, ancient harbour cranes, and so on. They all need replacing, but the owners just have not the means to do it. Let us see whether we can put it within their power to place orders in our depressed areas for these things—materials, incidentally, which, by nature, tend to come from those very areas, Clydeside, the North-East of England and so on. Ships also are rather a special case, because the owners seem to have made some rather colossal "bloomers" with their sums, and the over-ordering has been great. As a result, orders for ocean-going tonnage are likely to be scarce for some time, and I presume that some of the unemployment in Scotland and the North-East is clearly attributable to that cause. But, of course, that industry will not be down for ever; it will come up again in a few years all right.
Meanwhile, is there any hope of getting orders from those shipowners of the world who have not over-ordered simply because they could not afford to do so—I refer to the owners of the ships that ply on the harbours, rivers and lakes of this world? Once upon a time I had something to do with steamers of this sort, and now, as then, I believe that many of these craft are obsolete; and now, as then, I believe that many of the owners are impecunious, and that the vessels need to be replaced. The question is whether the terms can be arranged; whether pay-as-you-earn would produce the orders. It obviously could not be done by individual shipyards. It would mean a collective effort, particularly by the yards who specialise in the smaller vessels: they would have to send a man to cover Asia, perhaps another to Africa, and perhaps another to South America.
268
When we get spots of unemployment, let us respond to the challenge with ingenuity. We can do a great deal by means of monetary policy to reinforce this Bill, so why not let us do it? If special rebates are offered to firms to set up business in special areas, why cannot special inducements be offered to their customers Ito place orders in those places, too? We have hire purchase to encourage consumer spending; we have investment allowances to encourage buying of capital goods in this country, so why cannot we use special credit to bring in orders to special places for the production of capital goods for export?
5.54 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House I should like to offer sincere congratulations to the two maiden speakers who have spoken this afternoon. The first was the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, who, the House will know, has played a prominent and energetic part in developing Scottish industry, particularly its export trade. I became conscious of the noble Lord's participation in this work when I was fortunate to attend a lunch which he gave in honour of the Burmese Commissioner. I was conscious of the fine spirit of the noble Lord's colleagues. The noble Lord, Lord Riverdale, also spoke with great experience and, what I think must have impressed everyone, great confidence.
This is possibly an occasion when we could congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. From reading Hansard last night, I understand that the noble Earl was responsible for the Second Reading of a Bill in another place to deal with special areas and Government grants to alleviate unemployment. Frankly, I sympathise with him this afternoon. I have read carefully the debates in another place, and listening to the noble Earl I felt that he knew he was not on the best of all wickets. Listening to the debate to-day, I must say that I thought the wicket became stickier and stickier. It probably reached its worst when the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, was speaking. The noble Lord sits on the Cross-Benches, and certainly could not be accused of making Party warfare. I thought he spoke in the strongest terms condemning this Bill.

269
Noble Lords on this side of the House are in a difficult situation. We could not oppose any Bill which brought aid and comfort to the unemployed. But, in our opinion, this Bill is limited in scope and in time. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor spoke movingly on the heavy burden that far too many men and women and their children have to bear because, through no fault of their own, they are unemployed. I listened to the noble Earl when he was speaking about what has already been done, the difficulties that have been experienced in bringing aid to certain areas, and how carefully we must watch development and expenditure. I could not help wondering why we should put the burden on the shoulders of a considerable number of people, although a relatively small number when compared with the whole population. I believe it is totally immoral and completely un-Christian. Therefore, I would say to the noble Earl that we look to the Government to bring aid to these areas as quickly as possible and, if necessary, to take a calculated risk. They will earn credit in history if they do.
I believe this Bill is a bad Bill because it goes against the advice given to the Coalition Government during the war—namely, by the Barlow Commission. They stated that in their view the Government should develop and implement a national policy for the location of industry based on three criteria, economic, social and strategic. It was on that Report that the Coalition measure which is now known as the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, was carried and was implemented with the greatest enthusiasm and drive by the Labour Governments from 1945 to 1951. The noble Lord, Lord Dalton, who I very much regret was unable to be with us this afternoon, as Minister gave his full energies to make certain that the misery and the poverty that existed in what were called the old distressed areas, and which became the development areas, should never return.
In the case of Scotland, I understand that under the 1945 Act, during the period of the Labour Government, seventeen industrial estates were started and have now been completed. What is the record of this Government? I understand that no industrial estates have been started in Scotland since 1951, and
270
I must ask the noble Earl whether the Government has any intention of starting these industrial estates. I do not want to go over the old ground of Scotland again, but I believe that there are nearly 97,000 men and women unemployed in Scotland to-day. Many of them have been unemployed for many years. We know also that many young Scotsmen and Scotswomen are leaving their country and are coming south. This, I believe, is a great tragedy to Scotland, and it can be stopped only by the provision of employment for these young men and women and also the provision of services.
Wales is also losing its young men and women, and where are many of them coming? They are coming to London. During the last seven years I believe that over one million new jobs have been created by industry. Approximately 40 per cent. of those jobs were created in the London area, and the trend continues. The Government have failed to use the powers they had within the 1945 Act to prevent the growth of industry and offices in London. We do not need statistics to show the congestion that is in London to-day. I would submit that the Government are largely responsible for creating one of the largest antheaps that has ever been created or built. Millions of workers come to London every day in complete and utter misery, and complete loss of dignity. Where is it going to end? If the present trend continues, London will not be a place fit to live in. A halt must be called. And yet the Government have discarded the powers they had within the 1945 Act. I think it is disastrous.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also opposed the Government measure, I think for very different reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, suggested, but he made one statement which, if I understood him rightly, rather appalled me. He called for a flexibility in national wage arrangements as an inducement to persuade industry to move to those particular areas. I do not know whether the noble Lord was suggesting cheap labour. If he was, I do not think there would be any other noble Lord in this House who would rise to support him.
LORD GRANCHESTER: My Lords, I certainly was not suggesting cheap labour; I was suggesting something very

271
much better than what is being provided by unemployment benefit.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am pleased to hear that, because I was rather appalled. The Minister in the other place, when this Bill was going through its stages, refused or was unable to give a list of the areas involved. The list has now been given and I believe it has been amended; it was originally given on February 9. I understood, from reading the debates of another place, that the provisions of this new Bill would cover approximately 14 per cent. of the working insured population, as opposed to 20 per cent. in the previous Act. But, looking at this list, I should be very surprised if the list does, in fact, equal 14 per cent. of the population. So far as England is concerned, I see that there are seven seaside resorts. I appreciate that these resorts have severe seasonal unemployment, but the big working populations will not exist there. I certainly look for and I cannot find any mention of the Lancashire area. Lancashire has some very nasty pockets of unemployment, and yet I cannot see them on this list. Therefore I ask the noble Earl, is this the list on which the Government ask us to accept this Bill? I think we should know.
In conclusion, I want to say something about the seven years. I just do not understand the Government's mentality in including a time limit on a Bill which they believe is a constructive Bill. They did not put a time limit on the Rent Bill. They did not put a time limit on the Homicide Bill. Certainly in the 1945 Bill we put no time limit. We believe that we have to be forward-looking; that the men and the authorities responsible must be continually looking to the future. How can they look to the future when they see that this particular provision will cease seven years hence? This is no emergency measure. This Bill should have been a Bill planning for dealing with the present unemployment and the anticipated unemployment that must come with adjustment of industry. Therefore I hope that on the Committee stage the noble Earl will feel it possible to accept an Amendment to delete that particular clause, because I think it is fundamentally and psychologically wrong that a time limit should be put on a Bill of this nature. In conclusion, I
272
consider that the House must press the Government to make some considerable adjustments and Amendments to this Bill before it leaves this House.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have had a debate which I think has been both valuable and extremely interesting, and I should like to thank all of your Lordships who have spoken, not only for your support but also for the informed criticism which many of your Lordships have levelled at various parts of the Bill. Before I offer my congratulations to the two noble Lords who have addressed you for the first time I should like, while it is still fresh in my mind, briefly to say a word or two about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He thought that this Bill was a bad Bill because it does not go far enough to carry out a policy based on the Barlow Report. That, I think, is an interesting proposition; but at this time of night I do not want to start a discussion on the Barlow Report.
What I should like to say now to the noble Lord is this. He suggested that the Distribution of Industry Act of 1945 was intended to carry out the Barlow Report. In fact, this Bill contains even wider powers than the 1945 Act. The other criticism was that we have always had the powers and have not used them properly. But he cannot have it both ways. If this Bill is a bad Bill because it is not comprehensive or wide enough to carry out the wide ideas or notions of the Barlow Report, then the 1945 Act was an even worse Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not want to start an argument at this time of night, but I should like to make clear that my criticism of this Bill in relation to the Barlow Report is that this Bill is not a national distribution of industry, but deals purely with pockets of unemployment. It is not dealing with the planning and distribution of industry.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In that case neither did the Distribution of Industry Act of 1945, the powers and scope of which were even less comprehensive than the proposed provisions of this Bill. I give every credit to the post-war Government for getting quickly off the mark and for making such good use of the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act. But the

273
period at which the rate of progress of Government building began to change was not the time when the Government of the Party of the noble Lord came to an end; it was the time when we had finished demobilisation and were getting back to peace-time conditions—that is to say, about 1948.
I think it is interesting to look at the figures. For the first three years after 1945, up to the end of 1948, in all development areas, a large amount of factory building was done by the Government—no less than 16½ million square feet, employing 90,000 people. But then for the next three years, 1949 to 1951, it dropped from 16½ million to 4·9 million, employing only another 23,000 people. I would never criticise the Government of the time for that, because it was not due to any change of policy; it was simply due to the fact that just after the war there was a tremendous rush for all these factories—everybody wanted to take advantage of the advance factories which were being offered. The rate since 1948 has not varied a great deal. On the other hand, of course, the number of privately financed factories for which industrial development certificates have been given for the development areas has substantially increased, and the total figure now is in excess of the total amount of government financed building. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me about the seven-year period of the Bill. To the best of my ability I gave the reasons for that in my opening remarks, and as the noble Lord has been kind enough to give notice that he will put down an Amendment on the Committee stage, I think that perhaps we might leave further discussion of it until that stage of the Bill is reached.
I should like now to extend my own congratulations, and those of your Lordships, to the two outstanding maiden speeches to which we have listened. The noble Lord, Lord Riverdale, spoke as a man of great industrial experience in the North of England. I think that what he said about the problems of Sheffield interested your Lordships greatly, and certainly was most effectively expressed. Of course it would be a hardship if people who had spent years in preparing ground and a great deal of money in advance were to be refused an industrial development certificate. I said in my opening remarks that we did not take an entirely
274
rigorous attitude about this; that we would give an industrial development certificate where it was reasonable to do so, and no doubt the fact that money had been spent would be a matter which would weigh in favour of giving it. On the other hand, I must make it clear that as a matter of general policy we have to do one thing or the other. We do not refuse a certificate simply because an area has full employment or even because it is a conurbation. But we must, as a matter of general practice, use this control if we want to get anything effective done under this Bill. I do not want to say anything to give the impression that we are not going to use our powers of refusing industrial development certificates with firmness in order to take advantage of the opportunities which we now have of pumping a great deal of new life and more diverse industry into the development areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir made a speech which was as modest as it was well informed. I was particularly delighted to hear it, because when the noble Lord's father was Secretary of State for Scotland, from 1938 until the outbreak of war, I had the pleasure of serving under him as Under-Secretary, and there is no-one in politics of whom I have kinder or happier memories. He was also, I am glad to say, a very great personal friend of mine, and I am so glad that his son is able, or is trying, to fit in some Parliamentary activity with the very great industrial responsibilities which we know occupy a great deal of his time. I hope very much that he will manage to find time to address your Lordships very often in future, because he is just the kind of person whom we in this House particularly like to come here and give us the benefit of his advice on these matters.
The noble Lord said a good deal about the favourable advertisement which was given to development areas, or could be given, by firms who go there. I believe your Lordships would agree that one of the most encouraging features of the situation with which we are trying to deal—though they are not all encouraging—is the success of so many firms who were at first extremely reluctant to go to the special areas and who were persuaded to do so only with great difficulty. Now that they have got

275
there, are doing well and have found these areas much the best place for them to work in, they do not want to leave the area, but try to get colleagues to come there. They are, in fact, a first-rate example which we hope will be followed by many others.
I should like to deal with what has been perhaps the most uncompromising criticism of this Bill, which came partly from my noble friend Lord Bilsland, while something to the same effect was said by my noble friend Lord Polwarth. My noble friend Lord Bilsland spoke of the retrograde step of transforming the Industrial Estate Companies into Management Corporations. I believe that here there is perhaps an irreconcilable difference of opinion between my noble friend Lord Bilsland and my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade; and I do not know how far it can be bridged. I have here what my right honourable friend said in Committee on this subject but it is unnecessary for me to read much of it because it has evidently been studied already by both the noble Lords, Lord Bilsland and Lord Polwarth, who quoted from it. I would just mention one part of what my right honourable friend said:
"There is … a … distinction in the minds of some people in Scotland, that the men who are to run these corporations should be able to understand the needs of industrialists and not be merely technical men."
He went on to say:
"I accept that. We will aim to get on the boards of the corporations people who will be able to talk to industrialists so that when we get industrialists and induce them to consider certain areas, the people running factories in that area will be able to talk to these industrialists in terms they understand."
It is specifically laid down in Clause 8 that each Management Corporation:
"shall include a person appearing to the board to have adequate experience of industrial matters."
My noble friend Lord Polwarth was perhaps not quite so irreconcilably opposed to this change as my noble friend Lord Bilsland. He appreciated that there were, as my right honourable friend the President of the Board has said, three different functions to be performed by three different bodies: that is, the Board of Trade, which has the duty of trying to attract industry to areas
276
of abnormal unemployment; the Development Councils whose function is the promotion of the virtues of a particular district; and the actual members of the new Corporations whose function would be the management of Board of Trade property. My noble friend was anxious that there should be some co-operation between all of them. I do not see why there should not be. I am sure that my right honourable friend is anxious that the Development Councils, the Management Corporations and the Board of Trade should at least be on speaking terms with each other, and, we hope, on terms of cordiality.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, what are the advantages of this trinity?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I dealt with that in my speech. The advantages are those which have been described by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in a speech which I do not wish to quote at length because both my noble friends who raised this matter have evidently read it and, indeed, have quoted from it themselves, so that there is no question of their not understanding the reference. It is just a plain difference of opinion which I will do anything I can to bridge, if that is possible.
Several of your Lordships have asked about the clarity of Clause 3, suggesting that the complicated actuarial calculations which have to be gone through by the district valuer may confuse the industrialist who is applying for the grant; but I do not think that that is quite the position. The whole point of the clause is that before the industrialist who is going to build a factory decides whether he is to take advantage of this provision or whether he would prefer the Government to build the factory and let it to him, he will know exactly what he is going to get. That is why the calculation has to be made in advance, on a notional basis, by the district valuer. It is not confusing to the district valuer, for he is accustomed to that kind of thing. It is not until after he has made that calculation and presented the result to the applicant for a factory, so that the applicant can know exactly the amount of the grant he is to get if he accepts, that the applicant has to make up his mind.
My noble friend Lord Aberdare appealed on behalf of a particular firm

277
in Leicester which had been refused an industrial development certificate, and he explained the reasons why this firm ought to have it. I am glad to be able to tell him that the firm will get a certificate; but since he has raised the matter I ought to add that the reason for the doubts arose from the fact that when the firm first made their application they made a number of statements which were not correct. They have now withdrawn those statements and modified the terms of their application, and I am informed that an industrial development certificate will now be granted.
My noble friend concluded his speech by rattling off a number of machine gun questions which I am able to answer only because he was good enough to write me, about them yesterday; otherwise I doubt whether I should have been so lucky. Concerning Welsh representation on the Advisory Committee, I think it has already been made clear that we do not want to put people on that Committee simply because they are Welshmen or Scotsmen, because all they have to do is to advise on the potential viability of applicants; but in fact there is a Welshman now on the Committee. I have no reason to suppose he will not continue to be a member and your Lordships may be either relieved or indignant (as the case may be) to know that he is balanced by no fewer than three Scotsmen.
As for building grants, these are not available for acquiring existing buildings; otherwise there would be an open invitation to collusion. The grants provided for in Clause 3 are designed only to put the industrialist who prefers to build his own premises on the same advantageous footing as the one who rents or buys a Government-built factory. I believe that the question with regard to the person who authorises compulsory purchase, which my noble friend asked, is answered in Clause 13, which makes it clear that the existing procedure covering compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities under existing legislation shall be applied to the compulsory purchase of land by the Board under this Act. That is to say that it is the Board who would make the Order, but it is subject to a provision for publicity and for an appeal to the court.
My Lords, I am glad to see that one matter on which most of your Lordships
278
have supported the provisions of the Bill is the flexibility of the new methods of determining development districts. I think that all your Lordships have agreed that that is a good thing. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, seemed to think it had a too premature kind of flexibility in regard to the place which he mentioned in North Wales; and another noble Lord (I think it was my noble friend Lord Polwarth) said what a good thing it was that it should be so flexible that the list had been altered already. But, as a matter of fact, it has not been altered already. I am as much puzzled by the names in Wales as the noble Lord would be by names in Scotland, but the term "Rhyl" has always included the term "Prestatyn" for the purposes of this legislation. They were both together as a D.A.T.A.C. area under the 1958 Act and they have not been divorced. They have continued in wedlock under this new list. I do not know how the misunderstanding arose. Perhaps the noble Lord was told that the term "Rhyl" included "Prestatyn" and he may have taken it to mean that Prestatyn had been added on later, but it had not.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was opposed to this Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Earl leaving this question of the list? I wondered whether he could say whether this is the complete list and whether it covers the 14 per cent. of the population which the other House was given to understand was the number of people who would be covered by the new Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, this is complete in the sense which the noble Lord means. It is not half a list which is going to be added to in another few weeks. But it is not a static list. It is liable to be altered at any moment as the pattern of industry changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was critical of the Bill for rather a different reason than that of some of your Lordships. He thought that it would interfere with competitive economy. We must certainly take care that the provisions of the Bill do not result in unfairness. That is a thing to be watched. It is one of the difficulties in trying to let factories at an artificially low rent or

279
to have differential rates of grant in proportion to the distance from a certain market. These things are very difficult to do without creating unfairness. But we must make it clear that we do not believe that there is any other way than this of doing what we all want, and that is correcting the unbalance of industry in this country and creating more industrial life in the development areas, which is the fundamental object of our policy. I know that the method of issuing I.D.C.s is bureaucratic. I do not think there is any other way of doing it than this. It would be quite undesirable to have a sort of local advisory committee to decide who should have an I.D.C. and who should not. It may be regrettable, but I do not see how it can be avoided.
I agreed with my noble friend Lord Hawke, who made a number of other useful and interesting suggestions in his speech, when he said it was not part of our political philosophy that we should have no controls at all. Whatever the political lineage of our policy may be, this certainly is our policy now. It is a control we intend to keep and to use, and to go on using until the problem of the development areas is solved.
Whilst I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for his remarks, I am afraid that my reaction to them was one of considerable disagreement. The noble Lord thought that I had been guilty of irrelevance in speaking to your Lordships about inflation and the price level. I would most strongly reply, and repeat, that I do not think anything could be more relevant to this Bill than the problem of inflation. It is because of the danger of inflation and insolvency that it has been so difficult to make more progress in the development areas in recent years. I think it is precisely because we hope we have now got inflation under control—there have been stable prices for two years and a rapidly expanding economy with a rising rate of industrial production, without inflationary pressure, without the wage-price spiral—that we believe we are now in a position to use the powers of this legislation which we had not been able to use as much as we should have liked in recent years. It is because of that position that industry is now sufficiently anxious to expand; that it will prefer
280
to be directed by us and go into a development area sooner than not expand at all. And I think it is of the most fundamental importance to get into our minds the fact that we cannot have progress in correcting a bad balance of industry if we have an unsound unstable economy, and that the necessary basis—which we hope we are now getting—of progress in the development areas is to maintain the stable economy which we have established with so much difficulty, and very often with so much pain, over such a long period of years.
I do think, my Lords, although I do not want to say anything that would raise undue hopes, that it is because we now have the sound economy we did not have before that we really hope in the next few years to see something in the nature of a transformation of this intractable problem in these development areas, to which many of us have devoted so much thought and care throughout our political lives.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I just put a point which I think is rather appropriate? He speaks feelingly about expanding industry and all the prospects of industrial advancement that we are facing at the present time. Is it not advisable to realise that a tremendous amount of that is in the motor-car industry and that that cannot last? We have to anticipate some kind of an end to a rapid expansion in that particular industry. In considering the question of the distribution of industry, points of that kind ought to be taken into account well ahead.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we cannot slacken our efforts to persuade the motor industry to go where we want it to go simply because we are afraid that some day people will stop buying more cars, and that the market will be glutted. The motor industry itself appears to have the utmost confidence in the expansion of the market, and in the demand for cars, for a very long time ahead, and it is having very remarkable success abroad as well as at home.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ENGLAND BILL [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.