Sitting of 12 July 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Edinburgh Merchant Company, presented by Mr. John Maclay, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation, presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has made for the prevention of accidents on Scottish roads.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): There is no simple solution to the problem of road accidents, but my policy is to attack it by every means at my disposal. It is one which all road users can help to solve by
    1146
    exercising more care and patience on the road.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not the right hon. Gentleman holding up his hands in despair at this dreadful and tragic situation? Does he not realise that it is his duty to tackle it in a forthright way to find out whether the accidents are due to the state of the roads, the negligence of drivers, or to alcoholic excess? Surely he ought to set up an expert committee to investigate this very tragic problem and find a solution?
    Mr. Maclay: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a very tragic problem. He will realise that a great deal of examination is going on into all the causes of accidents and he may know that, at my request, local authorities are at the moment engaged in a campaign to publicise the various aspects of road safety.

    Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the staff of the Department of Agriculture has increased in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Maclay: Leaving aside the 280 officers who were transferred from the Scottish Home Department to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries when responsibility for fisheries and certain other work was transferred from the former to the latter Department, the net increases in the last three years have been 12, 34 and 35. These additions were required mainly for new work arising out of recent legislation.
    Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this increase has not always been matched by what has happened in England? Is he also aware of the very undesirable growth that has been taking place continuously for five or six years? Is he further aware that although an answer to a supplementary question yesterday revealed that Mr. Parkinson was not in the Foreign Office, it seems a near certainty that someone of that name has gone into the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Maclay: If my hon. Friend studies carefully the reply that I have given he will realise that the increases have been very modest. When I add that out of the 12, 34 and 35, a number are

    1147
    employed in connection with computer machines which will ultimately effect substantial savings in manpower and costs, he will realise that we are pursuing a wise policy.
    Mr. Jay: Is not the main trouble with the Scottish Office not that there are too many officials, but that there are too many Ministers?
    Mr. Maclay: Certainly not. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the work that Scottish Office Ministers do, he will realise how necessary they are, and how valuable.

    Housing (Local Authority Building)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the local authorities, other than small burghs, which are currently not building houses; and whether he will ascertain the reasons for this lack of activity.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the names of the nine local authorities, apart from the small burghs, which were not building any houses at May, 1960.
    Mr. Maclay: At the end of May one of the 24 large burghs, viz., Port Glasgow and 8 of the 33 counties, viz., Berwick, Kincardine, Kinross, Orkney, Peebles, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Wigtown, had no local authority houses under construction. Six of these authorities I understand, consider that their urgent needs are met or largely met, but some of them contemplate providing further houses from time to time as required. The other three authorities, Port Glasgow and Kincardine and Wigtown Counties, have expressed concern about subsidies and interest rates but are I understand now considering proposals for further building.
    Mr. Hamilton: What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that the urgent needs are "met or largely met"? What is meant by that phrase? Can he say whether any local authorities have made representations to him about the likely effect of further restrictive measures which have been imposed since the figures for local authority building were given a week or two ago?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the words "met or
    1148
    largely met" are very clear and are the kind of brief expression which it is necessary to use in answer to Questions. He does not need any explanation of those words from me. I will have to examine the latter part of his supplementary question to see whether any representations on this subject have been made to me in the last week.
    Mr. Ross: Is it not a sad reflection on the policy of the Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland when local authorities from those Tory areas which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned are blaming him for their complete failure to carry on with the house building required? What does he intend to do to change that policy and stimulate the building of the houses which the public requires throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: They are not blaming me. They have raised questions about interest rates. We have had many discussions on that subject, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Ross: Yes, but they are not building the houses which are needed. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have debated this subject in Committee and that I have answered many questions about rates of interest, which are only a relatively small element in this matter.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Does not what the right hon. Gentleman has said conclusively show that local authorities have cut back, or, in some cases, discontinued building houses because of the high cost of providing them? In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to have the matter reviewed in view of the urgent need for many more houses in Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: I have said very often that local authorities in general should have no difficulty about continuing to build houses if they pool the subsidies they receive and charge reasonable rents.

    Housing (Improvement Grants)
    The Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for further publicity to be given

    1149
    to the availability of house improvement grants so as to accelerate the modernisation of houses in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. In addition to the explanatory leaflets and posters which have been widely distributed, I am planning further publicity, for example by practical demonstrations of improvements of the kind recently staged at Paisley with the co-operation of the Town Council.
    The Earl of Dalkeith: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the owners of many houses in Scotland which are occupied and let do not realise that these grants are available? Will he consider using television as a medium for advertising these grants?
    Mr. Maclay: I will certainly consider any method of improving knowledge about the availability of these grants. We have already done a good deal to publicise them.

    Local Employment Act
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what use has been made, or is going to be made, of Section 7 of the Local Employment Act in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: At the end of March I invited local authorities to apply for grant in respect of improvements necessary for the purposes of the Act in basic services for which I am responsible. So far I have had applications from 17 authorities in respect of 31 schemes, mainly water and sewerage.
    Mr. Grimond: In view of the possibility of this Section of the Act being used to assist in providing essential services, will the right hon. Gentleman give very favourable consideration to any applications from Orkney and Shetland?
    Mr. Maclay: I will study them very carefully, but my "favourable consideration" would have to be wider than just one constituency.

    Schools (Television and Films)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools in Scotland are equipped with television receivers, film and sound projectors, film only projectors, and film strip projectors,
    1150
    respectively; how many there are of each per school; and to what extent these are used.
    Mr. Maclay: These particulars are not available but I shall send the right hon. Member the necessary information as soon as it can be obtained from the schools.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many films are available for educational use in Scottish schools; how many copies of each exist; and to what extent these are used.
    Mr. Maclay: The Scottish Central Film Library has for hire 4,531 separate films with between 2 and 24 copies of each, giving a total of 10,917 prints to be precise. Of a total 70,000 reels hired in the year ended 31st March, 1960, about four-fifths went to schools. The Library also assists schools to obtain films from other sources, such as, the Central Office of Information and the British Film Institute.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my correspondence shows that many schools possess merely a token of this apparatus and that in many cases these facilities are not available to teachers? Is he aware that teachers say that they would like them to be available? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question and make these modern facilities available to schools at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Maclay: On the information available to me, I am rather puzzled by what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I will examine the matter very carefully.

    Imported Potatoes (Solanine Content)
    The Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the high proportion of poisonous solanine found in early new potatoes imported from an eastern Mediterranean country; and whether he will ensure that such potatoes are not sold unless they have been passed as safe by his Department.
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware that an unusually high solanine content was found in potatoes imported into England in March, 1959, but I understand that potatoes from the country in question have not been imparted directly into Scotland.

    1151
    Potatoes, like other imported food, are subject to examination at ports of entry for their fitness for human consumption.
    The Earl of Dalkeith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the report of the Government Chemist points out that potatoes grown in sub-tropical climates are liable to have this high content of solanine? Will he give an assurance that all future cargoes of potatoes from Mediterranean countries will be carefully scrutinised?
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware of the problem which my noble Friend has mentioned, but I am certain that the right point of control is the port of entry. I have no doubt that the port authorities concerned are alive to the circumstances in which special attention to the solanine content of imported potatoes is called for.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what solanine is and whether is means "lack of sun" as its name implies? Will he say a little more about this poisonous substance?
    Mr. Maclay: It would be more desirable for the hon. Gentleman to consult the textbooks where he would get a fuller and more accurate reply than I can give in answer to a supplementary question.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports that many imported new potatoes are not new potatoes? What steps is he taking to strengthen the procedure whereby the youth or age of imported potatoes is assessed?
    Mr. Maclay: That is a fascinating supplementary question, but it does not directly arise from the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Stodart: Will my right hon. Friend agree that if there is reason to believe that imported potatoes may contain this poisonous substance, great publicity should be given to his Answer so that the public can learn that there are much better and ample supplies of old potatoes available throughout this country?
    Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend has made his point very well.

    Redevelopment Schemes (Greenock)
    Dr. Dickson Mahonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he
    1152
    has refused to make a grant to assist major redevelopment schemes in the central area of Greenock.
    Mr. Maclay: There has been no decision to refuse grant. As the Town Council is aware, I have the matter under consideration in the light of a further discussion with them recently and hope to reach a decision shortly.
    Dr. Mabon: As he has withheld all grants to local authorities for major developments for more than a year. pending publication of his regulations for the grants, since May, 1959, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this scheme in Greenock has not yet been sanctioned because of confusion between the Transport and Town Planning Divisions of the Home Department? As he is in an apologetic mood, will he recognise that it is rather silly to authorise a redevelopment scheme in which shops and houses are being constructed while not allowing a grant for the building of a road? Is that not rather ludicrous and will he do something about it?
    Mr. Maclay: I am not aware of all the details of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and I am not aware that anything has been greatly held up so far. I realise that the town council is very anxious to get information and I will try to get to the council as soon as I can.

    Forestry
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland by how many acres the area planted by the Forestry Commission in 1959 in the Highland counties fell below the acreage announced for that year in the Review of Highlands Policy, Command Paper No. 785.
    Mr. Maclay: I am glad to say that in 1959 the Commission planted in the Highlands about 350 acres more than the 10,000 mentioned in the White Paper.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first time during his term of office that I have been able to say that his Answer is satisfactory? Can he give an assurance that the same happy progress will be made this year?
    Mr. Maclay: At the risk of the hon. Gentleman again saying that it is satisfactory, he would like to know that in 1960 it is proposed to plant 500 acres more than the 11,500 proposed in the White Paper.

    Rates
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average percentage increase in local rates in Scotland since 1951.
    Mr. Maclay: The average amount of rates collected per £ of rateable value has increased by 70 per cent. since 1950–51.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did not expect him to maintain his record for very long? Is he aware that an intolerable burden has been imposed on the ratepayers of Scotland? Is it not time that he seriously considered alternative or additional methods of supplementing the present rating revenue?
    Mr. Maclay: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I did not expect him to retain his rather surprising view for very long. The figures I have given are a reflection of the activity of local authorities in building houses and schools and extending their services generally. Ratepayers naturally contribute to that. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Government grants have risen by 134 per cent. over the same period.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with the great increases in rates over the last eight years, he is barking up the wrong tree in what he says about the need for local authorities to charge economic rents, because the local authorities with the highest increases of rates are those which have had the highest rent increases? I give him the example of Edinburgh where the increase has been 120 per cent. rather than 70 per cent.

    Green Belt (Policy)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about changes in green belt policy; and what effect he estimates that the rising price of land in urban areas will have on housing policy.
    Mr. Maclay: I have no intention of departing from the policy of establishing
    1154
    and maintaining green belts, which I reaffirmed recently in a circular to local planning authorities of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The housing policy of the local authorities is governed by many factors and I would not expect it to be much influenced by the cost of land, which in Scotland is still a relatively small part of total capital costs.
    Mr. McInnes: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has decided not to depart from his policy in regard to green belts, but does he not realise that the scarcity of land has been created by the speculators purchasing land three, four and five years ahead of time? Is he not aware that that necessarily involves an increase in land values, and that in Glasgow, with 130,000 people on the waiting list, we have not a single site on. which to build a house?
    Mr. Maclay: I am not yet convinced that what the hon. Member has said has been a serious factor in cost. I know the hon. Member's view about the Glasgow position.

    Housing (Subsidies)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, under Circular 33/1960, a local authority which has actively reduced the unfit housing problem will now be authorised to build houses with subsidy for families in overcrowded, sublet, and health categories.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances he will authorise local authorities to build with subsidy for general housing needs after 23rd August, 1960.
    Mr. Maclay: Any local authority proposing to build subsidised houses for needs outside the priority categories defined in the recent circular will be allowed to do so where they show that it would not be reasonable in the circumstances of their area to expect that these needs could be met in any other way.
    Mr. Manuel: Could the Secretary of State explain just what he means by meeting building needs "in any other way"? Is he aware that the municipal houses that are being built are, in the main, largely being built by private enterprise firms, and that these firms are.

    1155
    fully engaged? If a town council has radically relieved its area of unfit houses and is now dealing with the overcrowding and sub-letting problem, should he not automatically say that it can go ahead and get on with that job, instead of having a rule of thumb to decide whether it should do so or not?
    Mr. Maclay: We have to keep these things in balance. I have said that we will discuss the matter, and I might add that discussions have already taken place with two authorities—Lanark County and Hamilton—which are authorities which have already carried out surveys and established a case for subsidised houses for other needs for some time to come. This process is going on in a very rational way between my Department and the local authorities.
    Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my second Question, No. 15, in which I asked him whether the local authorities will get subsidies if they build three-apartment houses for elderly couples. He did not mention that.
    Mr. Speaker: I think there seems to be some confusion. I understood the Minister to be answering Questions Nos. 14 and 16. Nothing has happened about Question No. 15 yet.
    Mr. Ross: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect the local authorities will have to wait to find out how their housing needs will be met by other means? Is he not aware that the record of the private builder in building houses to let in Scotland was so deplorable that, away back in 1917, we decided, because of that failure, to go on with local authority building? The position has not improved. Will he tell me how many houses to let have been built by private enterprise in Scotland last year? Did it build a single one?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is running wide of the original Question. On the main point, I have made it clear that there has been no unreasonable delay in the consultations with my Department in deciding what proposals can be approved under the terms of the circular I have issued.
    Mr. Ross: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman talked about local authorities having proved need for housing which
    1156
    cannot be met in any other way? The only other way is private building and private builders are just not meeting the needs of Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: I do not want to prolong this argument by question and answer. Some houses become vacant in the ordinary course of events, and the number might be increased if authorities did not encourage the occupation of houses by tenants well able to provide accommodation for themselves. That is one way. Another way is that private enterprise can help directly or indirectly by the transfer of tenants from existing local authority houses.
    Mr. Ross: Will they do it?
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, under Circular 33/1960, he will authorise local authorities to build three-apartment houses with subsidy for the rehousing of elderly couples.
    Mr. Maclay: Not normally, Sir. In the usual case three-apartment houses should be provided only for families who require that size of house for their own use.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this question? Is he not aware that, when illness takes place in the case of either one of an elderly couple occupying a one-bedroomed house, that person usually has to go into hospital? If there were a three-apartment house available, and if the couple were able to pay the rent, another member of the family, a married daughter, for instance, could come in to nurse that elderly person and so relieve the hospital?
    Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that old persons' houses should be as compact and easily run as possible, and that if the house has an extra room, it would not only be more difficult to look after, but would carry a higher rent and cost more to furnish with curtains and carpets. In exceptional cases, I am prepared to consider some relaxation.
    Miss Herbison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some instances an extra room leads to less work rather than more? Is he not also aware that many of these old couples have families

    1157
    which occasionally like to come to visit them, and that, particularly in Scotland, they have odd members of the family who come from abroad and wish to stay—[Interruption.] This is important. I have seen many of them personally, and they wish to stay with their parents rather than go into somebody else's house. Would the Minister assure me that hon. Members opposite would be content with a two-apartment house for their elderly parents?
    Mr. Maclay: As I implied in my earlier answer, I recognise that there are some small houses where two bedrooms are required, and I am ready to consider any special case put forward by an authority which has a relatively large number of such families to provide for. From personal acquaintance with many of the people in these small houses, I can say that they are extraordinarily happy in them.

    General Hospitals (Lanarkshire)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the need for new general hospitals in Lanarkshire; and when a hospital will be erected to meet the increasing needs of the Coatbridge and Airdrie districts.
    Mr. Maclay: There is no shortage of general hospital beds in Lanarkshire, but some of the present hospitals are inconveniently situated and some are in wartime buildings. Proposals to provide new units are under consideration, but the pattern of future development is not yet settled and it is too early to say when work will start.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only very recently a prominent medical specialist in Lanarkshire said that some Lanarkshire hospitals were fifty years behind the times, and would not stand comparison with Continental hospitals? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have been asking him for years to consider the hospital situation and provide us with the new hospitals which are long overdue?
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware of certain problems in Lanarkshire, and the regional hospital board has made a review of the distribution of the population and
    1158
    the number of hospital beds, and it is at present discussing the result of that review and some tentative proposals based on it with my Department.

    Local Authorities (Capital Debt)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of interest paid by the Scottish local authorities on their capital debt in the financial years 1950, 1953, 1956, and 1959, respectively.
    Mr. Maclay: The amounts are, for the year beginning May, 1950, £8·6 million; for 1953, £14·7 million; for 1956, £23·7 million. No figure is available for 1959, but the estimate for 1958 is £30·5 million.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that the total capital debt between 1950 and 1959 has increased by only two and a half times, and that the figures he has given indicate the increasing interest paid by local authorities, which is now about four times what it was? Will he therefore desist from exhorting Scottish authorities to ask people to pay economic rents for municipal houses when the additional money paid by the tenants will not go to the persons who build the houses but will line the pockets of the money-lenders?
    Mr. Maclay: This again is a question of an old argument, but I might point out that interest rates form only a part of the local authority revenue expenditure, and that the level of Government grants has risen more than correspondingly with revenue expenditure as a whole.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of certain authorities almost 25 per cent. of the rate-borne expenditure is in respect of interest rates, and therefore, represents a considerable proportion of the rates collected?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not think that that supplementary question invalidates what I have just said.

    Housing, Kirkcaldy
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of houses built by Kirkcaldy Town Council in the years 1957, 1958, and 1959, respectively; and whether, in view

    1159
    of Circular 33/1960, he will give an assurance that no deduction will take place in the numbers to be approved for subsidy purposes while homeless and overcrowded families remain on the Kirkcaldy housing list.
    Mr. Maclay: Kirkcaldy Town Council completed 416 houses in 1957, 188 in 1958 and 233 in 1959. As indicated in reply to earlier Questions, I am ready to examine with any council proposals to build for needs outside the priority categories defined in the recent circular.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is not the Secretary of State aware that his previous Answers indicate that those local authorities which have been allocating a substantial percentage of their new houses over the past years to persons in unfit houses are penalised under the circular and that he will cause considerable hardship and suffering to those persons still on the waiting lists for the homeless and overcrowded? If that is not the case, why issue the circular?
    Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Gentleman is taking an entirely gloomy view of the circular which is not substantiated by its wording. If a local authority takes the view that there is an exceptional need to build new houses for families which are overcrowded I should not refuse approval for subsidy purposes, if the case could be fully substantiated.

    Industry (Publicity Services)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent his Department uses the publicity services of the Central Office of Information to publicise the industrial potentialities of Scotland, and the opportunities available for foreign investment.
    Mr. Maclay: My Department fully utilises the Central Office of Information publicity services for these purposes.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any examples of the kind of pamphlet or leaflet which has been issued by the C.O.I at the instigation of the Scottish Office? Is he aware that very elaborate pamphlets are produced for recruiting campaigns for the Services and, in view of the unsatisfactory state of Scottish industry, will he consider using the efficient services of the Central Office of Information in this regard?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will be interested to know that Scottish industrial news items are sent daily to the C.O.I. Overseas Press Service which distributes them to Government information officers in every part of the world, and that in addition a monthly Scottish newsletter with a large proportion of industrial items goes out from the C.O.I. and is sent to twenty overseas countries for use by Press and radio.
    Sir J. Duncan: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the efforts of the Central Office of Information to help industry in Scotland are hampered by the gloomy approach of hon. Members opposite?

    Trawlers, Faroese Waters (Arrests)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that two Scottish trawlers were arrested by a Danish frigate while fishing off the Faroe Islands last week; and what action he is taking to safeguard the rights of Scottish trawlers while fishing in these waters.
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. Fishing in the waters off the Faroe Islands is regulated by the Anglo-Danish Agreement of 1959, which provides for the exclusion of British vessels from fishing inside a line drawn roughly six miles from the Faroese coast. The Danish and Faroese authorities have the right to ensure that this limit is observed and I understand that the trawlers were arrested for infringing it. The skippers concerned have been convicted by a local court for illegal fishing and I understand that the owners are considering an appeal against this verdict. In the circumstances no immediate action seems called for in these two cases but I am keeping a close watch on the situation.
    Mr. Hoy: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that these trawlers were fired on by the Danish naval vessel? Is he aware that they assert that they were outside the six-mile limit? Can he tell the House what advice they received from the British Consul before the trial took place and will he do something about the penal sentences imposed on these trawlers which in fact amount to fines of not less than £5,000?
    Mr. Maclay: I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that, as there is a possible appeal pending, I must be very careful in what I say.
    Mr. Hoy: That may have some reference to the last part of my supplementary question, but will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part? What about the action of the British Consul to protect their rights? Will he confirm or deny that these British trawlers were fired on by this Danish naval vessel?
    Mr. Maclay: I understand that they received a warning. I should want notice of a Question about the full details; there are various stories on this matter. The services of the British Consul were at all times available.

    Ambulance Services
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a fatal accident occurred on Tuesday, 5th July, in which a 24-year old Airdrie girl was killed and two others seriously injured, and that the ambulance service was notified at 10.58 a.m. but did not arrive until 12.14 p.m.; and, in view of this and other examples of the unsatisfactory nature of the ambulance service, if he will now order that a public inquiry be held into the management of the ambulance service.
    Mr. Maclay: I should like to express my sympathy with the relatives of the girl who was killed and with those who were injured. My inquiries show that the ambulance authorities were not notified until 12.4 p.m., and the ambulance left for the accident at 12.5 p.m.—one minute later. Inquiries into the reasons for the delay in notifying the ambulance authorities of the accident are not yet complete.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information appearing on the Order Paper has been carefully checked and found to be quite accurate? Does not he realise that even the Scottish Sunday Mail published a chapter of unfortunate incidents in connection with this ambulance service and that the secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union in Scotland said that an inquiry would serve a useful purpose? In view of this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—this is a very serious matter—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be a serious matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get on with his supplementary question.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that further disclosures have come to light? In the interests of the Scottish public, will he order an inquiry into this unsatisfactory ambulance service?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. In many cases which I have already investigated the problem has been one of notification and not of action by the ambulance service. If the hon. Gentleman has any further evidence and will write to me I shall be glad to receive it, but by and large we find that the ambulance service moves very fast once notification has been received.
    Mr. Dempsey: In view of the most unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    National Health Service, Dundee (Prescriptions)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an investigation into whether the level of prescribing under the National Health Service in the City of Dundee is adequate in relation to the medical needs of those seeking treatment.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir; I have no reason to think that the family doctors in Dundee may not be providing their patients with all the necessary medicines required for their treatment.
    Mr. Thomson: Does the Secretary of State think it worth investigating the position in Dundee, where there is a lower level of prescription than in any other major Scottish city and yet the Dundee doctors are being punished on a larger scale for over-prescribing than is the case in any similar Scottish city?
    Mr. Maclay: I have no indication of any patient in Dundee suffering because of this.

    School Building (Capital Expenditure)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase in capital expenditure for school building in Scotland is proposed for the financial year 1960–61 in fulfilment of the undertaking given in paragraph 21 of Command Paper No. 603, Education in Scotland—The Next Step.
    Mr. Maclay: Investment in school building for 1960–61 will be increased by fully £1 million to £13·2 million, which is above the annual average required to fulfil the undertaking to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Thomson: I thank the Secretary of State for that Answer. On the general question of Government expenditure in Scotland would he undertake to make a statement before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Maclay: I cannot do that. The matter is under examination and I cannot say when any statement will be possible.

    River Clyde, Pollution
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes taking to free the River Clyde from pollution.
    Mr. Maclay: I am discussing with the Clyde River Purification Board the question of making an early Order extending to the estuary and other tidal parts of the Clyde the powers which the Board at present exercises in relation to the non-tidal part of the river.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Act has been on the Statute Book for nine years and that during that time pollution in the rivers in his area and in mine has become worse than ever? Will he give a promise that he will expedite this Order with the greatest possible speed?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will realise that there are complex problems affecting local authorities and industries and many matters of great importance to be considered, and I think that we are moving as fast in this matter as is reasonable.

    Prestwick Airport (Tunnel)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last had consultations with the Minister of Aviation about the possibility of a tunnel under the major runway at Prestwick.
    Mr. Maclay: The Government's decision on this matter was intimated to the House by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in the Adjournment Debate on 17th July, 1959.
    1164
    In it he said that if the runway extension was to go ahead at all it must be without a tunnel. There have been no consultations on this particular issue since then.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Report which we shall discuss this afternoon he says that progress is being made towards the jet age at Prestwick? Is that progress represented by a widened taxiway, an extended runway and £7,000 spent on buildings which will be only temporary; and then there is a hold-up when the passengers get on to the road? Is that his idea of progress in the jet age?
    Mr. Maclay: Let me give the hon. Member one piece of news which he ought to consider satisfactory. Very good progress indeed is being made with the trunk road bypass, a scheme which was started only about seven months ago. I hope that traffic will be able to use it, at least in times of congestion, by early autumn.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the unsatisfactory knowledge of Prestwick and its problems displayed by the Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Hospitals (Out-Patient Departments)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what date he expects to receive from hospitals their surveys, at present being undertaken, about waiting times in their out-patient departments.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received the reports from the hospital authorities, and they are now being studied in my Department.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing volume of complaints from out-patients—and indeed, from some doctors—about the frustrating experience in the time lost in waiting at these departments? Will he undertake to publish the results of this survey at an early date?
    Mr. Maclay: Again I shall have to ask permission to consider whether the full reports can be published and whether they are in a form that makes that possible, but I am well aware of the importance of this problem.

    Home Accidents
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the numbers of accidents which took place in the home for each of the past two years, at any convenient date.
    Mr. Maclay: Numbers of accidents in the home are not available but deaths from such accidents in the years 1958 and 1959 were 1,108 and 1,088 respectively.
    Mr. Hannan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that these numbers are twice the total of deaths which occur as a result of accidents caused by cars on the road? Can he say whether it is his intention to publish the results of the research project recently carried out in this matter?
    Mr. Maclay: I shall have to examine whether we can publish the full report. I will inform the hon. Member.

    Universities (Scotland) Act. 1889
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a small committee of inquiry to examine the means by which the Scottish universities fulfil their obligations under Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, and to recommend ways in which the responsibilities of the Scottish universities to provide information to Parliament and to the public can be best achieved.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. I have not been aware of any need to review the question of the provision to Parliament of information about Scottish universities.
    Dr. A. Thompson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although the Scottish Universities Commission, which was set up under the 1889 Act, laid down that the four Scottish universities should publish each year in their calendars a full financial statement, the universities have in fact ceased to do this, in the case of Glasgow since 1913, St. Andrew's since 1917, Edinburgh since 1921, and Aberdeen since 1938? Will he look into the reasons why they ceased to publish their statements?
    Mr. Maclay: I shall look into that, but a great deal of information regarding the activities of universities is contained
    1166
    in the annual Command Paper, "Returns from Universities and University Colleges in Receipt of Treasury Grant", published by the U.G.C.
    Sir M. Galpern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the practice of English universities to publish an annual report and that a similar publication from each of the Scottish universities would in all probability satisfy the inquisitiveness of Scottish Members.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let there be less noise. Half the intellectual pleasure of Questions is lost if one cannot hear what one is supposed to be aware of.
    Mr. Maclay: I shall certainly examine what the hon. Member has said.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Advance Factories
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now build further advance factories in areas of high unemployment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): My right hon. Friend is keeping the matter under review, but no decision has yet been reached.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the advance factory in Anglesey has been let to an excellent firm months before completion? Does not this and other inquiries prove that such factories are a real inducement to industries? If the hon. Gentleman has confidence in the policy, why does he not build more in areas of high unemployment?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am delighted that the Holyhead factory has been let to Midland Electric Manufacturers Limited, but as I said in my original Answer, the question of where further advance factories should be built is being discussed between Departments.

    Scotland (Trade with Canada)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are now in Scotland representatives of the Government of Canada for the purpose of developing Scottish trade with Canada; and if he

    1167
    will make a detailed statement of his conversations with them and the progress made towards reciprocal trade between Scotland and Canada.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): My right hon. Friend assumes that the hon. and learned Member is referring to the appointment of a Canadian Government Trade Commissioner in Glasgow early this year. The Board of Trade Office for Scotland is in touch with the Trade Commissioner and hopes to work closely with him on all matters concerning the promotion of trade between Scotland and Canada.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that I am not referring to anything of the kind, but am referring to the trade delegation which was in Scotland at the time when this Question was put on the Order Paper? Is it not an abject confession of ignorance on the part of the Minister if he does not know of that delegation? Will he consult some expert—say, Mr. Roy Thomson—who is conversant with the needs of Scotland and the potentialities of trade with Canada, with a view to doing something really practical for the trade and industry of Scotland?
    Mr. Erroll: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has caught me out properly this time. If he had not got this habit of always postponing his Questions they would not get out of date.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the President of the Board of Trade who are the members of the Council of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; what is the extent of the increase of the Secretariat agreed to at Geneva by the contracting parties thereto; and what additional contribution is to be paid by the United Kingdom as a result of decisions made at this Geneva meeting.
    Mr. Erroll: As there are twenty-nine members of the Council, I will, with permission, circulate the list of names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Contracting Parties to the General Agreement have approved in principle that the Secretariat should be enlarged but they have not yet examined precise proposals on this subject or decided what additional contributions individual countries should be invited to make.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is this a case of Parkinson's international law? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people think this organisation has done enough harm already to British and Commonwealth trade?
    Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the sincerely held views of my hon. Friend. I do not think this is a case of an international application of Parkinson's Law. I explained to my hon. Friend, in reply to a Question which was answered on 15th July, why it was decided to set up the Council. I think those were good reasons.
    Following is the information:

    LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SET UP BY THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE

    Australia

    Israel

    Austria

    Italy

    Belgium

    Japan

    Brazil

    Luxembourg

    Canada

    The Netherlands

    Chile

    New Zealand

    Cuba

    Norway

    Czechoslovakia

    Pakistan

    Denmark

    Sweden

    Finland

    Switzerland

    France

    The Union of South Africa

    The Federal Republic of Germany

    The United Kingdom

    Ghana

    The United States

    Greece

    Uruguay

    India

    The Commission of the European Economic Community is invited to participate in the work of the Council.

    Hire-Purchase Restrictions
    Mr. Shortasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will vary the recent hire-purchase restrictions on a regional basis so that the employment position in the north-east of England is not affected.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: No, Sir. To have varying degrees of restriction according to the locality in which the hire-purchase transaction took place would be quite impracticable.
    Mr. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman say why this cannot be done? If this instrument is to be used to deal with inflation, cannot the Government apply it a little more selectively and intelligently instead of indiscriminately to the whole country? Is he aware that before the Chancellor's action there was a high level of unemployment in the North-East

    1169
    and that this has increased considerably in furniture making and other trades as a result of these restrictions?
    Mr. Rodgers: Hire-purchase restrictions like Purchase Tax must go with the goods and not with the locality in which the sales take place. The effect of the release of any one area would inevitably lead to transactions being carried out in the exempt area so as to escape the incidence of the control. This would inevitably weaken the present measures which are to stabilise the economy.
    Mr. Short: If that is the case, cannot the Government apply it selectively as between trades to help the furniture-making and other industries where there is increasing unemployment in the North-East and elsewhere as a result of Government policy?
    Mr. Rodgers: No. What we can do is to steer industries, as the hon. Member knows we are doing, to the area.

    Company, Liverpool (Voluntary Liquidation)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will hold an inquiry into the announced voluntary liquidation of Francis Morton and Company Limited, constructional engineers, of Garston, Liverpool.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: No, Sir. The Board of Trade has no power to investigate the affairs of a company which is in liquidation. That is the duty of the liquidators appointed by the members of the company.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the reasons being given for the voluntary liquidation are not considered by those who are working in the industry to be the correct ones? In view of the very prosperous times through which this industry has been going, is it not possible for some inquiry to be made, because unemployment will be the outcome of a voluntary liquidation in these circumstances?
    Mr. Rodgers: All we know about this particular case is that two chartered accountants were appointed liquidators in March last but, under Section 334 of the Companies Act, the liquidator in a voluntary winding-up is required to report to the Director of Public Prosecutions if he suspects anything wrong.

    Graving Dock, Greenock
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent official discussions with the sponsors of the proposed graving dock at Greenock.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: As a result of discussions between the sponsors of the proposed graving dock and the Board of Trade Advisory Committee, my right hon. Friend has communicated to General Macmillan a revised offer of the terms on which Government assistance can be made available.
    Dr. Mabon: While welcoming the announcement, which I hope represents a very substantial step forward, may I ask if we may take it that the Government are contemplating any definite time limit to be imposed on this offer?
    Mr. Rodgers: The actual offer was made on 6th July. The amendments relate not so much to the terms of Government assistance as to the arrangements to be made by the company for raising that part of the finance to be found from non-Government sources. It is not that we have altered the basis of our offer, but the company is altering the basis of its.

    UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT, UNITED KINGDOM BASES
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister, in view of the difficulties that have arisen over the use of United States aircraft operating from bases in the United Kingdom, since the agreement to allow such United States bases, if he will now consider ending this agreement.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister if the permission of Her Majesty's Government must be obtained before any U2 flights take place from this country.
    Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the United States administration regarding the flight of United States aircraft on reconnaissance missions from Lakenheath airfield.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the

    1171
    past six months the use of the United States bases in this country has been the subject of a joint decision by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States in accordance with the understanding reached in October, 1951, and confirmed in January, 1952.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will consult with President Eisenhower with a view to securing the closest degree of prior consultation and information on all reconnaissance missions of United States aircraft from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether reconnaissance flights over Soviet territory or Eastern Europe have been made by United States aircraft operating from bases in Great Britain; and whether he had given his approval before such flights were made.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, I will answer Question No. 40 with Questions Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, 48 and 50.
    Mr. de Freitas: On a point of order. Before I can decide whether I should like my Question No. 44 to be answered with the others, and since my Question deals particularly with Brize Norton and was put down to the Secretary of State for Air and has been gathered up by the Prime Minister, I should like to know from the Prime Minister how far he is going to treat U2 flights and RB-47 flights in the same way.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member asks about Question No. 44. There is a Private Notice Question down by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, so that perhaps I ought to leave that Question until then. Had I considered this previously, perhaps I should have left out that Question.
    I have given these matters careful consideration, as I promised. These Questions have a bearing on either the scope of Intelligence activities or the way in which they are conducted and controlled. It has never been the practice to discuss such matters in the House, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be contrary to the public interest for me to depart from precedent on this occasion.
    Nevertheless, on the matter of consultation raised by several of these Questions, I feel able to say this. Ever since the
    1172
    Attlee-Truman agreement with regard to the use of bases in this country, we have had good working arrangements between ourselves and the Americans. But I am taking up with the President the question whether there should be any modification or improvement of these arrangements.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Prime Minister recollect that ten years ago the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) uttered a very historic warning about the dangers to this country caused by creating American bomber bases in East Anglia saying,
    "… we have made ourselves the target and perhaps the bull's eye of a Soviet attack".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 630.]
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest incidents have burned this into the minds of the people of this country and that they expect the Prime Minister to speak for the people of this country and not to be a mere puppet of the Pentagon?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Member gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) that he proposed to quote from his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] These are very grave issues in which my right hon. Friend is known to have taken a great part and, without seeing the whole of the speech, I would hazard a venture that this quotation is taken out of a speech in which my right hon. Friend draws the whole picture of our problem as regards air defence and the working of the deterrent. There are, of course, those who feel—and I have every sympathy with the hon. Member; we know his views—that the presence of the United States bases in this country, is, as he says, a threat to our national security. But I am bound to say that I think that there are many more of us who feel that their absence would be an even greater threat.
    Mr. Healey: While welcoming the news that the Prime Minister has decided to approach the American President to improve consultations, may I ask whether this is not an admission that Her Majesty's Government were not fully in control of the activities which have been going on until now? Secondly, is the Prime Minister aware that the American Senate has already been given details of

    1173
    flights by American reconnaissance planes from British airfields? Is it not quite improper that Her Majesty's Government should refuse similar information to this House, because surely the penetration of foreign air space by reconnaissance aircraft is not only a violation of international law which carries peculiar dangers, which have previously been stressed by my right hon. Friends, but has recently been the subject of threats which it would be unwise entirely to ignore?
    The Prime Minister: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, it is perfectly fair to say that everything is capable of improvement. I think that perhaps the second part of the question is that to which the hon. Member attached the greater importance. I have seen the text of the evidence given to United States Senate Committee about the U2 flights from Lakenheath, and I am bound to say that it does not seem to refer at all to the anxieties which are disturbing some hon. Members, for it is quite clear—I will have the papers put in the Library—that it refers to flights not over Soviet territory.
    Mr. Healey: The Prime Minister cannot get away with that. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Air refused to answer my Question referring to this evidence on the ground that these flights concerned Intelligence activities? It is no good now pretending that they did not.
    The Prime Minister: It is not very easy to please the hon. Member. We do our best, and we have many links. When it is my duty to refuse to answer Questions, as far as possible, on Intelligence matters, then we are accused of not giving information. When we try to relax the strictness of that rule a little, we are told that we are inconsistent. All I can say is that we have tried to give as much information as we can—it is quite a heavy burden upon all Administrations in these matters—but to preserve what we believe to be the interests of the country.
    Mr. Grimond: May we take it from the Prime Minister's original answer that the Attlee-Truman agreement applies to these reconnaissance flights and that therefore we were consulted before they took place?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, consultations took place—ever since that agreement was made—as to the flights which may take place from this territory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Since that agreement. Before that agreement was made there could not have been any necessity for such consultations because there were no American bombers in this country.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I venture to ask the Prime Minister to answer the question which last week he invited me to put down: since it is universally admitted that reconnaissance flights by spy aircraft are illegal under international law, is it not desirable that the House of Commons should know whether the Prime Minister is consulted before such flights are made from British bases and whether he has given his approval?
    The Prime Minister: As for the flights referred to, I should have thought that it is not a matter which exercised anxiety in this country now, for it was made clear on 16th May in Paris by President Eisenhower that these flights were suspended and would not be resumed.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the very welcome announcement which the Prime Minister has made that he proposes to take up this matter with the President, may I ask him whether he will consider putting this point to the President: that one of the greatest anxieties which people in this country have is lest the military machine should become the dictator of political policy. In the interests of a continuing amicable and successful alliance in N.A.T.O., will he ask the President to do all that he can to make it abundantly clear that the military instrument is within the control of the politician?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is so. There are occasionally mistakes; of course, there must be. But, broadly speaking, we have consultations and arrangements for operations which we regard, and I think that those opposite who know most about these matters would regard, as essential if there is to be a deterrent and if its value and strength is to be maintained.
    Mr. Warbey: Does the Prime Minister's silence in reply to my Question No. 43 mean that during this period.

    1175
    when there have been U2 flights, combat readiness alert and now the RB47 flight, the Attlee-Truman agreement has been quite ineffective and that the British Government have been a silent accomplice in these provocative actions?
    The Prime Minister: While I try to meet legitimate and very proper questions from those who, I think, share the broad views of the House that we should have a common defence and play our part in it in one way or another, I honestly feel, while I understand the hon. Member's views, that I am entitled to give the kind of reply which I gave because we know that he does not share that view as to what our country ought to do and as to the role that we should play in the world.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Longden.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does my right hon. Friend agree—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to make sufficient noise over the noise which is being made by the House, but I called Mr. Longden.
    Mr. Longden: While I agree with what was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will make it clear in his reply to Mr. Khrushchev that our relations with our allies in N.A.T.O. are not to be dictated by the Kremlin and that, as an employer of more spies than anyone else in the world, Mr. Khrushchev had better put his own glass house in order before threatening to send us a rocket?
    The Prime Minister: There is a Private Notice Question on that issue and I think that it would be more courteous if I waited to answer that, but the point made by my hon. Friend will certainly be borne in mind.
    Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the Prime Minister's statement that reconnaissance flights are not to be resumed over Russia by aeroplanes based in this country, and in view of the impossibility of establishing where a plane is when it is shot down by the Soviet Union, would he consider discussing with President Eisenhower the possibility of notifying the Soviet Government of all scientific survey flights which may be made from American bases?
    The Prime Minister: These are of course possible courses which might be taken. I must remind the House that a great number of activities of this kind are carried on by the Soviet Government, some of them very near our shores. These are the symptoms, not the causes, of the tension. What I regret is that such efforts as I tried to make to reduce the tension have temporarily been halted, but I do not intend to give up that purpose. If we can do that, then some of these things which are really the grievous symptoms of the state of the world will become easier to deal with.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not clear that the circumstances in which the original agreements were made differ considerably from those which obtain today? The original agreements spoke of the use of these bases in an emergency, whereas it is quite clear from the Prime Minister's answers to Questions today and on other occasions that these bases are in fact being continually used for various expeditions of one kind or another. Is it not, therefore, perfectly clear that we must have another agreement on these bases? In welcoming the Prime Minister's announcement that he intends to take this up with the President of the United States, may I ask him if he will inform the House of the outcome of these talks with the President and publish the terms of the new agreement?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not think that it is a question of a written formal agreement. There was not one before. All kinds of activities went on from 1948 onwards under all Governments. I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I know how much he cares for effective defence, and I would be very willing to consult with him as to the result of any of our discussions. I cannot undertake—I am sure that he would not wish me to undertake and would not himself in my place today undertake—to publish the results of some private communications which might pass between us and the American authorities. I said that I would discuss with the President, but it would be a question of going through a whole series of procedures and looking at them again with a view to making them more effective and more secure.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not clear that a distinction should be drawn between

    1177
    matters which can properly be treated as coming under the head of security—for instance, any particular individual flight —and the terms of an agreement regarding consultation? Why should the way in which we consult our allies involve security aspects at all? Does the Prime Minister realise that it is in some sense the absence of precision in the previous agreement that has led to so much public concern over this matter? Will he, therefore, reconsider the question of giving the House and the country as much information as possible about the outcome of his talks with the President of the United States?
    The Prime Minister: I will, of course, consider what we can say and how much we can say.
    Mr. Shinwell: References were made several times by the Prime Minister and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to the terms of the Attlee-Truman agreement, as it has been described. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us what are the terms of that agreement? [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet."] Would it not help to clarify this matter if we knew the terms of the agreement? In fact, was there any written agreement? Since there has been some scepticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite about my knowledge of the matter when Minister of Defence, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that as a member of the Cabinet at that time I am not aware of any written agreement?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I have said that there was a written agreement. As the House knows, an understanding was reached between the United Kingdom and the United States Governments in October, 1951, under Mr. Attlee's Premiership, under which the use in an emergency of bases in this country by United States forces was accepted to be a matter for joint decision between the two Governments in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
    As I told the House on 12th December, 1957, this understanding depended on no formal document. It was accepted as a mutually satisfactory arrangement. It was subsequently confirmed in the joint statement issued on 9th January
    1178
    by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and President Truman in Washington.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever we may think about the desirability, to say nothing of the efficiency, of certain aspects of American intelligence work, we should not play the Russian game by saying anything in this House which is calculated to encourage a climate of opinion towards the discontinuance of American bases in N.A.T.O. and other allied countries?
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. The fundamental basic thing is to continue, to make more effective, and to make perhaps more precise, the close association between Britain and America in this matter, as with all our N.A.T.O. allies.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Prime Minister aware that none of us on this side either wants to play either the Russian game or the American game? We want to play the game with the British people, whose lives are at stake. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as he and his Ministers themselves have said, there is no such thing as a written agreement and the position today is not the same as it was when that understanding was made? The word "emergency" has been inserted by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to cover up a situation which neither he nor any Member in any part of the House can justify at this serious moment.
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's views, but I do not think that they carry the broad approval of the House.
    Mr. Dugdale: I quite appreciate the Prime Minister's reticence on these matters, but can he not tell us at what level these decisions are taken? Are they taken at Prime Minister level, or are they taken at the level of the man commanding the station from which the planes are sent?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will reflect, he will see that it is the duty of subordinate commanders to carry out the general arrangements reached by their superiors.
    Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this House on 30th May the Secretary of State for Air gave an assurance that United States military aircraft entering or leaving the United Kingdom filed a flight plan? Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us whether that undertaking is being carried out? If it is, does it not mean that every aircraft, whatever its enterprise may be, is carrying out its object with the full knowledge of Her Majesty's Government?
    The Prime Minister: I will look up that reply. I have not got it in my mind at the moment.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I revert to the matter of the so-called Attlee-Truman agreement and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in fact this so-called agreement was not an agreement as between the United Kingdom and the United States Government at all? A verbal understanding may have been reached as between the Prime Minister in a Labour Government and President Truman, but there was no actual agreement reached as between Governments.
    The Prime Minister: I do not want to go over all this past history, but the Attlee-Truman agreement to cover the situation was made in October, 1951. The decisive moment was when the bases were put here two or three years before.
    Mr. S. Silverman: In order to reduce this difficult problem to its simplest terms, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees that for this country to permit a military aircraft, no matter to whom it belongs, to fly without permission over the territory of another State is a clear breach of international law? If that is so, will he further say whether we are bound by any agreement or any understanding or in any other way to permit such a breach of international law from our territory?
    The Prime Minister: When this matter arose in Paris I tried my best to enable us to go on with the Conference by pointing out in the discussion that every form of espionage is a breach of international law, a breach of sovereignty. It is. The President having given his undertaking that this particular form of it would cease, I hoped that that would be accepted and we would proceed with
    1180
    our work. At any rate, from the point of view of the people of this country we can surely rest upon the undertaking of the Government of the United States that these flights over Soviet territory will not be resumed.

UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT, BARENTS SEA (SOVIET NOTE)
Mr. Gaitskell (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the Note received by Her Majesty's Government from the Soviet Government relating to the American aircraft shot down over the Barents Sea.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow was handed a Note on the evening of 11th July stating that on 1st July an American RB-47 aircraft on an intelligence mission violated Soviet air space in the Barents Sea near the Kola Peninsula and was shot down over Soviet territorial waters.
The Note said that according to captured members of the crew the aircraft had left a British base on 1st July with orders to return there on the conclusion of their mission. The Note ended by protesting to Her Majesty's Government against the use of its territory on this occasion.
The Note, which was of some length, was given to the Press by the Soviet Government yesterday evening. It is now being studied, and a reply will, of course, be sent in due course. Meanwhile, I hope that I will be allowed to make no further statement on the reply until we have been able to formulate it and send it off.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask whether the Prime Minister will make a further statement on the whole situation as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister: I would be willing, either just immediately after we send the reply, to elucidate it if a Private Notice Question were put down, or, as I would prefer, to let our reply be delivered—we usually follow that custom—before we publish it, and then to answer questions about it, or make a further statement.

1181
I have just heard, as I was coming into the House, that it is expected that the American reply will be delivered tonight. Although I do not now, of course, want to go into the details, I understand from what I have heard that the American reply will be a protest against the shooting down of this aeroplane over the high-seas.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure that the Prime Minister will realise that there is very considerable public concern about this incident. While I quite appreciate that he has not had time to consider the Soviet Note, and cannot give a full reply at the moment, may I ask him whether he will make a statement on this at the earliest possible moment?
Meanwhile, can he answer one or two questions arising out of this? First, is he aware that according to information that has been put into my hands, the American Government, through a White House statement, have now declared that the plane was at no time over Soviet territory, or over Soviet territorial waters, or over Soviet air space? Does that correspond with his own information?
Secondly, as regards this particular flight—or flights of this kind that, apparently take place—were Her Majesty's Government consulted? Is he aware that this morning, at 10.12, a statement appeared on the tape that a Ministry of Defence spokesman had this morning reiterated that the flight was a perfectly legal one for scientific purposes, and that both the object and the route were known to the Ministry?
The statement went on to say that it was, in fact, virtually impossible—and this bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said just now—for any clandestine mission to be made by a foreign aircraft from a British base, since the flight plan must be made known, and all necessary steps taken to insure the aircraft's security.
Does the Prime Minister also know that at 10.29 a.m. this 10.12 a.m. message was cancelled? Can we have a little clarification on this issue? Is it really endangering security for the Prime Minister to tell us whether we know of these things or whether we do not?
The Prime Minister: With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's
1182
supplementary question, I regret this incident. I think that it is better to leave it to Ministers or to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which part?"] The last part. I regret the incident. I regret the mistake by this official—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I refer to a statement alleged to have been made to a correspondent who rang up one of these officers who then denied that he made any statement of this kind. As we have all, I think, suffered from this, I have a little sympathy with the officer concerned, although I think that he would have done much better to say "No comment", which is always the safest thing to say.
With regard to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I, too, was given a report, not of the American Note but a statement made in Washington, on what was likely to be the contents of the American Note. I would prefer to make my statement on the Note when I see the full account of the Note rather than the statement. It says. it is perfectly true, that this aeroplane did not fly either over the land of Soviet territory or over territorial waters, whatever might be their definition, but was shot down outside. They, I imagine, will protest, as they did in a former case in the Baltic Sea, some years ago. This information corresponds precisely with what we believe to be the case, but I would prefer to formulate my Note when I see the text of the full American Note.
Mr. Gaitskell: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question on consultation about these flights?
The Prime Minister: I think that that is covered by what I have already said.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Grimond: Cannot the Prime Minister tell us whether we are told about these flights before they take place, or whether we are not told?
Hon. Members: Answer.
The Prime Minister: We have a broad general agreement about these matters, but I would prefer to give any answer to that question when I make my general statement. I do not wish now to get confused between what are the joint interests of Britain and America protesting against an action of the Russian

1183
Government which we believe to be absolutely illegitimate. It seems to me that that is our first step. After that, I am prepared to answer further questions as to the precise arrangements for any of these legitimate undertakings that are undertaken by the British Air Force or by the American Air Force, either separately or together.
Mr. Wigg: Would the Prime Minister be kind enough, between now and the time when he makes the statement, to look at the reply of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and tell the House whether that statement stands or does not stand; and, if it does stand, the occasions on which either the Americans or ourselves stand in breach of it?
The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has called my attention to that matter. I cannot carry the detail of all these things in my mind. I suggest that the time to make a more general statement is when I make a more elaborate statement arising out of the incident, and when we have disposed of the Russian Note and I have made our answer.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: As the Prime Minister is evidently aware of the statement made by the official this morning, will he tell the House whether that statement, subsequently withdrawn, correctly represents the facts?
The Prime Minister: What the official was concerned with was that statements were attributed to him that he did not, in fact, make.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: But is the statement attributed to him correct?
The Prime Minister: The question of whether it was correct or not does not arise if he did not make it. "No comment" is my reply.
Mr. Chetwynd: Why should there be this secrecy and confusion over what are, presumably, scientific flights to investigate the weather?
Hon. Members: Answer.

PRIVILEGE (COMPLAINT)
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Charles Pannell, who, I believe, desires to raise a matter with me.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter of Privilege, of which I have given you notice.
Last week, on 6th July, I asked two Questions of the Postmaster-General which were replied to by the hon. Lady the Assistant Postmaster-General, about anti-Semitic literature and literature directed against coloured people of the Commonwealth and circulated in telephone boxes in Leeds.
Following the reply of the hon. Lady, and only arising from that reply—I stress that I have had no dealings with anybody outside except arising from that reply—I received a letter from the people who were responsible—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members be good enough not to make so much noise? It is very difficult to hear the hon. Member.
Mr. Pannell: I received a letter from a source which I can only think is the original source of the leaflets which gave rise to the complaint, the letter being in terms which, I think, are a clear breach of Privilege. It is said on the letter that copies have been sent to the Yorkshire Post and the Guardian. It is on notepaper headed, "For Race and Nation", and it comes from the British National Party, with a national headquarters at 74, Princedale Road, London, W.11. It is addressed to Mr. T. C. Pannell, M.P., Leeds, West, at the House of Commons, and is dated 8th July. The letter reads:
"Dear Sir,
My attention has been drawn to your reference in the Commons to leaflets in Leeds presumably issued by the British National Party, and from which it appears that, in return for the £1,000 p.a. which you receive from the British taxpayers ostensibly for the promotion of their interests, you are perfectly agreeable to see their land flooded with negroes and dominated by Jews, and feverishly anxious to deprive them of the freedom to criticise the intrusion of the racial aliens and to speak out for a Britain for the British.
"No doubt, when you clamour for our prosecution, you will be commended by all the Jewish overlords of Leeds and their coloured allies for your zeal in the service of

1185
their interests, but you would do well at the same time to take into account the possibility that, in the resurgent Britain of tomorrow, it may well be you and your fellow racial renegades who face trial for your complicity in the coloured invasion and Jewish control of our land.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Jordan,
National Organiser, B.N.P."
I wish to point out, Sir, that, however foolish that may sound, it is written by an educated man who is a school teacher in a British school. It is intended as a threat. I have no doubt that, if one searched the archives of Germany, one would find that certain equally silly letters—if one may stigmatise them as silly letters—were sent to Socialist deputies in the days when Hitler was on his way up. The point is that the literature is still being disseminated in the city which I represent, a city which has the highest percentage of Jews among all cities in the United Kingdom.
No one can represent the City of Leeds without sensing the wave of emotion which passes over Jewry in that city whenever there is a pogrom in some part of the world, or whenever there is any racialism at all. No one on either side of the Chamber representing a constituency in that city—
Mr. Speaker: I think that, supposing leave to be given for a Motion to be submitted by the hon. Member, what he is now saying might be properly directed to this speech on the Motion. I think that this is the stage when I should ask him to bring the letter to me.
Mr. Pannell: Yes, Sir.
Copy of letter delivered in.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to raise this with me at the earliest possible moment, which was yesterday. Accordingly, I have had an opportunity of considering its terms. In my clear opinion, the writing of this letter constitutes prima facie a case of breach of Privilege of this House.
Mr. Pannell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I have considered, since the time I spoke to you, what would be the appropriate course to take. I have had in mind the nature of the source from which the letter has come, and I do not wish to do anything which would tend to inflate the significance of the
1186
matter or give the writer any sense of great self-importance. It is, I think—I imagine that hon. Members will probably agree—very much a question of taste and a sense of proportion. I wish to ask the House to take a course rather different from the usual one, but a course which has honourable precedents. It was last invoked on 14th April, 1938, by my predecessor in the constituency of Leeds, West, who was well known to many hon. Members, I think—Mr. Vyvyan Adams. I ask that the matter should not be referred to the Committee of Privileges, but should be the subject of a Motion now, on the Floor of the House.
I beg to move,
That the said letter constitutes a gross breach of the Privileges of this House.
If the House accepts that Motion, as I hope it will, the result will be that we shall have made a finding, but will not have imposed a sanction. It really means that, if these people or this person does anything following such a Resolution by the House, he will be in contempt of the whole House. We shall thereby serve warning upon him, if he does anything like this again arising out of a purely Parliamentary procedure and holds a Member up to a threat, contempt or ridicule because of something done in Parliament, and it means that I am completely free to proceed either within or without the House. I believe that the letter as written is itself, of course, a libel.
I wish to dispose of the matter in that way. It will have the added advantage, if the House agrees to accept the course I recommend, that the matter will be finished this afternoon for the time being. We shall not have a Motion of Privilege hanging over the House until October, and we shall have got rid of it. It is, I think, a procedure rather older than our usual Committee of Privileges Motion and it has respectable antecedents. It does not tend to inflate the issue of Privilege in this case beyond a point to which I think hon. Members generally would wish it to be inflated, but it does serve notice that any Member standing in the House and asking a Question on behalf of his constituents is not to be libelled and is not to be threatened. It serves notice that the House will act if there is any repetition from the same source.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I fully appreciate and sympathise with the motives which have led my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to move his Motion, but, for my part, I must dissent from it. There are many occasions on which Members of Parliament are well advised to take no action whatever with regard to something which may well be, nevertheless, a technical or more than technical breach of Privilege, just as there are other occasions when all of us would feel it to be our duty to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to some matter and ask for your Ruling and then, if your Ruling be that there is prima facie a breach of Privilege, for the normal consequences in the House of Commons to follow.
In my humble opinion, there is no halfway house. Either the matter should be ignored or, if it is not ignored, once you have declared, as you have here, that prima facie, at any rate, there is a clear breach of Privilege, the matter ought to go to the Committee of Privileges in the ordinary way so that it may consider what action, if any, it would recommend the House to take, after proper investigation and after giving the person against whom the complaint is brought an opportunity to be heard.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my saying that it seems to me that it is really not consistent with the protection of the exercise by Members of Parliament of their duties in their office, once it has been established that prima facie a breach of Privilege has occurred, to ignore it and do nothing about it. If it is trivial, leave it alone. If it is not trivial—my hon. Friend certainly does not think that this is trivial and I think that most of us do not regard it as trivial—then the Committee of Privileges is a safe tribunal. It will do justice to everyone concerned. It will make a considered report, and the House of Commons itself, at the end of the day, will be able to decide, on advice, whether it wishes to take any further action or not.
Mr. Speaker: So that the House can decide what it wants to do, is the hon. Member thinking of moving an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leeds, West?
Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, to leave out from "the" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges."
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I take precisely the opposite view to that of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It seems to me that in the course of his speech he fell into a very well-known trap. He assumed that when you, Mr. Speaker, decided that the matter was prima facie a breach of Privilege you were deciding on the merits of the matter, whereas, in actual fact, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that when you used those words you are merely saying that the matter raised falls within the category of Privilege and, as such, has precedence over the Orders of the Day.
I feel that the House is always in grave difficulties when the normal procedure such as that advocated by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is followed. The procedure is that the Leader of the House moves that the matter be committed to the Committee of Privileges. If any hon. Member of the House thinks that the matter is too trivial—and I, for one, feel most strongly that recourse to the Committee of Privileges should be had as rarely as possible—he can claim a Division.
The Motion, having been moved by the Leader of the House, is supported by the Government Whips. The Whips are on. That is bound to happen. It is almost impossible for those who dissent from the view that it be sent to the Committee of Privileges to win the day. I commend with my whole heart the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leeds. West (Mr. C. Pannell). It is an interesting coincidence that the last occasion this was resorted to was by Mr. Vyvyan Adams, whom many of us remember with great affection and esteem.
I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West will carry his Motion. I think that it is the proper way to decide these matters unless they are of major importance. The issue involved in this is of major importance although the incident in itself is trivial. I believe that the

1189
House will best consult its own dignity and its own effectiveness if it agrees to the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: I think that it is rather a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) moved his Amendment, because the House will now be in some quandary as to what to do on the immediate issue without having to give it a great deal of careful thought.
As I understand the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), it is, in effect, that if the House were to accept the Motion that he has moved not only would it be a salutary warning to the person who wrote this letter, and indicate to that type of person what this House thinks of this sort of thing happening to a Member, but, much more important, it would mean that if, in breach, that particular person again repeated it, the consequences could be that much more severe.
I ask the House to remember that be- cause, as I see it, this is the way for the House of Commons to be sensible about a matter of this kind in knowing how to deal with a situation which all of us, I hope, detest and want never to see rising again in this country. All I want to see is that at the end of the day the right method is followed. I hope that, on consideration, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne will withdraw his Amendment, bearing in mind that if he does that, it will mean that if this person repeats his action the punishment that could then be inflicted is much more severe than we can expect from the Committee of Privileges considering it in the first instance.
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I am not quite sure that I wholly agree, with great respect, with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). In the main, it seems to me that his suggestion is the more sensible of the two before us. I can put the reason very shortly indeed.
You, Mr. Speaker, have thought on this matter and have had longer notice of it than the rest of us, except the hon.
1190
Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), and in your judgment this is, as far as can be seen at this stage, a breach of Privilege. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. As far as can be seen at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that it would be difficult to take a view opposite to that. On the other hand, I think that there is no doubt that the House ought not, at such short notice, upon such short consideration, not having seen the letter before it, to pass a Motion which is, in effect, a condemnatory judgment. It seems to me quite plain that that is so.
If I may say one other thing which may sound a little pretentious, but it is merely the accident of my professional life, I have at one time or another read every reported case on Privilege. I think that those who have done anything like the same will not contradict me when I say that when the House has hurriedly decided, particularly on matters which excite emotion, on a question of Privilege brought before it, it has very frequently had reason later to regret its decision. I think that what, as a matter of commonsense theory, we most of us would agree to, is in fact, borne out by experience.
I feel, therefore, that we should not simply adopt the Motion of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, for whom I have great respect and great sympathy, and that the alternative before us is to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I listened to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) reading out the letter, but hearing a letter read out in a rather noisy House is a very different thing from seeing it in the OFFICIAL REPORT and having a chance to form an opinion on it.
I think that it would be quite unfair to the man who wrote this letter, whatever his merits, that we instantly pass a Motion finding him guilty of a gross

1191
breach of Privilege of this House. I understand how the hon. Member for Leeds. West feels. It is a matter of opinion and judgment just when one takes account of abusive letters and when one does not. I personally would not have taken account of that letter: but it is a matter of judgment.
The hon. Gentleman thinks it right to do so. I do not quarrel with him. I can understand the way that he feels about it. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it raises a prima facie case of breach of Privilege, and once that point has been reached I think that it would be very difficult, if we had nothing before us but the hon. Gentleman's Motion, to reject it. It would be very hard to do so. I think that the only proper procedure in these circumstances is to do what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne suggests, refer it to the Committee of Privileges so that it can consider the matter carefully and decide what to recommend to us.
Personally, I would want to consider this matter very carefully. I never quite know where the boundary line comes between breach of Privilege and contempt and although, in its consequence, the matter may be slightly academic, we do not want on the record of this House a Resolution to the effect that a particular form of conduct is a breach of Privilege, when, according to all our precedents in law and in this House, it ought, in fact, to be contempt. These are the sort of matters which arise and I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West will agree to this case going to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). He is trying to assist the House. He is trying to avoid using a sledge hammer, but, with great respect, I feel that that is not the way to look at this problem.
The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) referred to the gentleman who wrote this letter, if one can call him a gentleman. But that is a presumption. There is no proof
1192
whatsoever that he is the man who wrote the letter. All of us have been associated with cases of forgery, and this may be a forgery. The man may come forward and say, "I did not, in fact, write the letter". In those circumstances, it would be foolish for the House to dismiss this matter in such a peremptory manner.
Sir Peter Agnew: I want to express my agreement with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Usually, when the House is asked to come to a decision on a matter of this kind, it is a decision regarding procedure and the House is committed to nothing more than sending the case for thorough examination to the Committee of Privileges. If, without having seen the letter for ourselves and being able to consider it, we pass a hasty Motion, however correct it might be, I venture to say that that procedure would savour something more like that of a people's court. We are asked to exercise a semi-judicial, if not a judicial, function. I, for one, would prefer to do that after having seen the documents on which I am asked to record my vote.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I should inform the House that the Hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) consulted me on this matter last night, and that I have been in touch with the Table, although not with you, Mr. Speaker. I must confess that my first reaction was rather on the line taken by the hon. Member himself. I took some soundings and I found that that was generally supported, at any rate last night, so far as I could judge.
I have now listened to the debate, and the first thing which strikes me, as Leader of the House, is that if there is any doubt we should take care about what action we adopt. Sufficient doubt has been expressed to make me feel that we should not decide this matter summarily, but that it should go forward in the ordinary way and be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
On that basis, either the hon. Member should withdraw the Motion, in which case I would move in the normal way—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is possible now, because an Amendment has been moved to the Motion.
Mr. Butler: I was about to say that I thought that that might be difficult, but I am saved in my oratory by your intervention, Mr. Speaker. As the Amendment has been moved, I think that the House has only one course, namely, to support it.
I do not want to say that this is in any way letting down the hon. Member for Leeds, West. We are all in sympathy with the case which he has put forward. I have quite openly stated that last night I agreed with him. Today, I am taking the other line, because, if there is any dubiety in the matter, we ought to have the opportunity to have it investigated. If the hon. Member feels happy about this, I feel sure that this is the best course for the House to adopt.
As there is evidence of a prima facie case, I suggest that the House should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
Mr. Pannell: With the permission of the House, may I say, as the Leader of the House has said, that I went to some trouble to have adequate consultation yesterday and to sound the authorities.
1194
Of the propriety of the course which I have asked the House to take, I have no doubt, I could probably quote a dozen precedents. I would have wished the House to do what I have suggested because, in the long run, I think that it would have been better, but in so far as it is suggested that this is not, to other hon. Members, the plain case which it appears to me—and no one will question my motives in moving the Motion—I will bow to the difference in the House and justice will then seem to have been done. I will not object to the matter going to the Committee of Privileges.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
Proposed words there added.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [22ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1960–61

  CLASS I. VOTE 22. SCOTTISH HOME DEPARTMENT (REVISED ESTIMATE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £463,495, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home Department, and the salary of a Minister of State; grants and expenses in connection with probation services; expenses of inspection, training, superannuation, etc., in connection with the fire services in Scotland, and balances of grant in respect of expenditure incurred by fire authorities and joint fire committees during 1958–59 and earlier years; balances of grants in respect of expenses of school crossing patrols for 1958–59 and earlier years; a grant to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund; grants to electricity undertakings in connection with civil defence measures: and sundry other services, including grants in aid.—[£760,000 has been voted on account.]
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Bryan]—put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

SCOTLAND (INDUSTRY, EMPLOYMENT AND ROADS)
4.17 p.m.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Reports on Industry and Employment in Scotland and on Scottish Roads. 1959–60 (Command Paper No. 1045).—[Mr. Maclay.]
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: It is with a due sense of diffidence and modesty that I rise to open this debate on industry, employment and roads in Scotland. I would not have dared to do so had I not been honoured by an invitation from my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies.
1196
I can offer two reasons in justification for accepting this invitation. First, I am only half English. I am half Scottish, and, if we had a system of matrilineal instead of patrilineal descent, I should be Scottish and the Prime Minister would be American. The other reason is more serious, namely, that perhaps my presence at this Box indicates the deep concern of all of us, whatever constituencies we represent, about the situation in Scotland today.
I emphasise that inevitably, compared with other right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debates of the Scottish Grand Committee and in earlier debates in this House, I approach these matters very much as an outsider. I can only hope that the point of view of an outsider may be of interest.
Standing back and looking at the Scottish economy over this last decade, no one can deny that certain salient facts stand out. First, although Scotland has, in round figures, 10 per cent. of the population of Great Britain, she has 20 per cent. of the unemployment—one-tenth of the population, one-fifth of the unemployment. Secondly, the population of Scotland during the last decade has been increasing, but at less than half the rate of the population of Britain. Thirdly, from 1951 to 1959 there has been an actual decline in civil employment in Scotland compared with an increase of nearly 500,000 in Great Britain. There has been a steady drift to the South and Midlands of England away from Scotland and from the North and North-West of England, with the largest decline of all in Scotland.
Migration from Scotland appears to amount to between 20,000 to 25,000 persons every year. Of the graduates emerging from Scottish universities, 60 per cent, of those with science degrees have to find employment outside Scotland and 40 per cent. of those with engineering degrees. Finally, if one looks at the production figures, while, since 1953, production rose in West Germany by 62 per cent., in France by 59 per cent., in Italy by 58 per cent., and in Britain as a whole by 20 per cent.—we were the last but one in the European league—in Scotland production rose during those years by barely 9 per cent.
These are sombre figures. It is impossible—again, I speak as an outsider—to

1197
avoid the conclusion from them that Scotland, compared with Great Britain as a whole, has not kept pace in industrial progress and employment and, still less, has kept pace with the rest of Europe, that it is a declining rather than an expanding part of the British economy and that, at least up to 1959, no sign of any improvement in the relative economic position of Scotland in Britain as a whole was to be seen, but, on the contrary, the decline was continuing.
I will come to the causes of this situation a little later. Let me say at once, however, that I do not think that anybody, whatever his antecedents may be and whatever constituency he represents, would wish to suggest that this was in any way due to lack of skill, lack of brains, lack of hard work or lack of thrift on the part of the Scottish people. On the contrary, it its well known that when people speak about Scotsmen going abroad they do so in terms of flattery, because of their capacity for hard work and their technical ability. Nor do I think that this can be ascribed in any fundamental sense to a lack of materials in comparison with Britain, to a lack of port facilities, or to anything of that kind.
I have said that that was the position up to 1959. Now, I should like to turn to the Report which we are considering this afternoon and to begin by looking at the "Historical Review of 1959." There is, indeed, little comfort in these first chapters for any of us who are concerned with the problems of Scotland. On page 7, for example, at paragraph 7, we see the table of the distribution of unemployment showing those who were out of work for a long time and those who were out of work for a shorter time. It will be seen how very much higher the proportion of long-term unemployment in Scotland is compared with England.
If we turn to the next page, and look at paragraph 12, we see the figures of the ratio of vacancies to those seeking work. I quote from the end of paragraph 12:
"For every 100 vacancies at the end of 1959 Scotland had 922 unemployed as against 163 in Great Britain as a whole and 62 in the English Midlands; by April 1960 the position had further improved to the extent of reducing Scotland's figure to 619 and those of Great Britain and the Midlands to 125 and 46 respectively."
1198
Still at the point of the boom, virtually the height of the boom, there were in Scotland six times as many people looking for jobs as there were jobs available.
If we turn to paragraph 14, on the following page, we see that
"more young persons were unempoyed in 1959 than in 1958, the monthly average being up by 1,400."
If we pass on to page 10 and paragraph 16, we see that over the year as a whole 1959 output was less than 1 per cent. better than in 1958 as against the United Kingdom's increase of about 5½ per cent. Although there has been improvement over the year, the increase in the fourth quarter of the year in Scotland was
"4½ per cent. or slightly less than half the United Kingdom's increase in that quarter."
Turning to individual industries, confining myself, as I do, to those with a weighting of over 3 per cent. of the index, there is again little for our comfort. I begin with shipbuilding and marine engineering. Here the Report says that
"the total volume of work done declined sharply in the first half of 1959 and, unlike output in many other industries, showed little sign of recovery towards the end of the year."
In paragraph 25, we read that
"Over the year as a whole employment in marine engineering averaged nearly 10 per cent. less than in 1958 and … total activity was down by about 6 per cent."
There is a rather better account to be given of general and electrical engineering, a decided improvement—much the best—in whisky production and sales and a somewhat better picture in textiles, but when we have gone through those industries and return to the others, the picture is almost uniformly gloomy.
In the metal manufacturing industries, output in 1959 was 10 per cent. less than in 1958. In vehicle manufacturing, we are told that the group
"had a relatively poor year in 1959, output being just above that of 1958."
In the paper and printing industries, there was an increase of about 1 per cent. In the chemical industry, we read that
"This group of industries failed to recover in 1959, and the rate of output at the end of the year was still below the corresponding period of 1958."
I quote only one other passage from this part of the Report, and it is from

1199
paragraph 76, on building and contracting:
"Despite the increased work done, the industry was not fully employed, and the unused capacity, especially in Glasgow and the west. kept competition keen for new work."
It also did something else: it allowed fewer houses to be built.
It may be said that by concentrating, as I have done in the last few minutes, on the "Historical Review of 1959", I am hardly being fair. The Secretary of State for Scotland may say that the prospect is much brighter, and certainly when one turns to the later chapters in the Report there is a rather brighter outlook. I must, however, point out that before the Report was written, before the year 1959 was reached, from whose experience I have been quoting, right hon. and hon. Members opposite had been in power for eight years. What I have just said, the figures I have given and the quotations I have read from their own Report is a report on their activity after all these years. We must be pardoned if we feel a little sceptical of optimistic promises once again being made, because we have heard them so often before.
For the rest, when we turn to the Report and look at the prospect ahead, we get, inevitably, little beyond vague phraseology. Of one industry, it is said that "the long-term outlook is favourable", of another that "the upward trends will continue", and of another that "the outlook is good". We should not, I suppose, expect to get figures, although it would have been nice to have had a more precise estimate—perhaps the Secretary of State or the President of the Board of Trade can fill in the details—of how much they think that production will increase in Scotland over the year.
Not only that; although we have these vague phrases of a more cheerful kind about a number of industries, they do not apply to all of them. I draw attention to paragraph 169 of the Report, dealing with the shipbuilding industry, which says:
"For the immediate future the industry must work mainly on its dwindling backlog of orders on hand. The tonnage under construction at the end of 1959 was 13 per cent. less than a year earlier, and overall activity this year is likely to be on a reduced level."
1200
Nevertheless, I do not question that, compared with this time last year, there has been an improvement in the industrial situation in Scotland, but I ask myself and the House whether this is the only comparison that must be made. Should we not compare the change in Scotland with the change in Britain? If Scotland continues to lag behind Britain, there is still something wrong. There is still a relatively depressed situation in Scotland. It is all very well for the figures for Scotland to go up now and then down again, but if, whether up or down, Scotland remains continually behind, the problem has not been solved. The Scottish economy needs not merely to follow the variations of the British economy; it needs to be jerked altogether on to a higher level.
Against that background, I should like to draw attention to something which the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, now the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power, said last year. He was explaining that he thought that there was a much better chance for Scotland to flourish in an atmosphere of general expansion. That was a perfectly good point. The idea is that we raise demand generally, and in the circumstances of a high level of demand it is easier to induce firms and businesses to move into Scotland and similar areas.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
"What we should all no doubt agree is that the policy of redistribution of industry should be pursued in times when industry is expanding just as vigorously as, if not more vigorously than, in times of economic slackness. If, therefore, in the months to come, the heavy industries in Scotland follow the present quickening of activity in the consumer goods Industries, and if the unemployment figures there fall considerably, as I hope they will, it is then, when industry is expanding and more ready than at present to move into new areas, that we must actively and energetically take the opportunity to secure a greater density and diversity in industry in the remote areas of Great Britain that either have little or no industry at present or depend too much on one or two industrial concentrations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1959; Vol. 606. c. 224.]
I have no quarrel with that general argument, but we would then expect, if this indeed were the case and Scotland's hope was general industrial expansion, that as in Britain we moved towards full employment Scotland's share in the total of unemployment would decline. If

1201
one read that the level of unemployment in the Midlands and the South had fallen to 1 per cent., and below in certain areas, one would expect that after that there would be a rapid decline in Scottish unemployment until perhaps the same low level had been achieved.
In fact, the actual figures show precisely the contrary trend. Whether we take them over the last years or the last few months, it is the same story. For instance, in 1955, which would be generally regarded as a boom year, when the percentage of unemployment in Britain as a whole was 1·1, the figure in Scotland was 2·4 per cent. and the Scottish percentage of total unemployment was 22. In 1959, when Britain's percentage of unemployment was 2·2, the Scottish level was 4·4 and the Scottish percentage of total unemployment was 20.
The latest figures show the trend even more clearly. For instance, in January of this year the Great Britain percentage of unemployment was 2·1, the Scottish figure was more than twice at 4·5, and the Scottish share of total unemployment was 21·3 per cent. There is a more or less steady rise throughout the year in this figure of the percentage of total unemployment to be found in Scotland, until in June, when the Secretary of State for Scotland was so proud to be able to announce to the Scottish Grand Committee a further decline in the total of unemployment in Scotland to 69,000, the percentage figure for Britain was 1·4, but for Scotland it was 3·2, and the Scottish share of the total unemployment in Britain had risen to 22·8, which was one of the highest figures that we have had in recent years.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, in that speech, also referred in somewhat glowing terms to the figures for the last quarter. He said:
"Taking the figures for the months March to June … the reduction in the total number of unemployed this year is 22,300, which is nearly double the average reduction for the same three months of the previous five years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Grand committee; 23rd June. 1960, c. 47.]
It sounds wonderful until one see what was happening to the British figure in that period. It will be found that it is just as true of Britain as a whole as it is of Scotland. During the last three months. the decline in unemployment in Britain
1202
was 108,000—certainly more than twice the average of the previous five years.
It is the same story if one takes the latest production figures for the United Kingdom and Scotland. For instance, the Secretary of State again claimed with great pride that Scotland's production index—and he produced the figures for the first time in that debate the other day—showed that in the first quarter production was up 6½ per cent. on the first quarter of the previous year. One might suppose that Scotland was doing very well compared with England, but the corresponding figure for Britain as a whole was not a 6½ per cent. increase but a 12½ per cent. increase.
Therefore, from the figures which have reached us, whether of production or employment, we can conclude that certainly there has been an improvement in Scotland but that it has been a smaller improvement than that which has taken place in Britain as a whole. Scotland still lags seriously behind. There is no sign whatever in these figures of a fundamental adjustment in Scottish employment and industry but only of a belated recovery from recession which is well behind that of Britain as a whole.
What has gone wrong? As industry has expanded in Britain, why has there not been greater improvement in the movement of employment, new business and factories into Scotland, so as to solve the problem of the relatively high degree of unemployment that exists there? First, the plain fact is that the Government over these last years have never been really tough enough in refusing I.D.C.s in the heavily congested areas of England. They have never been willing to use such controls as they have over the location of industry to induce and push industrial firms into Scotland. There has been a general absence of planning of the location of industry over the country as a whole, and this has created very grave problems in England as well as in Scotland.
It is this that in large part is responsible for the ghastly spread of Subtopia in the Midlands and the South of England. It is this that is helping to create the problems that should be worrying the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and it is this that is indirectly one of the reasons for the immense rise in land values. It is this

1203
which has created at least a certain amount of the traffic congestion.
I am certain that one of the lessons of all this is that we shall never solve the Scottish problem and never solve the English problem of congestion in urban areas unless and until the Board of Trade accepts its responsibility, not just for tinkering with the problem, but planning the location of industry as a whole. I hope that no hon. Members opposite will suggest that I want to direct industry or direct labour. I am not proposing that, but there are very powerful instruments at the Government's disposal—and always have been—by which they could set about making the adjustment which has to be made.
The second reason for the Government's failure to solve the fundamental problem of Scotland's unemployment and need for industry is that, as soon as shortages of labour appear anywhere, it is the policy of the Government to stop the boom everywhere. That is exactly what has happened in the last few weeks. Worried about the balance of payments and fearful lest the pull of the home market should be too strong, the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the Bank Rate to a crisis level of 6 per cent., imposed severe restrictions on the banks' power to lend, and froze public investment.
I do not want in this debate to go over the ground which was covered yesterday. It is not always easy to see precisely what the Government's arguments are in this respect, but I think that the President of the Board of Trade, with whom in the old days I have frequently argued about this subject, will agree that the intention of the credit squeeze is no more and no less than to reduce home demand generally in order that more resources are available for exports and, at the same time, there is less pressure to import additional commodities and raw materials. The whole point of the plan is that it should be general and depress the general level of demand with the hope that in that way export demand will take hold, as it were, while home demand is cut down.
How does this operate? Why is it suggested that the combination of a Bank Rate at 6 per cent., the restriction on the banks' lending and the freezing of
1204
public investment will produce this state of affairs? It is because it is hoped and believed that these measures—I need not go into all the technical intricacies—will lead to fewer orders being placed. That is the simple fact of the matter. Whether it be for consumer goods, with which the specific measures to restrict hire purchase are intended to deal, or whether it be with investment, it is the general restriction on demand which the Government attempt to secure.
Just as we get to the point where the economy is expanding and where it would be easy at last to divert firms to set up and expand in Scotland and similar areas, the general market for the commodities produced by those firms is artificially depressed. The inevitable result when such a general instrument is used is that because there is a tightness of labour in the Midlands and the South of England, Scotland must still be depressed.
There is another aspect which must be brought into the picture. I have spoken of the idea of the Government generally restricting demand, and I gather from what the President of the Board of Trade said yesterday that that is their intention. However, I do not think he will deny that if there is any distinctive effect of such measures—high interest rates, the credit squeeze, freezing public investment—it is likely to be especially hard on heavy industries.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling)indicated dissent.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and so I shall be interested to hear his views.
If they believe that rates of interest have any effect at all and that the restriction of bank lending has any effect—and personally I am not very dogmatic about those things and I am never one of those who say that the rate of interest has no influence—most economists take the view that its influence is felt by investment orders, by the orders which go to the heavy industries. It is those industries which are far more likely to be affected than the consumer and lighter goods industries.
Faced with that situation—and I do not think that they will question the accuracy of my analysis, that is to say,

1205
that it is at the moment when there is a shortage of labour in the Midlands but still quite a degree of unemployment in Scotland that the squeeze comes on—are the Government preparing to take any steps to protect Scottish industry and employment from the effects of the credit squeeze? I give them the opportunity to answer, and I hope that we shall have answers, because the people of Scotland are interested in whether they are to have what one might call specialist treatment, which I believe they need, or whether they are to be subjected to the same blanketing policy which affects the country as a whole.
That brings me to one part of the measures, one particular type of measure, on which I wish to spend a little more time, the freezing of public investment. This, presumably, covers, on the one side, the investment plans of the nationalised industries and, on the other, the direct expenditure by the Government on various social services and other Government activities.
What effect is it expected that the freezing of the plans for investment in the nationalised industries will have on Scotland? Does this mean that the plans for expanding the production and distribution of electricity from the hydroelectric schemes, chiefly in the North of Scotland, although to some extent elsewhere, are to be interfered with? Can we have an answer to that? Does it mean that the gas industry, which has made many advances through the technical advantages of large-scale production, closing down inefficient and small works and so on, is to find all that work has to be curtailed?
What is the likely effect on industry as a result of the freezing of the nationalised industries investments as a whole, whether the National Coal Board, the electricity authorities or the British Transport Commission? Scotland happens to be a rather large producer of mining machinery. What are the consequences to be on that industry of the freezing of public investment?
It is also a producer of boilers and turbines in a big way. Those industries are very much dependent on the orders of the electricity industry and of the nuclear power industry. What about the effects on orders for locomotives, so far as the firms concerned are capable of
1206
producing the locomotives required by the Transport Commission? What about the effects on steel? Have all those things been taken into account in compiling this very optimistic report?
While we can do little more than ask questions about the consequences of freezing public investment in the nationalised industries, we know rather more about direct expenditure on housing, education, health and roads. I want now to say a few words about Scottish housing.
I must confess that, speaking very much as an outsides, I have been astounded at the story which has unfolded itself as I have read the figures for Scottish housing. I thought that my own constituency in Leeds was as bad a part as any for intolerable housing conditions, but I must confess that when I went to Glasgow and discovered what was happening there I had to concede to Glasgow the dubious honour of being easily the worst housed city in the country.
We cannot and must not forget these figures. In 1959, almost half the houses in Glasgow had only one or two rooms, and more than 400,000 people were living in them. In central Glasgow, about two-thirds of the houses had only one or two rooms and 90,000 people in Glasgow were living more than three to a room and of those 34,000 lived more than four to a room. Those are ghastly figures. They should make everyone of us feel ashamed that such conditions are tolerated. I ventured to say in my speech in Glasgow that I did not know how the people there tolerated it.
I turn now to sanitary conditions. Less than half the families in Glasgow have baths in their houses, and more than one-third share a W.C. In the Gorbals area, now being cleared, only 3 per cent. of the families had a bath and only one in five had a W.C. inside the house. To say that they live like pigs is no exaggeration.
This situation has been allowed to continue year after year. I could understand it if the Secretary of State was able to say "We have had frightful difficulties in Scotland; we had a great accumulation of arrears"—which is certainly true—" but we are doing our hest, housing output is rising year by year

1207
and we are making a great effort to catch up." But, of course, the extraordinary fact is that the number of houses completed in Scotland has been falling year by year. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the following figures: in 1953 the total completed was 39,548; in 1959, it was 27,293—a fall of more than 12,000, or nearly one-third. The figures for local authority houses were 36,938 in 1953 and 23,057 in 1959. It is true that in the last year, according to the Secretary of State's figures, there has been some slight increase, and that the total number under construction at the end of the year was up by about 1,000, but no more than that.
I want to know exactly what the freezing of public investment in Scotland will do to housing there. After all, the Government cannot get away with the idea that it is not necessary to build more houses in Scotland. After the figures I have given of the situation in Glasgow, the Secretary of State cannot get away with the pretence that the reason for this enormous decline in the number of houses being built is simply that houses are not needed. Yet he went very nearly as far as saying that not long ago in the debate in the Grand Committee.
What has actually happened is that high interest rates, the slashing of the subsidies, and the further slashing recently announced by the Secretary of State and debated in the Committee the other day, together with what I can only describe as discouragement of local authority housing, has produced this result. I ask the Secretary of State very seriously what he has in mind. Does he expect housing to tail off further, particularly local authority housing, or would he regard it as his bounden duty quickly to increase the amount of housing built in Scotland?
The record in the school building programme may be somewhat better than in housing, but we want to know whether that will go on. In most of these programmes there is supposed to be a general expansion—not for this year, we were always told, but for the next year. Now, however, it is to be frozen—or is Scotland to be immune? What about hospitals, and, above all, the roads programme? I did not know whether to
1208
say that the roads problem is worse in England than it is in Scotland. I know what my Scottish hon. Friends will say, but it is very bad in both; and we will all agree that if we are to get Scottish industry jerked on to a higher level then all the facilities necessary for industry must be made available. If we are to develop the Highlands as a tourist area, we must have a proper road system.
Finally, exactly how is expenditure under the Local Employment Act to be affected by the freezing of Government expenditure? Are we to assume that the plans that one hopes the Government have in mind for building more advance factories, for instance, in these areas are to be cut back? I hope that the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade will give clear answers about that. Presumably there have been discussions. The Secretary of State must have been a party to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement that public investment was to be frozen. How will it affect Scotland, and what steps is the Secretary of State taking to protect Scotland from the rigours of the Chancellor's policy?
Even the most ardent Tory cannot deny that over the past eight years the Government have failed to solve the problems of Scottish industry and employment. It is hard, indeed, to detect any improvement. The percentage of unemployment has remained, and remains today, more than twice as high as in Britain as a whole. Production has lagged behind, and still does so. Migration continues.
There is no doubt about what needs to be done. It is, of course, to arrange that more employment of a varied but permanent character goes to Scotland so that its lack of balance can be corrected. We must think in terms of a large industrial area developing in south-west Scotland, because readily I admit that this has to some extent a cumulative effect. The attraction of industry to an area is, to some extent, dependent upon the types of skills and employment already available there. Although I would not wish upon Scotland the problems of congestion and lack of planning facing the Midlands, there should be a broad industrial development, and I

1209
think that I carry the House with me in that.
In addition, it is necessary to provide special treatment for other parts of Scotland which, I shall not say are isolated—though some are—but are not contained in the broad industrial belt in the South.
The Government may say, "We agree, but it takes time." The fact remains, however, that until this year the process had scarcely begun, judging by the figures I have given. It is plain that the Government's location policy was not determined enough, nor were the inducements sufficient, nor was the general level of demand consistent continuously at a sufficiently high level or long enough and, above all, in the field where they could have acted directly—particularly in housing and roads—the Government have failed lamentably to do so. There is a treble case for public expenditure here. Firstly, for the absorption of unemployed workers; secondly, for the meeting of desperately urgent needs; thirdly, for the provision of the social capital which is necessary for that new industrial development.
The only important recent contribution has been the strip mill at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh and the B.M.C. factory at Bathgate. These are welcome; but two swallows do not make a summer. In the Scottish Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends suggested that there should be further direct Government action in the sense that, if required, Government factories should be set up. I was surprised and rather entertained to find that the only answer to that which was forthcoming from the Tory benches was that this might conflict with the point of view of the Leader of the Opposition. Members opposite do not do their homework very well. In the somewhat controversial speech which I made at the Blackpool Conference. I specifically said:
"We may be more concerned in the future with other forms of public ownership, and there are many other forms of public enterprise, such as State factories in the development areas."
I said that I would love to see that happen and that it would make a profound difference to the outlook of the ordinary man upon public and private enterprise. I hope that we shall hear no more such nonsense from the benches opposite.
1210
I cannot understand why the Government should be so prejudiced. They pour out money for Colvilles; they pour out money for the textile industry, and they are quite prepared to give money to the shipping industry. What is wrong with direct Government investment as well? The truth is that it is they who are the doctrinaires in these matters. They prefer that Scotland should languish rather than that they should soil the purity of their private enterprise creed.
The truth is that Scotland's problem can be solved only by Government intervention and initiative. If the economy is unplanned, or is to be managed only by way of a general instrument, like the Bank Rate, the Scottish economic decline will continue. It cannot be halted without specialist treatment, a positive planning of industrial location in the country as a whole and a determined effort to speed up and not cut back the provision of badly needed social services, and the continued growth of public investment.
5.1 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Today's debate is taking place in an atmosphere a little different from that of yesterday's debate. Then we had the primaries, which were vigorously contested among hon. Members opposite, and today we have had a very thoughtful speech—as we would expect—from the sitting tenant.
Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: Be serious.
Mr. Maudling: We listened in silence to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I was hoping for the opportunity of replying to what he said. I still hope to do so, with the co-operation of hon. Members opposite.
Mr. E. G. Willis: We are waiting.
Mr. Maudling: I shall do so. I wish to speak about the experience of 1959, as shown in the White Paper before the House—
Mr. Willis: We know that.
Mr. Maudling: —to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I hope to point out that in some of his references he

1211
did not put forward the broad picture quite clearly enough, and in as unbiassed a manner as he might have done.
During 1959, we saw a considerable expansion in trade and industry in Scotland. It is true that this took place later than it did in the United Kingdom as a whole. That has been the experience in the past also, as the right hon. Gentleman says. The re-expansion of trade and employment in Scotland started later than it did in the rest of the United Kingdom, and by the end of the year it had certainly not gone as far as it had in England or Wales. Unemployment, although decreasing, remained a serious problem, as it remains today, especially in the development districts.
The experiences of 1959 underline the basic problem of the Scottish economy, which is its very great reliance upon the heavy industries—coal, steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering generally. The answer is that all these heavy industries either recovered later than the light or medium industries or, in the case of shipbuilding and coal—which I shall speak about later—did not recover at all. Looking at the picture for 1959, one finds that that is the main reason why the recovery in Scotland was neither so early nor so great as the recovery in the United Kingdom as a whole.
It is true that a great deal of gain was scored during 1959, but at the same time other serious problems arose. In respect of new industries coming into Scotland, and the expansion of existing industries—both factors being of equal importance; the point is to get more employment and business, whether from new or existing industries—there was a considerable addition of employment and expansion of business in 1959. But on balance the gains made in the year were not enough to provide all the additional jobs required. What I have seen in recent months of the problem in Scotland, with the aid of hon. Members opposite, has led me to the conclusion that a special problem is the absence of adequate employment opportunities for juveniles. The advice that I have received so often from Scottish Members is that this problem of finding not only jobs but other than dead-end jobs for juveniles is a very serious one.
1212
Towards the latter half of 1959 there was a considerable improvement in the Scottish picture. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was not as great as that in the United Kingdom. Comparing 1959 with 1958, Scottish production was up rather less than 1 per cent., whereas it was up 5½ per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. Looking at the United Kingdom figures, however, one thing that stands out clearly is the fact that only two industries showed a downward tendency—shipbuilding and marine engineering, and mining and quarrying. The clear answer to the question why the Scottish experience was different from that of the United Kingdom is that it was in precisely the industries most important to Scotland that the general experience was less favourable than it was over industry as a whole.
In 1959, the Scottish economy started on a declining trend, but that trend was reversed during the year, and 1959 ended with a vigorous expansion. Let us take the various industries referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and mentioned in the White Paper. The three biggest groups of industry in Scotland all showed an improvement. The output of the first and most important group mentioned in the White Paper—engineering, shipbuilding and electrical—last year reached record levels, despite the very serious problems of the shipbuilding industry, which shows that in general engineering and electrical engineering there was a considerable improvement. Food, drink and tobacco, which are very important industries for Scotland, showed a considerable gain, and the same was true of textiles and clothing—especially the woollen knitwear section. All those groups—the three biggest in Scottish industry—showed a gain in 1959.
The next three groups in order of importance showed a reduction. I should like to consider each in turn. First, in metal manufacture, the decline arose mainly from the decline in steel production. By far the biggest factor in metal manufacture in Scotland is steel production. But by the end of 1959 we were seeing a very vigorous re-expansion. Vehicle production also showed a decline, mainly owing to difficulties in the locomotive industry and in the field of Scottish aviation—both particular but

1213
important difficulties. The other main industry showing a relative decline was the chemical industry. There the problem was very much one of the production of explosives, which fell off considerably during the year. Those are the main elements in the industrial picture in Scotland. The two other big employing industries on the trade side were building and contracting, which showed an improvement, and mining and quarrying, which showed a decline.
That was the general picture for 1959. It started on a downward trend, recovered during the year, and showed an improvement at the end of the year which, although it covered the main industries, was not fully extended throughout the whole of Scottish industry.
What are the prospects as we look at the situation at present, with the experience of six months of 1960? Let us first take the engineering, shipbuilding and electrical industries. We must recognise that the shipbuilding problem is still a very serious one. The simple fact, which no one in this country can alter, is that world shipbuilding capacity is about twice what is needed to replace the marine fleets of the world on a normal obsolescence basis. That is a fact which we have to face, and I think that conditions in shipbuilding are bound to get more, rather than less, competitive.
Here I think we should all pay tribute to the work of many of the Clydeside yards in the considerable job of modernising which they have done recently. 'That modernisation, and the investment and effort involved, is, I am happy to say, beginning to produce results, and many of our Clydeside shipbuilders are now getting orders in competition with Continental yards on a competitive basis. It is an encouraging thought that that is so, but I do not want to minimise the problem, which must be a large one, in the whole world picture.
In the rest of heavy engineering, the prospect is much better than it was. I am glad to see that in heavy engineering, which is so important to Scotland, order books are looking healthier and the general outlook is more promising than it was. Paragraph 173 of the White Paper, which deals with boiler plant, sugar plant, rubber plant, refrigeration plant and such things, shows that the
1214
heavy end of engineering has been picking up and is likely to be better than it was last year.
As regards food, drink and tobacco, here, too, I think that progress is certain to be maintained. People sometimes say that this is a small employer, and I agree that may be so in some cases, but in general terms of the Scottish economy it is nevertheless very important and is a large contributor to the general balance of payments position of the United Kingdom in which Scotland clearly has a very close and intimate interest.
In textiles, it seems again that the outlook is encouraging, and in certain cases I believe that there are difficulties in obtaining adequate labour, particularly in parts of the knitwear industry.
Metal manufactures showed a marked improvement towards the end of last year, and in the course of 1960 we look forward to a record steel output.
Vehicles are showing interesting new developments. For example, in aeroengines, and there is the big new B.M.C. development project at Bathgate, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which we hope will be in production before the end of next year. I agree that it will not make a contribution towards employment this year, save in construction work, but nevertheless there is the beginning of an important development which we hope to see in Scotland. It is our hope that the development of vehicle manufacture in Scotland will lead to the entry into Scotland and the development there of component manufacture.
I believe that there are a number of projects which are being considered and thought about at present. Indeed, I can give one example. I understand that the Dunlop Rubber Company is thinking of increasing its activities in Scotland. This will lead to increased employment, and I hope that other component firms will do the same.
Finally, in chemicals, as the House will have seen from the White Paper, I.C.I. has transferred explosive work from England to Scotland. That will help to counteract the tendency we saw last year. Grangemouth is also developing as one of the great petro-chemical centres of the country. That will be of great advantage to Scotland.
Mr. F. H. Hayman: I am interested in the transfer of the explosives works from Cornwall to Scotland. If that is done, will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to provide additional industries in my constituency to prevent hundreds of people losing their jobs during this year and next?
Mr. Maudling: That shows how hard it is to do good in this difficult world. Should any of these things that are taking place appear to be affecting the activities of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he should remember that the Local Employment Act enjoins on us that when employment is provided in one development district we must have regard to the effect on other districts. I think that the point is covered by legislation.
In the course of 1960, construction and building will expand. With regard to mining, once again, without going into the details of the mining situation, which is an enormous problem, we must look forward to a further slight decline in coal output in 1960.
Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned construction and building. Is he aware that the agreement with the Six, of which he is so much in favour, has struck a disastrous blow at construction and engineering in the County of Aberdeen? A great paper-making factory there planned an extension of its premises. The extension would have cost £750,000, but it had to be abandoned because of that agreement.
Mr. Maudling: I do not know the particular case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, but one or two things I propose to say will prove that his worries are a little unfounded.
The general picture in the middle of 1960 is of a continuation in Scotland of the increasing activity which we saw in the latter half of last year. That is reflected in a further fall in the unemployment figures. I think that we can fairly say that the general industrial picture in Scotland—I say general, because there are exceptions—is one of vigorous activity. As I said, in the textile industry there is a shortage of labour, and the paper firms tell me that they have very good order books at present.
1216
The latest unemployment figures show a fall to 3·2 per cent.—still higher than we want. We will not argue about that, but, nevertheless, there has been a considerable decline on previous figures, and there is further evidence of continued expansion and activity in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the general economic policy of the Government and suggested that our policy might have a harmful effect on employment in Scotland. He is wrong about this. He said that the purpose of the credit squeeze was to reduce home demand. That is not accurate. I tried to make it clear yesterday that we want to see home demand expanding, but not expanding too fast for the expansion of our production. If the party opposite cannot see the difference between a declining and a rising curve, it cannot deal with these serious economic subjects. The right hon. Gentleman knows that to reduce the rate of expansion from 10 per cent. to 6 per cent. a year is not the same as to turn it downwards.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the economy generally, which is what I am doing. What we are doing is to try to prevent home demand outstripping production, with bad effects for everyone. The measures we are taking will help Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that the rate of interest has its main effect on heavy industry. My experience, and the view expressed by the Radcliffe Committee, is the opposite. The main effect of increased interest rates is not on heavy industry, not on investments and fixed assets, but on stocks, on consumers, and on the flow of hot money between one capital and another.
What we believe will happen as a result of our measures is that there will be a cut back in demand in the consumer goods section. For example, the number of things bought on hire purchase will be reduced, and the result will he to provide more opportunities in the heavy industries. I quoted figures yesterday to show that the expansion of business in this country is now spreading and has spread back to heavy industry. The capital goods producing industry shows a 13 per cent. increase in output last year.

1217
We have been told for some years that the problem in Scotland is one of too much heavy industry and too little light industry. Now that we are taking measures, the effect of which will be to hold back light industry, the obvious corollary is that they will be more helpful to Scotland. That is a pure mathematical factor. So long as the general level of demand is high enough, as it is and will be, to maintain full employment in the country, one can permit greater production in capital goods and heavy industry only by having some restraining influence on consumption, which is what our measures are doing. I am convinced that that restraint on the power of consumption in the lighter industries will enable the demand to make itself felt on the heavier industries, and that will be of great importance to Scotland.
Mr. Willis: Why was it that the previous effort of the Government to restrain consumption by raising the Bank Rate, particularly when it went up to 7 per cent., was so harmful for Scotland?
Mr. Maudling: I cannot see that it was harmful to Scotland.
Mr. James McInnes: The right hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it.
Mr. Willis: That is one of our problems now.
Mr. Maudling: The effect of the measures will be to reduce demand in the lighter end of industry and enable the expansion that is now taking place in the heavy end of industry, as shown in the White Paper, to continue. That is important to Scotland. These are simple facts which hon. Members opposite cannot deny, but about which they make a noise.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the debates twelve months ago Ministers informed the House that the reason for the high level of unemployment in Scotland shown in the Report published in 1959, which related to 1958, was the curb on industrial production which had been imposed at the end of 1957? They said that it was capital goods which suffered most, which was why Scotland had more than its share
1218
of unemployment, and they said that, by the same token, the expansion in our economy which we were now enjoying would bring greater improvement and relief in Scotland than in other parts of the country?
Mr. Maudling: And the expansion has taken place and is going on, and the restraint on expansion will fall more on industries making lighter goods than on industries making heavy goods.
In this field, as in the field of the Local Employment Act, we are perfectly happy to be judged by the results that we get. In regard to the Local Employment Act, I hope to produce a few results which may convince hon. Members opposite that we mean what we say. As we said during the discussions on the Local Employment Bill, our policy is to encourage the expansion in Scotland of both existing and new industries by offering the inducements available under the Act and by operating vigorously our powers of prohibition upon the expansion of industry in congested areas.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will surely agree that there must be limits to the exercise of these powers. We are facing a very big competitive struggle in the export trade, and we must think very long and very carefully before imposing additional production costs upon any business. I agree that to prevent people expanding in an area which is commercially most suitable for them and to force them to go elsewhere was socially desirable. But what we are doing, in accordance with the wishes of the House, is to impose on them, in many cases, a competitive handicap of a certain size. [Interruption.] If we tell people that they must expand their production 200 miles away, and they have to carry components to the new factory, the cost of carrying those components is bound to add to the unit cost of production.
We must look at the sheer facts of production costs. If we make people divide up their productive facilities we add to their total cost of production. We are facing that and accepting that it is right to do that because of social requirements, but it is wrong to pretend that there is no economic cost involved.
Mr. Willis: It does not apply to Scotland. That is the trouble.
Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman does not think that anything applies to Scotland. Logic applies as much to Scotland as it does to England, and that is what determines it. We have been supporting the work which the Scottish Council has been doing, and we have had considerable help from the Council. The Council very vigorously puts forward the point of view of Scotland, but I have always found it amenable to reason and logic, unlike certain people to whom I do not propose to refer.
Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is putting forward an argument against Scotland on the ground of its remoteness. That has not been found to be a sound argument in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Maudling: I am merely saying that if a company produces a line of motor cars in the Midlands and produces all its axles on a certain set of machinery, if it produces new vehicles in Scotland it has to carry the axles that distance. That is what adds to the cost of production. That is a simple fact.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ford Motor Company gets it axles from Lanarkshire, 400 miles away—from the Clyde Alloy Company?
Mr. Maudling: The Ford Motor Company is probably the most integrated of all the motor companies in the United Kingdom. All I am saying is that if one has to carry components hundreds of miles it puts up the cost of the finished product.
I was endeavouring to say that, despite the fact that an economic handicap is involved—I am sure that no one can deny that—we have been making vigorous efforts to get industrialists to go to Scotland and expand there. I will give a few figures to show what results have been achieved. As we said during the debates on the Local Employment Bill, we are content to be judged by the results.
The figures are: 1958, projects approved 3·9 million sq. ft., nearly 5,000 jobs; 1959, 6·1 million sq. ft., more than 7,000 jobs; the first half of this year, 4·6 million sq. ft., some 13,000 jobs. Those last figures are the biggest
1220
six months' record ever achieved in the history of this policy. It is much bigger than anything achieved by the Labour Government. The figures have been exceeded for a complete twelve months only on three occasions—in 1946 during the Labour Government, and in 1954 and 1955 during the Conservative Government. I should have thought that Scottish Members were rather pleased to hear these things.
As I have shown, in the first six months of this year we have had the biggest number of approvals in respect of both factory space and jobs involved that has ever been recorded. The present jobs prospect is: work under construction should employ about 7,500 people; projects approved, but not yet started, should employ another 16,300. That is, altogether, a total of 23,800 jobs. Those are projects for which approval has been given. As I have said, they are either under construction or have been given approval but have not yet been started. I cannot say what the position will be at Bathgate when it is finally built up, but the figures which I have given are in respect of firm projects for which approval has been given.
The House may be interested to know that the division between the origin of application is: Scottish firms 8,500; English immigrant firms, as they are called, 10,500; and North American firms about 4,800. That shows a wide spread. This does not include the Rootes project or anything attached to it, but I very much hope that it will go ahead. Nor does it include a number of other projects about which we know. I have included only projects which are firm, projects for which I.D.C.s have been asked and granted. They will provide nearly 24,000 jobs.
The other projects of which I have been informed, which may go forward, will involve another 15,000 jobs, giving altogether 39,000 jobs against a total Scottish unemployment of less than 70,000. We are perfectly happy to be judged on that record. If anyone in Scotland says that that is not a substantial contribution to the problem, I do not know how he can argue that.
I want to make it clear that the 15,000 jobs to which I have referred are not firm. They are possibilities which we

1221
hope will come about, but I can give no guarantee at all about them. I would emphasise that we hope they will come about. The 23,800 jobs are firm, and we hope that the 15,000 will be added to them. That seems to me to be the biggest contribution to Scottish employment that any Government has yet made.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: How can we believe these figures in the light of other examples which the right hon. Gentleman has given us previously? In November last year he proved to me in a letter that he had 2,900 jobs coming to Greenock. None of his claims has ever come true—not one.
Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member believes that I have deceived the House with information, I hope that he will provide evidence, but I have no reason to believe that. I am merely giving the figures that my Department has. When we are asked for an I.D.C. we are given an estimate of the square footage and an estimate of the employment. I am giving the House the numbers of people involved in employment in projects for which we have been asked to give permission and for which we have given permission. I am sorry that Scottish hon. Members opposite seem so disappointed to hear that Scotland will do so well.
In case anyone says again that the Government do not give enough attention to Scotland, let me give one or two figures about Government factories. Of the existing Government factories, 30 per cent. of the floor space is in Scotland and 36 per cent. of the employment is in Scotland—72,000 people. As the right hon. Gentleman said, 10 per cent. of the employment in the country, and 20 per cent. of the unemployment is in Scotland. So is 30 per cent. of the Government factory floorspace and 36 per cent. of the employment in Government factories. Furthermore, of the 3·6 million square feet of Government factory space under construction, more than 50 per cent. is in Scotland. In face of these figures, no one could possibly deny that the Government have not given a fair share to Scottish interests.
There are, however, other development areas in the country. There are Northern Ireland, Merseyside and the North-East Coast, and there are many
1222
other development districts scattered throughout the country. All I am saying is that out of all the Government building, financed by the United Kingdom Exchequer, now going on in the development districts, over 50 per cent. of it is going on in Scotland, and that seems to me to be a fact of which Scotland should, and I hope will, be aware.
There are at present four Board of Trade factories immediately available for occupation in Scotland. They are being shown to industrialists who are interested in going there. There are another four factories that will be available in the near future, and I hope that we shall soon find a good tenant for the advance factory which we have been building in Coatbridge. Generally, I wanted to lay before the House these figures to show as evidence, on which we are quite prepared to be judged, the extent of the efforts which the Government have been making and the extent of the success we are achieving in these efforts.
Mr. Frederick Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what way the passage of the Local Employment Act facilitated this, whereas it could not have been done under the Distribution of Industry Act?
Mr. Maudling: We argued that at great length in the discussions during the passage of that Bill. There are such things as the building grants, different provisions about derelict areas and a whole range of things over which we argued for a long time during the passage of that Bill. We are quite happy to be judged on the results which we get under that Act, which seems to be the important matter.
The continuing problems for Scotland should be clear to all of us. First, as one hon. Member said, there are a certain number of jobs which must be provided to keep the position steady every year. Secondly, there is the very important problem of juveniles and the opportunities of providing skilled and advantageous employment for them. Thirdly, there is the problem that as new firms come in some other units are bound to go out. There are the special problems of shipbuilding and mining, in both cases problems of competition. There is a very

1223
serious problem in shipbuilding. While we know that the Clyde can build as fine ships as anywhere else in the world, the fact is that the world has too much capacity, and the fight to retain our orders will be vigorous and difficult for many years to come.
Mr. John Rankin: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to dismiss what he has to say about the shipbuilding situation by telling us that it is purely a matter of competition. He knows that there are other factors, and I think that he ought to mention them.
Mr. Maudling: Of course, it is a matter of competition, and no one can stop it being a matter of competition. Our problem is to make our yards as competitive as possible, and that is essentially a matter for both management and labour. I cannot help feeling sometimes that there is scope for more effort on both sides of the industry to make our own yards more competitive. Some of the Clyde yards are now quoting competitive prices, and are doing a fine job. Many of them have modernised their methods. But unless we can continue to offer prices and firm and reliable deliveries in competition with the Germans, the French, the Italians and the Japanese we shall not maintain the position in this industry which our traditions and the great skill of Clyde-side should enable us to maintain. That is the position in shipbuilding, and there is no possible escape from it. Unless we are competitive, we cannot maintain our position.
To sum up, the general prospects for Scottish trade and industry are good, and could be encouraging. But there are certain things that must be done. First, we must all, wherever we may be concerned in industry, combine to keep costs down. The export trade, on which so much depends, is becoming more and more competitive, as was said so often in the debate yesterday. Only by keeping costs down can we keep employment up, and the job of keeping costs down is a job for mutual effort on both sides of industry. Secondly, I hope to see the maintenance of the increased will of Scotsmen to invest in Scotland. I am very glad that we can get English and even. North American firms to go to
1224
Scotland, but some of we non-Scotsmen would like to see even more determination on the part of Scotsmen, of whatever scale or station, to invest in the Scottish economy.
Finally, if I can say so without offence, I should like to see more promotion by Scots people of the virtues of investing in Scotland. It is perfectly right for hon. Members opposite to chase me and other Ministers all round the House of Commons, complaining about this, that and the other, but do not let them give the impression that Scotland is a lost and forlorn country. Some of the things that are said—I say this quite seriously, because we all have the same object, which is to try to help—might give the impression that Scotland is lost and forlorn. Of course, it is not. Far from it. Let us have criticism, the more the better, but let us give the impression that Scotland has immense possibilities for people who wish to invest there, a fact that will be witnessed by all those. Americans and others, who have already come to Britain to invest there.
I know that everybody will agree about this, though they will not agree that things are better in Scotland under this Government—we believe it, but the party opposite does not believe it. What we are all agreed upon is that there is, at present, an encouraging prospect. Let us all, by our efforts and by selling the virtues and advantages of Scottish industry, make sure that we really take advantage of that prospect.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: We have listened to a very interesting speech by the President of the Board of Trade. His economic theory sounds very convincing, but, in the long run, economic theory must give way to practical experience, and practical experience, I am sorry to say, has not borne out all his ideas as to what would happen. The Minister was quite right to speak about the relative disadvantage suffered by Scotland and described in the masterly survey which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave, and I was very interested to hear that he did not attempt to question, as I am sure he would not, any of the facts of the position outlined by my right hon. Friend.

1225
Let me say right away that we welcome without any qualification whatever the efforts which the Government have made to get the British Motor Corporation to go to Scotland. I hope that that will be a growing point, as it used to be described. As the right hon. Gentleman says, there may be other feeder industries following the parent industry. I also hope, as the right hon. Gentleman hopes, that Scotsmen and Scottish industries will show more enterprise in taking advantage of the B.M.C. coming to Scotland. I agree entirely with him that over the years there has been a great lack of Scottish enterprise in trying to solve this problem, and Scottish investors, I am also sorry to say, have tended to play safe and go for security and safe investments rather than take any chances by investing in new enterprises in Scotland itself.
Unfortunately, Scotland's industrial inhabitants are mainly old industries which grew up under the giants of men who built them. I am old enough to remember some of these giants of Scottish industry who would have held their own in any country of the world. But I am sorry to say that their sons and their families did not follow in their footsteps. They went to Oxford and Cambridge and became English gentlemen, marrying English ladies, and they got stuck with their wives' parents down South.
Mr. T. Fraser: And they came back as English Members of Parliament.
Mr. Woodburn: They became absentee landlords so far as Scottish industry is concerned, and it was used as a dripping roast to supply the needs of their luxurious life down there. That has been the ruin of Scottish industry.
In modern days we cannot start an industry with a small amount of capital as was possible in the old days, because modern industry requires a great amount of capital. The Scot is not prepared to risk big blocks of capital in starting up industries in Scotland. Unfortunately, even the Labour Government had the greatest difficulty in persuading Scottish industrialists to show enterprise in this direction. In some cases we had almost to compel them to be enterprising. The right hon Gentleman is right in his
1226
criticism of Scottish industry and perhaps I can express the same opinion a little more strongly than it is possible for him to do as an outsider.
On the other hand, we have to be careful to pay respect to those who brought, from abroad and elsewhere, industries which have stimulated our employment. The right hon. Gentleman will be surprised to know that this is not something new. As I said in the Scottish Grand Committee, the biggest employers in Scotland are two American firms which came to the country nearly a hundred years ago, the Singer Sewing Machine Company Ltd. and the North British Rubber Company Ltd., in Edinburgh. Scots continued to manage them and the country benefited greatly from their coming.
Some of the shipbuilding firms came from the South, including Thorneycrofts. Harland and Wolff Ltd. came from Belfast. There has always been a flow of firms into Scotland because, like the Americans, these firms discovered that they could get as good workmanship and hard workers in Scotland as in any other country in Europe. Even the Scottish miners had to work harder than those in England to make a living. It is like what used to be said of the old British Army. It was not the fault of the soldiers, but the poor officers that they had to lead them. Industrialists looking for hard workers would find them in Scotland. The Americans are getting hard work out of the workers just as they did in Crawley.
Until recently, the workers have always been treated as the old British Army "bob-a-day" private used to be treated. No civility was extended to them, no courtesy. I remember a Select Committee, mostly composed of English hon. Members, which was horrified, on going through works in Scotland, to discover how people spoke to each other. When I took the chair, as a Minister, at a meeting of the best of the trade unionists and the best of the employers in the country, plans were discussed about how to teach management, and how to teach foremen to manage and to handle men. The Committee settled these things to its satisfaction, but I said, "You have missed out one essential feature—how to teach men to be managed."

1227
I know places in Scotland where, if the foreman said to a worker "Good morning, John," the man would drop down dead with surprise and shock. I told the Select Committee the story of the Glasgow school teacher who was teaching the children how to be polite and suggested that they should say, "Good morning, father" and "Good morning, mother". The teacher was under the impression that she would improve the manners of the children. The next day she said to one child, "Did you say 'Good morning, mother'?" And when the child said, "Yes", the teacher asked, "What did your mother reply?" and the child told the teacher that her mother said, "Some folks are getting hellish polite".
Bad manners in industry, bad manners on the part of employers, are among the things which have helped to drive people South. I was told, when I was on the Select Committee's investigation, that it would be difficult to get miners to return to the mines after they had worked in munition factories, because in the factories they had been treated as human beings instead of cogs in a wheel. The Americans are bringing in modern methods and conditions and this will have a profound effect on Scottish industry. The old industrialists will have to treat the workpeople as human beings. B.M.C. will bring in these methods of modern industry and this will prove quite different from the attitude to the workers adopted by the old industrialists.
I wish to deal with a point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the credit squeeze. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the credit squeeze he made a distinction and gave banks in Scotland the privilege of having smaller deposits with the Bank of England than English banks. I do not know what were the economics of that idea, but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman must have thought that the banks had the unemployment in Scotland. The President of the Board of Trade will agree that that has nothing to do with providing credit to Scotland. The Chancellor should allow Scottish and English banks to be free of restrictions in giving credit for the development of enterprises in Scotland—that is the way to deal with the matter—and not
1228
give Scottish banks preference over English banks.
Tomorrow, I propose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to give some details of his proposals for Malta. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade is aware of it, but his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has a wonderful scheme for Malta. He proposes to relieve industry which goes to Malta of the need to pay Income Tax. The Colonial Secretary will give credit for the development of industry in Malta.
I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade might consult his right hon. Friend to see whether some of these provisions which are so wonderful for Malta might be applied to Scotland. We should not have the slightest objection if some people in Scotland were given a ten-year holiday from Income Tax to encourage other people to go there. That would be one way of overcoming some of the handicaps which were mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade.
The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the questions put to him about how to distinguish between the application of the credit squeeze in England and Scotland. I have mentioned one way it could be done, that banks should have no restrictions on the supplying of credit in Scotland. Another way would be for the Government not to impose in Scotland the credit squeeze on housing development which is being applied all over Britain. Another way would be for the Secretary of State not to restrict road development. Economically, there is nothing so stupid as to have men being paid unemployment benefit and to have road-making machinery standing idle and at the same time to cut the road-making programme. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he can show any economic sense in that course of conduct.
I challenge the Secretary of State for Scotland to deny that this year his road programme will be less than last year. More than that; because of the B.M.C. taking away a share of the road programme owing to the extra roads which will have to be made, the Secretary of State has cut the rest of the programme all over Scotland, which is economic madness. I cannot understand why he has not put up a fight about this and got

1229
on with the programme of road-making in Scotland and made use of the labour we have available.
I wish to make another suggestion regarding something which has been practised. When Woolworths and other firms send goods about the country, they have an equal railway rate all over the country. If British Road Services were brought into this they could get rid of a lot of the handicaps regarding distance which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. These handicaps have been much exaggerated. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who has travelled throughout the United States, Americans send their goods for thousand; of miles without experiencing any handicap on efficiency. At one time Fords, in London, got their car axles from Scotland. It would have been as easy for Fords to build their cars where the axles were made rather than taking the axles from Scotland. Fords were proposing to come to Scotland at one time with a production factory just as B.M.C. has come. They would get as good labour and as efficient production as in the South.
I suggest that the question of bringing in the British Road Services and the provision of some sort of equalisation of charges should be considered. We adopted this idea during war time, when fertiliser was carried all over the country. Lime was conveyed at a uniform rate and the people in the Highlands got it at the same price as other parts of the country.
I was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the European market in relation to Scotland. We have been informed that there is a danger of our losing American firms which are in Scotland and of other firms being discouraged from coming there if Britain is to be outside the walls of the European market. I wish that he had been able to give us some reassurance on this point, because that might threaten all the promised development he spoke about.
The chemical industry developments at Grangemouth are very welcome, but that constitutes a very small employment of labour. Largely, it is a question of someone turning valves off and on. The capital cost is great, but the amount of
1230
labour concerned is relatively not very great once the industries are constructed.
Scotland has a great many small industries. Some are very valuable and are completely specialised. My right hon. Friend mentioned coal mining machinery. We have some relatively small firms compared with others which have been mentioned, but they are first-class in their way. A great many small firms in Scotland cannot take part in exports because of the cost of getting agents abroad and being sure of their money. That makes it impossible for them to take risks. I wish the President of the Board of Trade would get an organisation set up abroad to take care of that for these firms, apart from giving them help through the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Take, for instance, the question of Shetland wool. That industry had an export quality which was so attractive that the Turks wanted to order £70,000 worth. There are not enough sheep in Shetland to produce that amount of wool, but a little of many such exports going to every town in the United States would make a boom in our industry. As has been said, it is much more important to develop indigenous industries than to try to bring in new ones. I have always been an advocate of the Government directing some of their orders to firms in Scotland. Firms in Fraserburgh have shown that, once they had a blood transfusion of orders, they could develop and hold their own against any competitors.
We have no doctrinaire objections to private enterprise. When I was in office my hon. Friends and I tried to induce private enterprise to come to Scotland, but we have to agree that we did not get enough to come there. There is still a gap. In spite of all the promises, neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Secretary of State for Scotland can give any assurance that this continual process of going one step forward and slipping two steps back will not be the kind of progress which Scotland will make for the next twenty or thirty years. There must be some overall plan.
I suggest that the Government ought to get down to the question of what they are to do to ensure a stable development in Scotland. The situation has gone too far to be cured by private enterprise. It is ridiculous to expect private

1231
enterprise to start business in Scotland and lose money for the sake of the nation. With all the good will in the world there are not many people who can afford to do that.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) went to Caithness as its Member of Parliament and, because he is an enterprising man and saw that things could be done if someone would put his back into it, he revived a coal mine and started a brick works. He got a lot of things going. That is what one man can do. I do not think that he lost money over that, but he took that risk. We cannot expect people to take these risks merely because Scotland needs industry. Therefore, there have to be inducements to private enterprise to start industry there. We have to give guarantees and perhaps freedom from Income Tax for ten years so that a firm may start up in a development area or in the Highlands. With all the advantages offered, so far we have not succeeded in solving this problem.
The next thing that we have to do is to induce Government - controlled agencies to come to Scotland and to start industries. That has been successful in the case of the Hydro-Electric Board, which deliberately placed orders in Scotland and stimulated quarries and engineering. Engineering firms which took this up have now developed hydroelectric engineering capacity which will live on because it is efficient. A great deal could be done by the Government-controlled agencies and it should be done as a definite piece of planning. Where that fails, as it is bound to fail, even in the Highlands, it seems that the Government must put industry down.
I wish the Government could find out what is happening in other countries. I was asked to go on a Parliamentary delegation to Spain. The Government of Spain is Fascist and a dictatorship Government, but it has established an organisation whose business it is to consider in what parts of the country industry is required and to start industry there. When the industry is in operation, if private enterprise wants to buy it over it can be sold, but projects like mines and steelworks and a whole lot of others have been deliberately placed in different
1232
areas in Spain to develop industry where it is required to improve the social life of the people.
I do not say that these things can be developed in the Highlands, but, unless some parts of Scotland have deliberate Government action of that kind applied to them, we shall have to go on facing decline. We on our side have no doctrinaire ideas about private enterprise. All we ask is that the Government should get rid of their doctrinaire ideas about public enterprise, and should not decry it. The Secretary of State has shown an excellent example by going to the Highlands and developing a nationalised shipping industry—since the General Election.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: Against his election pledges.
Mr. Woodburn: His common sense got the better of his prejudices and he actually established a nationalised industry in the North of Scotland. That is the sort of thing that we would welcome from the Government and we want to give them every encouragement to do that.
A great many of my colleagues want to take part in this debate, but I must say something more. I think that the President of the Board of Trade was a little complacent about one or two things. The coal industry will need to have a lot of readjustments made. It may be that in a matter of twenty years the industry will suffer greater shocks. Here is a whole population which has to be readjusted and someone has to think ahead for it. It is no good waiting until the mines are closed; someone has to foresee the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the shipbuilding industry. It is no good waiting until it falls to bits. Plans have to be made because, as he said, there may be more capacity than there are markets. I wish I were satisfied that the British shipbuilding industry was pulling up its socks to the extent which is required. I am told that in Japan and elsewhere methods have been adopted which have got rid of the traditional handicaps to quick building and they are using modern methods. If that is the case, someone should be looking into that question here. If anything happens to the shipbuilding industry the

1233
Clyde will be sunk, and not only the Clyde but a great part of Scotland and Northern England which depends on the industry. [Laughter.] It will be sunk in the Clyde, anyway.
Mr. Cyril Bence: It will be silted up.
Mr. Woodburn: It will become a dead-end waterway.
What we want is not that we on this side of the House should propound all the solutions, but that the Government should take this seriously as a job which requires long-term planning. This is another bogy of the Tories; they will not have long-term planning. I bet that they plan all their investments very carefully, that they plan all their own businesses very carefully and that their wives plan their economy at home very carefully. I cannot understand why we cannot do publicly what they do privately. To refuse to do so seems senseless to me. We need a plan for Scotland which foresees the difficulties.
We welcome what the Government have been able to do, and we are sorry that it has not been enough even to make up the leeway. I hope that they will get down to the problem and that when another debate on this subject takes place we shall have not only a post mortem into what happened last year but some foresight from the Government about what will happen not only next year but far into the future, because this requires planning for twenty years ahead.
6.2 p.m.
The Earl of Dalkeith: May I be allowed the privilege of addressing the House for the first time? I should like, first, to express my appreciation of the very cordial welcome which I received on my arrival here from hon. Friends on this side of the House and from hon. Members opposite. I feel most honoured to be here as a representative of the fair city of Edinburgh, and it is fitting that I should make my maiden speech as a Member from the capital city of Scotland on this subject of utmost importance to Scotland and her future.
I should also like to pay a tribute to my predecessor, the former Lord Advocate, now Lord Milligan. I know that he was a most popular figure in the House and that he is greatly missed by his
1234
many friends on both sides of the House. But what has been Westminster's loss has been the gain of the Scottish legal fraternity. This is probably the first time for many years that North Edinburgh has had a representative who is neither honourable nor learned.
I have been advised to be unprovocative and non-controversial, and I welcome this advice most particularly because I am convinced that in a debate of this sort, if we are to do any good to the Scottish employment and industrial situation by talking about it, we shall do good only if we present a picture of Scotland as a harmonious place and not as a place filled with discord. We must show that as a race we are hard-working, industrious, peaceful and not querulous grumblers permanently engaged in inter-clan warfare.
I wish to do two things in the course of my speech of a few minutes. The first is to try to put some of the problems before us into broad perspective and the second is to suggest what seems to me to be a constructive approach to these problems. For many generations now Scotland has produced more people than she has been able to absorb into her own economy and into her own industries. These people have been particularly renowned for their high qualities and degree of integrity. They have had a strict Christian upbringing and have been educated to standards which have long been the envy of the rest of the world. During the last few generations these people have gone out into the world and have made Scotland's contribution to it, and it is these people, I submit, who more than anyone else have built the British Commonwealth.
The same is true today; many people leave our shores and go elsewhere in the Commonwealth. I believe it is because Scotsmen are to be found in every part of the world today that the Commonwealth is such a united and unique family of nations. I believe that if we look at these facts not in the narrow spirit of parochial jealousy but by recognising that Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and indeed of the world, we shall begin to get the problem of the Scottish economy in correct proportion.
Naturally it fills us all with anguish—I certainly have this feeling—that so

1235
many of our young people have to leave Scotland to seek jobs elsewhere. I entirely agree with those feelings. But at the same time we ought to rejoice in the knowledge that to Scotsmen there are very few artificial barriers of nationality in the world such as afflict so many unfortunate people who live in lesser nations than our own.
There are various problems of Scottish unemployment, such as the fact that it has been roughly double that of England for the last fifty years. It is not a new problem. The rate has always been double, and we deplore that fact. To hear some people speaking today one would think that it is a new problem which has suddenly cropped up, demanding panic measures for its relief. I think that if we adopted that attitude we should not find the right answer.
The answer is obviously a long-term one. I entirely agree that it is bad that our unemployment percentage should be higher than that in England; this shows that it could be reduced. On the other hand, if we look at it in relation to the pre-war period, we see that the Scottish unemployment percentage today is, on average, a quarter what it was then.
Furthermore, not the whole of Scotland is afflicted with unemployment. This is an important point because when we are trying to convince a would-be industrialist that Scotland is a good place to which he should come, it is natural that he will be put off if he feels that the whole of Scotland is smitten with unemployment, because he naturally assumes that if that is the case there must be something wrong with Scotland.
It is certainly, and fortunately, true that there are many parts of Scotland in which the unemployment percentage is well below the average which we hear quoted so frequently. In Edinburgh it is well below 2½ per cent. and in the whole of the Borders of Scotland it is well below 1 per cent. I can give examples of certain of the largest burghs in the Borders of Scotland, such as Hawick, where the unemployment percentage is 0·6 per cent. It is important that we show industry that it can prosper in Scotland.
I do not want to be interpreted as being satisfied about the unemployment position in Scotland. I am very far from
1236
satisfied about it, and I should like to take this opportunity of blowing sky high the charges made by some people that we on this side of the House are complacent about the unemployment position. I am sure that one of the first duties of a Government in a modern civilised community is to do their utmost to ensure full employment. Of course, we want more jobs and more industries. We have been wanting them for a long time. The problem is how to get them other than by the measures which the Government have already introduced.
This is where I want to make what, I hope, is a constructive suggestion. If the problem of industry and employment in Scotland is to be solved in the future it will depend very largely upon our ability to sell Scotland. This is a subject on which I believe a little self-criticism is fully justified and might possibly be helpful. It is generally agreed that as a race we are bad salesmen—for the nicest possible reasons. We are too modest and do not like blowing our own trumpets. I have a feeling that I may be taken to task for saying that by some of my hon. Friends representing English constituencies, who, according to the feeling of home rule for England which I detected when I arrived at Westminster, may feel that the Scottish Members they see are not exactly a model of reticence.
This debate gives us a unique opportunity for good salemanship. It enables us to stress Scotland's good points and to point out the enormous advantages which we have to offer and the abundant opportunities that we can give to industry. I warn Scottish Members most strongly against giving wrong impressions. We should not give the impression that Scotland is down and out and has no future. Scottish Members should not go on harping about and exaggerating the bad things, the misfortunes and the difficulties of Scotland. We have so much to offer industry.
There are so many things in Scotland which are not available to expanding industry in many parts of England. For instance, we have an availability of good sites which are not over-congested. We have ample water supplies, good power supplies, coal, electricity, gas, and so on. We have relatively uncongested roads and harbours. Harbours are essential for the raw materials to be brought in

1237
and the finished goods to be exported. We can stress the advantages of having fresh and unpolluted air and room to spread when businesses want to expand.
Above all, we have the skill and craftsmanship of our people. In the same way as many parts of the world have become famous for the type of goods they manufacture, the people of Scotland have, above all, become famous for their skill and quality of production. I can give examples in the field of textiles—the tweed industries, the knitwear industry and the hosiery industry. In the field of food and drink, we produce the best beef and mutton in the world. I do not think that anyone would argue about the quality of our whisky. I have even been assured by those who like the stuff that the vodka we are now making is considerably better than what can be produced in Russia.
In engineering, where precision, strength and reliability matter, Scotland is the place. It does not matter whether it is heavy machinery or very delicate precision machinery. Among the best examples which I can give of that is Rolls Royce, which, as we all know, is now finding aeroplanes and airliners all over the world to take its engines.
If all these virtues were fully known all over the British Isles, industrialists would fall over themselves in trying to get to Scotland while the going was good, in the same way as the B.M.C. has shown its wisdom in taking that decision. One of the interesting features in the Report is that so many of the new industries which have come to Scotland have already become so satisfied that they have decided to expand. This is a point to which further publicity should be given.
On the whole question of general salesmanship, I should like to pay a tribute to the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, which has been doing a magnificent job. The National Union of Manufacturers' Advisory Service should also be praised. We should do all we can to encourage greater support for that organisation. We should not pass over the fact that very valuable service was done by Peter Sellers in the film, "The Battle of the Sexes". That film should be seen by many people.
Finally, we should do more to help ourselves. The Government have taken
1238
action in the way of financial inducements and powers to guide industry to the places where we want it. It is up to us to follow up what the Government have done by encouraging all our own people and our friends to co-operate together—to work together with the Government and with each other. I am thinking of local authorities, businessmen, employers, employees, trade unions, and even political parties. If we can work together, remembering that this is a delicate problem and that what we say and how we say it matters, I am confident that the already promising prospects for the future can be made more promising.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. James McInnes: It falls to me to extend our congratulations to the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) for having overcome what we all regard as a terrifying experience in making our maiden speech. He has done so very efficiently indeed, and I have the maximum possible pleasure in extending to him our congratulations for what I regard, in an alliterative term, as a concise, candid and clear speech. He spoke with a deep sense of understanding and sincerity, which makes us all feel that we shall look forward to him making somewhat similar contributions to our debates on many more occasions.
I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade has gone, because I was somewhat dissatisfied with his performance this afternoon. The right hon Gentleman has appeared in several of these debates during the last three years. On each occasion he has painted for us a picture of Scotland's expanding economy and conjured up before us all the jobs which were in the pipeline, but they have never materialised. He gave a similar exhibition today.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we in Scotland, and particularly Scottish Members of Parliament, ought to ask our Scottish industrialists to make some contribution themselves to the Scottish economy. I agree with that. There is one thing of which I am certain, namely, that we shall not emerge from our present economic malaise if we continue simply to depend upon the importation of industry from other countries and at the same time go begging to the Government for Governmental aid.

1239
Scotland's future, industrially and commercially, must to a large extent depend upon Scottish industrialists themselves. Of the 131 major developments which have started in Scotland since the end of the war, no less than 66 per cent. have come from England, 23 per cent. from America, 4 per cent. from Canada, and 3 per cent. from Holland. We Scots have been responsible for less than 1 per cent. In other words, our industrialists have invested even less in Scotland than have the Swiss and the Italians.
In our Scottish industrial estates alone, we have 44 English firms, employing 27,000 people; 24 American firms, employing 18,000, and seven Canadian and Dutch firms employing over 6,000. We also have firms from all those countries in parts of Scotland outwith the Scottish Industrial Estates, and these figures do not take any cognisance of the motor car industry that we hope soon to attract to Scotland. The importation of these new industries will provide us with about 100,000 new jobs. I shudder to think what the Scottish economy would be like without them.
I warmly welcome English or American capital, or capital of any kind, being invested in Scotland, and I recognise the need—and I emphasise this—for Government inducements and Government facilities for the distribution of industry, but I can never regard these as a substitute for home-grown initiative and enterprise. They may be supplementary, but they are nothing more.
What disturbs me, and what I regard as, perhaps. Scotland's greatest weakness. is the failure of Scottish industrialists themselves to invest there. One of the classic examples is the graving dock at Greenock, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has been battling for many months, if not years—and battling, if I may say so, somewhat tenaciously.
If Scottish industrialists are not prepared to invest in their own country, can we wonder that our unemployment figures are always double those of the rest of Britain? Is there any reason to wonder that Scottish industry stagnates when the rest of Britain is booming? Very few industries in Scotland in the post-war period have been pioneered by Scottish industrialists. I recognise, of
1240
course, as, perhaps, we all do, that we have some forward-looking managements, lively boards of directors and top executives who never let up, but there are not enough of them. There are far too few of them.
Why is it that among the vast majority of Scottish industrialists there is this lack of initiative, this unwillingness to risk involvement and investment in Scotland? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has said, there is no lack of brains, there is no lack of workers, there is no lack of capital, but there is a lack of bold and imaginative enterprise on the industrialists' part.
It is they whom I regard as the guilty men of Scottish industry. These are the men who are so smug and complacent that they cannot see what is happening around them; men too slow to realise that we are living on borrowed time; men who have failed to catch up with the new scientific and technological age in which we live. They are men who do not even seem to realise that self-help is a better philosophy than self-pity. These are the guilty men.
Let us look a their approach to the present scientific and technological age, and, in particular, to research. Located in Scotland, with 10 per cent. of Britain's population, there work only 3 per cent. of all the people in Britain engaged on research. Let us look at the industrialists' approach to day-release. All are agreed that the training of technicians is a matter of vital concern, yet, out of 162,000 youths under 18 years of age, only 17,000, or 11 per cent., have day-release courses.
That compares with half a million youths, or 22 per cent., in England and Wales released for the same purpose. That is the situation. Despite the efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the efforts of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the efforts of the Scottish Board for Industry and the efforts of the Scottish Council for Technical Education, we can achieve a day-release figure of only 11 per cent.
Need we wonder, therefore, why six out of every ten students who graduate in science and four out of every ten engineering graduates leave Scotland to find employment elsewhere? One might be tempted to say that the success of the

1241
Scot abroad has been at the expense of the homeland. Apart from our scientists and our engineering graduates, we must also take cognisance of the fact, as the President of the Board of Trade pointed out this afternoon, that each year between 20,000 and 25,000 Scots emigrate. The important thing is that two-thirds of the emigrants are between the ages of 16 and 24, and this, I should imagine, is the age-group on which the future prosperity of the nation very largely depends. These young and able-bodied people go year after year. The social implications of this emigration are disagreeable enough, but the industrial and economic consequences are even more serious.
The attitude of Scottish industrialists towards Scotland generally is deplorable. They will not invest in their own country. They are not capable of catching up with the scientific and technological age. Their attitude has resulted in the past in the best of our young people going away. If Scottish industrialists are not prepared to awaken to the realities of the situation, if they are not prepared to invest in Scotland, the demand for more public enterprise will inevitably grow. Indeed, in the present state of our economy, that demand is justified, and to that extent I support the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire.
One two occasions today, it has been said from the benches opposite that we on this side are the moaners, the grumblers, the people who denigrate Scotland. It is said that we are too gloomy on this side. We can do no more than express our own view. I hope that the Secretary of State will himself deal with the position of the industrialists and, at the same time, take the opportunity to appeal to them to make a contribution towards the prosperity of Scotland.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) concentrated most of his speech on an attack or, at any rate, a criticism of industrialists in Scotland. I am bound to say that I agree to some extent with much of what he said. It was, of course, a generalised attack, which certainly does not apply all round, but without doubt
1242
the dynamic effort we need in solving the employment problem of Scotland is not always present. I thought that my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) was absolutely right, in his excellent maiden speech, when he said that we need a certain amount of self-criticism in finding where we nave gone wrong in failing hitherto effectively to solve the problem. I do not, of course, accept that it is entirely the responsibilty of the industrialist—all concerned, I think, have made mistakes—but we certainly need to put things right.
The particular aspect of the matter on which I wish to concentrate is the problem we find in the most distant areas, which have more specific difficulties in the sense that they do not suffer from the much wider difficulties of the greater industries. In parts of the country like the Highlands or Aberdeenshire, we have a system of administration which depends upon co-operation between local industry and Government assistance. In the schemes which are administered under B.O.T.A.C., for example, everything seems to go exceedingly well until one arrives at the point when the money has to be paid over.
I have just concluded a series of meetings in my constituency with all the different interested bodies which deal with this matter and are directly affected by it; a series of meetings to discover exactly what the difficulty is and where it lies. It seems to me to be an administrative difficulty rather than a legislative one. I have been trying to achieve a united approach so that we can tackle that particular difficulty decisively and effectively.
What is the most effective way of spending Government money, often quite small sums, with the firm and in the area where it is most needed? Piecemeal patching is inadequate. We have had that already. In many cases, the story is a sad one of frustration and disappointment, particularly for the smaller family firms, whose existence and success are extremely important in our small country towns where there is a high level of unemployment and a great need for the continued successful existence of such firms.
This is an overall problem requiring an overall approach. The need is to

1243
develop the local economy on integrated lines but with a view to increased expansion in the future, particularly with an eye to European markets and other markets in the Free World. I am thinking especially of South America. I make that point because, until now, we have concentrated on trying to dam the flow of manpower leaving the northern areas to go to the steel towns, the Midlands of England and so on. We have tried to dam the flow, but we shall not do anything really effective until we think in terms of building up much more forcefully and reliably our economy in the North and keeping all those men and their children there as part of growing communities. We must build up the economy there in very vigorous fashion and on lines which are after all, native and natural to the areas in question.
Miss Margaret Herbison: The hon. Member has told us that everything possible should be done in the North to have trade and commercial connections with Europe and the free world. He is surely aware that, in the North of Scotland, there has been considerable trade with what he would not call the free world, namely, with Russia. Must not our aim be to have the greatest possible trade and commerce with every part of the world?
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Our aim is to see that Scotland and the North of Scotland, in particular, with which I am more closely concerned, is prosperous. I wish to consider how we can make our efforts more effective.
Miss Herbison: This is a very important matter. The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, and I am sure that the people of the North will want to know. Does he wish to limit the trade of the North of Scotland with Europe and the free world, or is he willing to have trade between the North of Scotland and countries which are considered to be not free countries?
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I myself have nothing against trade with any country in any part of the world. I hope that answers the hon. Lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That has put that right.
The first necessity is knowledge. By knowledge, I do not mean the general
1244
statistics which are of use to nobody but the civil servant. I mean exact knowledge, exact in the details about every area which is in need. I have in mind particularly exactness about an area's potential for development. This seems to me to require specific action by people on the spot and also a certain amount of simple, honest co-operation. What we really need to do in the distant areas is to obtain and collate all the details and relevant information on wages, housing sites, transport, projected development and so forth.
To give an indication of the way in which my mind is working, let me take, for example, the case of the labour that is available. I wonder whether it is possible for us to know from the labour exchanges exactly who are the individuals who have had to leave an area, what is their capacity, and what are their jobs. I do not mean that we need definite information only about the people who are actually drawing unemployment benefit at the time. I am also concerned about the large number of skilled people who have to leave an area and who would like to return there to get work if it were available to them.
The point I am making is that when an industrialist comes to the area to investigate its potentialities it would be a tremendously valuable asset to have on the books information about the men who would be ready, able and willing to go back if they could be included in the kind of industry that the industrialist was thinking of setting up. We need that information to be very precise. This is a specific problem, often a small problem, in the sense that £1,000 could make all the difference between a growing business and one which goes on the rocks.
Mr. Bence: I know of five draughtsmen and three automobile engineers who were not compelled to leave Scotland. They were not unemployed. Four of the draughtsmen have gone south and doubled their salaries, and two of the automobile engineers have got increases of 75 per cent. in their income with Fords.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: There are bound to be differentials in wage rates, but I am thinking very much of men whom I know, electrical engineers, for example, who have had to go south and who

1245
would prefer to go back to work, for example. in Peterhead for a lower wage if they had the opportunity.
Mr. Bence: A lower wage?
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Yes, that is true. It is a very attractive area.
At the moment, when an industrialist is thinking about development in Aberdeenshire he has very great difficulty in finding out quickly everything that he needs to know. He can find nothing cut and dried when he goes there. It is very necessary that we should have some kind of organisation or office set up where he can get the information he needs decisively, accurately and quickly, so that he can make up his mind more sharply than he is able to do at present.
This knowledge also could be the key to the success of Government participation in helping an area, which is what B.O.T.A.C. really amounts to. I am not satisfied that all is as it should be at the moment with that scheme. An application comes and then various teams of people come to an area to try to appraise the situation. They go back and then, more often than not, a reply comes from the Board of Trade, "For reasons we cannot give, this application cannot be granted." That is bad. I do not begin to accept that the Board of Trade cannot tell their reasons privately to the man in question; not least because I think it would be of great benefit to him if he could have the advantage of expert advice and helpful criticism on what he is trying to do. I should like to be much more sure that the Board of Trade is able to help a firm more constructively. If it had its finger on the pulse of the economy of the different areas as they develop, it would be in a position to take remedial action when the pulse rate slowed down. That could be achieved in one of two ways. Either we could have a large staff in Glasgow or a resident office in Aberdeen, because it needs men in the area who know what is going on at the time. If that were done, they would know much more accurately when applications for assistance came in, what those applications were worth to the economy as a whole, and not only to a particular business. I believe that the administration of their aid in that context would be far more helpful.
Mr. John Strachey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have closed down the local offices, in Dundee, for example, which we very much deplore? I entirely agree with his plea that they should be opened up again in Aberdeen, Dundee and other cities. But he should use his influence on his own Front Bench in this matter.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: That is a point of view which I have been trying to impress, because I think it is of some importance.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member says that he has been trying to impress people with his point of view. Does he not remember that we had the Local Employment Bill and that we on this side of the House said that the Board of Trade should have a Scottish Committee which would be au fait with what is happening in Scotland. He did not vote with us. Would it not be better for him to do something practical instead of making speeches like this?
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am trying to do something practical now. I see some kind of system whereby an information office in an area, which has all the relative facts about the situation and knows the individuals and industries concerned personally, could co-operate and work with representatives of the Board of Trade, not only for the benefit of a particular firm but in the wider context for the community as a whole. The Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, in a move which I heartily commend, has set up a North-East of Scotland Development Committee and its aim is to have every local interest represented on it. This seems to establish in a practical form the vital aim of simple co-operation between industry and the local authority which is so important. I am asking that we should move a step forward to a relationship between this body and the Government which can solve the problem altogether. In this problem it is the executives who really interest me, the people who are concerned to solve the problem in a practical way. They need to be only one or two individuals. The effectiveness of their administration in any one area could have an incalculable effect on its prosperity and on the increase of that prosperity for the distant communities in Scotland.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am sure that we all agree that this debate affords a most important opportunity to Scottish Members of Parliament. We should try to approach the Report and the problems of industry and employment in a realistic fashion. I am disappointed with some of the arguments which we have heard from hon. Members opposite. Obviously a new fashion is growing up. In order to repel argument and to try to get away from the questions posed from this side, hon. Members opposite say, "We will tell them that they are moaning too much, that they are talking about unemployment too much and are running down Scotland". This is the alibi.
Why have we in Scotland this deep-seated and long-standing problem of prolonged unemployment? This is a Tory-inspired problem. Deep-seated Toryism, restricted in its thinking and working, has caused the present situation. To whom was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) appealing when he asked people of economic power and resource to do something about this problem? Who was he asking to show some initiative and foresight and to do something? He was, of course, appealing to the Scottish Tories who command strength in the Scottish Tory Party.
I wish that Tory Members who make glib references to the pain, suffering and humiliations of the unemployed in Scotland would go to their local associations and tell them that it was time that they did something about unemployment in Scotland instead of bleating and saying that we are talking too much about these humiliations. They know that that is wrong and I hope that they will alter their line of reasoning and argument.
Pages 8 and 9 of the Report which deal with area unemployment pinpoint the fact that the rate of unemployment in Scotland is double that of the rest of the country. But it goes further. It shows that in Scotland there are certain areas of persistent high unemployment. Part of my constituency is suffering from this. Part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) is in the same position.
Mr. Ross: But we must not talk about it.
Mr. Manuel: I would not be doing my job if I did not try to do something to help the people residing in these areas. In Ardrossan and Irvine and district, according to the latest return, the percentage of unemployed is 6·3, with 1,633 people out of work. We must do something about this.
I tried repeatedly to point out this problem to the President of the Board of Trade during our discussions on the Local Employment Bill. I hope that the Government are seized of the importance of what I propose to say. When skilled tradesmen and craftsmen become unemployed they do not go to the employment exchange, draw unemployment benefit and wait until jobs turn up. They leave Scotland. Some go abroad. We estimate that about 20,000 go to England each year. Obviously, these men are right to leave Scotland in order to earn a full wage and to give their families the education and standard of living which they should have. I regret this tendency very much, but inevitably it happens.
The pools of high unemployment are composed, in the main, of unskilled labour. At a late date the Board of Trade try to induce firms to go to such areas, but then there are not the necessary craftsmen on which to base industry because prolonged persistent unemployment has made the areas bereft of skilled workers.
What are we to do in this situation? Obviously, we must start thinking along new lines. It would appear that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) has been thinking seriously about it. It is well that he should think that possibly there should be inducements from the Ministry of Labour to encourage workers to return to Scotland if there is suitable employment for them and if they can be paid suitable wages. The problem of persistent unemployment in these areas is becoming very difficult to solve, and I hope that we shall have some now thinking on it.
On page 9 of the Report there is something in which I am particularly interested, namely, the question of unemployment among juveniles. In thinking about Scotland's future and the sort

1249
of nation which we want to mould, we must think much harder about this aspect than we have in the past. Paragraph 14 of the Report states:
"More young persons were unemployed in 1959 than in 1958, the monthly average being up by 1,400."
Unless there is a great and radical change, the problem of juvenile unemployment will be very much worse in future. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State can give us the number of those who will leave school in 1961 and 1962. I have the figures for Ayrshire, but it would be revealing if we could have the figures for Scotland as a whole. We know that the bulge year is approaching and that in 1962 a large number of young people will leave school. The present position indicates that the vast majority of them will have no jobs to go to.
I should like to indicate the position in Ayrshire. The number at school in the 15-year age group for the year 1960–61 is 5,200. The Education Department estimates that 1,560 or 30 per cent. of them will remain at school, leaving 3,640 looking for jobs. In 1962, 6,575 will be leaving school. Only 1,972 of them will remain at school and 4,603 will be looking for employment. What is the Scottish figure, based on the situation which I have indicated for the County of Ayr? I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Minister will give us a responsible statement to indicate how we are to cope with this situation.
To move on to another aspect of our unemployment position, the Report also deals with the road programme for Scotland, such as it is. We have been saying repeatedly in the House of Commons that we should have a national road plan for Scotland. If the Government claim that they are opening up Scotland for the tourist industry and that hotels are being modernised and chalets, motels and goodness knows what are to be provided to deal with the influx of tourists from America, England and France, ought we not to have the roads to enable the tourists to get there?
The Government's road programme is short-sighted. There are large Highland areas where double-lane traffic is impossible. Surely, when we have high and persistent unemployment in the Highlands, it is all wrong that machinery
1250
should lie idle and that the Secretary of State should deliberately cut down the programme for the future.
I have recently visited Ireland and seen what is happening, not only in Northern Ireland but more so, perhaps, in Southern Ireland, a supposedly poor country with much poverty. From one end of Eire to the other, a national road programme is obviously in operation to provide for four-lane traffic. Wherever possible, new roads are being driven through and obstacles overcome. Such a forward-looking programme is attracting more tourists.
I hope that hon. Members on the Government side will help us to try to get better roads for Scotland. I hope that instead of backing up the Secretary of State in evading the proposals which we put up continually from this side, hon. Members opposite will try to aid us to put Scotland on the map by having a national road plan for Scotland.
Mr. Forbes Hendry: Will the hon. Member be good enough to say whether he will support my plan to build a road through Glenfeshie?
Mr. Manuel: Yes, certainly—in fact, to build roads anywhere. I go even further. It is quite wrong to have some of the extortionate ferry charges over narrow sea lochs which could be bridged by roads. When we are trying to attract tourists, it is utterly wrong to have such great diversions around the narrow sea lochs or, alternatively, to face interminable delays and heavy charges for the carriage of motor vehicles by these short ferry journeys.
It would be wrong not to say something in this debate about the rundown of the coalmines in 1959. This tendency is continuing and has caused a reduction of 6,396 miners in the industry. I know that the coal industry is undergoing a particularly painful period of reorganisation, but there are certain things which could be done to help it. To take the local position as it interests Ayrshire Members, I ask the Secretary of State to use some influence with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power—or, possibly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power would be the most hopeful approach—to restore our shipments of coal from Ayr harbour to

1251
Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland want these shipments resumed.
It is a costly business to take coal from the East Midlands to the port of shipment on the English coast. In Ayrshixe, we can do the rail hauls for one-third of the cost from the coalfield just behind the town of Ayr down to Ayr harbour. I have taken in the trains myself and I know what I am talking about. The Secretary of State may steer the ships, but I have driven the trains. At least, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman steers the ship of State clear of the rocks in the coming year and steers us away from even heavier unemployment. I ask the Secretary of State seriously to help to restore these coal shipments. I understand that there is a possibility that they may return. I have had a half promise and, possibly, a little shove could help to restore the former position.
I should like to say a word about the closure of railway branch lines, which is related to the question of tourism in the Highlands. I am sure that I shall have the support of Highland Members when I say that far too little thought has been given before decisions to close branch lines have been taken. If we are to have tourism in the Highlands, we must have these branch lines. We cannot consider railway branch lines purely from the economic aspect. There is also their social impact which should be recognised.
Furthermore, we need light industry in the Highlands. The closure of a branch line may mean the destruction of the very link that could sway the introduction of light industry to an area in which there is unemployment. I ask for a greater measure of thought and consultation between the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland before taking hard and fast decisions which may mean a great deal to the Highlands and which, once they are taken, kill the economic possibilities of an area.
However much we may moan or however much we may try to bribe industrialists to go into them, there are certain areas in Scotland where we will not get industry, and we might as well be definite about it. There are certain areas of coal decay and areas in the
1252
Highlands where industry simply will not come voluntarily. Hon. Members on the Government side must face this. Unless they want continued unemployment, leading to ultimate depopulation, hon. Members opposite must support our proposal for Government - sponsored factories in these areas to enable them to retain their economic life.
If because of political antipathy the Government close their eyes to these suggestions they will be writing off certain areas of Scotland. They will be telling people that they may as well go South to the more congested areas. This, however, is not a good thing for Scotland. I ask support from the whole House for our suggestion that in the areas where coal is dying out and in the remote areas of the Highlands, the Government should be pressed unceasingly to provide Government-sponsored factories, for the operation of which the Government should also be responsible, so that we may retain the life and the vigour in these communities which continued employment would give.
7.10 p.m.
Sir David Robertson: Our debate today was enriched by the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and by the masterly speech that he made. I felt that that speech was well matched by the President of the Board of Trade in his reply, which I found more encouraging than I had expected when I entered the Chamber.
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) had some very hard things to say about industrialists and the sons of industrialists. He remembered their fathers. He referred to them as giants who built great businesses, but said that when the sons came along they married women from the South and settled there.
That might have been true in one or two cases, but it is not generally true. Many of the sons of these men did not come back from the First World War and their grandsons did not come back from the Second World War. No country suffered more in the First World War than Scotland. The percentage of losses in that war was not only the highest in Great Britain, but the highest in the Commonwealth. No small country like ours could afford the number of

1253
casualties that we suffered. This is one of the things from which Scotland has suffered ever since.
Three other hon. Members who have spoken have also found fault with Scottish industrialists. They should remember that migration has hit us more than it has hit any other part of the country, and they should realise that taxation today is the most discouraging factor to anyone who wishes to invest money and set up industry. This is a hard economic fact of which I can speak with some knowledge.
There is a tremendous amount of good will, however, among industrialists not only in Scotland but all over the world. We find it among the Americans who come here. We should not worry about them or anyone else coming in. We should rejoice in the fact. Many of them are descendants of our own people. All the colonels with one exception in Washington's Army which took the surrender of Yorktown from Cornwallis were Scotsmen.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire spoke of what he remembered of 'the industry of his youth. I remember the Anchor Line as the equal and rival of Cunard with a weekly service to Boston and New York. I remember the Allan Line with a weekly service to Canada. I also remember the time when services were run by the Donaldson Line to North and South America. Surely the country that did so much in pioneering the North Atlantic and Eastern shipping too is capable of running its own shipping companies today.
Fares are very high on the Atlantic run and there is a wide-open door for competent men to form companies in Glasgow and get back into the trade for which they did so much. Today, in Newfoundland, there are people who remember the old Allan Line skippers, the legendary men who kept shipping going in the dangerous fog-bound seas which people who know St. Johns appreciate.
My right hon. Friend spoke about many thousands of new jobs. I think that he mentioned 39,000 jobs offered or a fait accompli.
Mr. Manuel: No.
Sir D. Robertson: Was that the maximum figure?
Mr. James H. Hoy: Before the hon. Member uses that figure, may I tell him that what the President of the Board of Trade said was that out of the 39,000 there were 13,000 new jobs which he could not be held for, but which he hoped would arise.
Sir D. Robertson: They were in the pipeline. Is that what my right hon. Friend said? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They were at least forthcoming in the foreseeable future. Apparently, hon. Members did not find my right hon. Friend's speech as encouraging as I did.
I found the speech very encouraging, because we have had just cause for complaint in the past and we have now every right to rejoice. B.M.C. is coming into Scotland. A strip mill is to be established, and Rootes are courageously coming to Linwood. They will need more shipping than is available to take their cars to the nearest port to the market. I met Sir Reginald Rootes some time ago and he emphasised that one of his disappointments was that he could not obtain nearly as good a shipping service from the Clyde as he was getting from the Bristol Channel and in the South and in London area.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Some of us had the pleasure of having a word with Lord Rootes this morning. He confirmed that the shipping service was still not available. Do the Government intend to try to improve the shipping service on the Clyde in this respect?
Sir D. Robertson: I regard shipping as a private enterprise occupation, but I felt that it was very regrettable that the Clyde could not compete with the Bristol Channel and with other ports in this country.
Sir Reginald made it clear that competition is so intense in the selling areas in America that it is no good landing motor cars in New York or Philadelphia only. If cars have been ordered by a buyer in Florida they must be taken to the nearest possible point, to economise on inland transport charges. It is not a matter of putting a load of cars on board at Greenock to be delivered in New York. Separate orders making up the total must go to the nearest point possible for

1255
disembarkation. Anyone who knows anything about shipping and about costs of unloading and transport charges will realise how essential is that consideration.
We can rejoice also in the Government's change of policy about coal. It is bound to help Scotland. The slowing-down of the atomic energy programme and the decision to rely more on our coal resources should help Ayrshire. I agree with the point which was made so vigorously by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) about getting coal exports to Northern Ireland back to their traditional place—Ayrshire. The boats from Northern Ireland used to go there. I shall be glad to help the hon. Member, if he wants my assistance, in bringing this about once again.
Secondary industries are Scotland's weakest point. We have been devoted to heavy industries, and too many of our young men also have gone into the professions. A man is entitled to enter what occupation he likes, but secondary industries are our greatest need. Sauchiehall Street and Princes Street are shop windows for the South and the Continent and elsewhere. If anyone went into one of the great stores on these streets and even into the shopping centres of our lesser towns he would find great difficulty in buying a Scottish-made man's suit off-the-peg. He would find difficulty even in buying a Scottish-made shirt. He could, possibly, buy shoes made in Kilmarnock, but he would probably find in the shops more shoes which has been made in Northampton. Greater attention should be paid to this matter.
Mr. Hugh Fraser could render greater service to Scotland in that respect than he will ever render in the Highlands. I welcome him in the Highlands as I welcome any effort made to improve matters there. Nobody could do better there than Hugh Fraser, but why should his capacities not be used where they could be best exercised in Scotland—in the clothing industry? He would soon stimulate Scottish industry. I have asked him to open up in my constituency, and he is thinking about it. I wanted him to use our wool, our greatest of all indigenous supply of raw material.
1256
I am mentioning these things because I find cause for satisfaction so far as the lowland areas are concerned. The President of the Board of Trade mentioned refrigeration machinery. I wonder whether any hon. Members present have heard of one of the greatest of all firms producing refrigerating machinery, L. Sterne & Company, Ltd., of Glasgow, an American firm which came to Glasgow about seventy-five years ago. It has made tremendous strides in building up refrigerating plant of all kinds, not only little domestic refrigerators but the massive compressors required for cold storage, low-temperature freezing, and so on.
I now want to say a word about the Highlands. I am an Independent Member of Parliament solely because of the appalling unemployment situation in my constituency. There are greater numbers of unemployed in the big places, but no part of the mainland of Great Britain endures the constant unemployment that we have in my constituency. We had a figure of more than 20 per cent. unemployment when I became an Independent Member. I have been labouring for more than ten years to persuade the Government to do the only thing that will keep people at home—to give them an opportunity of earning their living there.
There is no town of similar size anywhere in Europe, or even perhaps in America, that one can name which has greater facilities than Wick. But we have not a single industry there. We have there a harbour which was built by Robert Louis Stevenson's father, one of the finest harbours on the East Coast of Scotland, possibly second only to Leith. We have a main line railway, and we have good roads. It is true that there are better roads than the A.9, but it is still a good road. We also have abundant electricity.
We have fine people, who are not work-shy. They are mainly unemployed or under-employed. I should think that our history in migration could not be equalled anywhere in Great Britain. Everywhere one goes in Australia and Canada, and even in England, one finds people from the Highlands of Scotland. We have been drained far too much. The great County of Sutherland, of over 1 million acres, has been drained down to

1257
a population less than that of an English village—a shameful state of affairs.
I have been told that the average for an English village is 15,000 people. In Sutherland, we have 13,000. It is getting too lonely to live there. It is not much good calling for industries to go to the country areas because there is no labour there, but in towns like Thursoe, Wick, Invergordon, Inverness, Dingwall and Tain we can take industry.
I would remind the House that Northern Europe is developing rapidly. When the Prime Minister entertained Mr. Khrushchev in Moscow, in the spring of last year, the Prime Minister said that the greatest development in the history of the world was the Russian development from 1917 to the present time. Everyone knows that that is true. A nation which can hit the moon at the place it wants at the time it wants has made great advances from the down-trodden peasant nation that Russia was in 1917.
Sweden is going ahead rapidly. Sweden has been aided, of course, by being clear of two world wars. Sweden is a hard currency country, and it is developing. Norway is also developing. I was in Oslo a few weeks ago. I was last there twenty-five years ago. I was amazed to see the industrial and housing development there. The old city seemed to have changed completely. Mr. Trygve Lie, the first Secretary-General of the United Nations, is now ambassador-at-large for Norway. He opened his campaign here in London and made a speech extolling the virtues of Norway for the purpose of attracting industries. I think that he is now in America. The Norwegians could not have a better man for the job. That is the sort of thing that is being done by Norway. Even Iceland is developing.
This is something for us to think about, because we in North Scotland belong to Northern Europe. It is nonsense to think that we could not earn our own living. If there was the will on the part of the Government to do the job, it could be done. I introduced a Bill—the North of Scotland Development Corporation Bill—three years ago. It was backed by every Highland Member. It was not a bad Bill; it had much merit. It was an attempt to provide the machinery to do the job. Unfortunately, the Govern-
1258
ment did not want it and were not willing to risk a vote, so they arranged for it to be talked out, which was a very shabby way to treat such a Bill. However, I am prepared to forget that as long as the Government are prepared to tackle the Highland problem.
We may not be able to get industry into the glens, but let us have it where there is a possibility of its succeeding, in the towns. If we can do that, we shall be able to provide employment for the children of the crofters and for the farmers and agricultural workers, too, and then the kind of thing that we all visualise for the Highlands will come about: we shall cease to be an area dying from depopulation and decay.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. William Baxter: I have listened with great interest to most of the speeches today, and no speech, I think, has shown greater sense than the one we have just enjoyed from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). He has given us a very clear example of why we should look at this very difficult problem in the broadest possible sense.
I agreed with most of the things that the hon. Member said. I agree that the Leader of the Opposition gave a masterly performance, and, like the hon. Member, I agree that the President of the Board of Trade gave a very effective reply. The President's reply gave me some degree of hope that we had turned the tables on unemployment in Scotland, and, quite sincerely, I think that we have.
I feel that one of the great problems of the House of Commons is that hon. Members are, unfortunately, very prejudiced by past thoughts and beliefs. On the one side, we apparently thoroughly believe in private enterprise. On the other side, we apparently thoroughly believe in nationalisation. As a result, I sometimes despair whether we shall reach a solution acceptable to us all which will help to put our country on the right road.
I am very much disturbed about the attitude of the Minister of Power. When the mines in Scotland were nationalised—most people will agree that fundamentally that was a very wise and desirable step to take—we had three by-products works. One was at Carnoch,

1259
and that was closed. Another was at Plean, and that has been closed. Another was at Kilsyth, and that is likely to be closed in the not far distant future. It is very difficult to say whether the decisions about those closures were arrived at because of prejudice or not. I hope that they were not arrived at because of prejudice against a nationalised undertaking. Most of us will agree that the future of coal lies not only in the burning of it in our furnaces and grates but in its scientific exploitation. Consequently, it is my belief that the nationalised undertaking should have played a greater part in this development than it is at present proposing to do.
It is true that there has been encouragement by the Government, as a result of public opinion, of the development of by-product work at Colvilles. It is true that through public finance we have helped to develop the steel strip mill at Ravenscraig. It is a good departure from the bigoted point of view that public money should not be utilised for the development of private enterprise. We have seen that take place. However, we hope that the building of the byproducts works at Motherwell is not being done in an attempt to undermine the nationalised coal industry.
Like most people, I have been greatly concerned with other matters which have come before the House of Commons since I became a Member. I have listened with great interest to the arguments for and against the new Local Employment Act. I cannot but think that its implications are similar to those in the provisions for the distressed areas and the old Distribution of Industry Act. It is an old-fashioned method, adopted because of conditions after the war, to try to alter a particular set of circumstances. I have not seen any new ideas or any new light from the Government Front Bench on this very difficult and dangerous problem of unemployment and recession in Scotland.
I have heard the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) speak about whisky and its qualities. May I remind the House that in 1793 an Act was passed not unlike the Location of Industries Act, but it was worked in a different method, with different methods of taxation. A higher degree of
1260
taxation was put on whisky that was distilled in the Lowlands of Scotland—the line was drawn from the south of the River Forth—and a lesser degree on the whisky distilled up in the northern parts of Scotland. That was done for a purpose. It took more than a century for the industry to recover in the Lowlands. It was not the special qualities of the water in the Highlands that made whisky distilled there so good for some people to drink. The circumstances of the 1793 Act compelled the whisky distillers to go north and develop their industry there.
It may have played its part in keeping the Highlands even slightly developed—though not as much as we want—but it undermined the industry in the southern part. The lesson does not appear to have been learned. We think that we can keep artificial lines of demarcation round particular areas and that we shall be able to push industry into those areas. In my opinion, industry should have a greater degree of freedom than that. The whole of Scotland should be designated as a development area.
I say that advisedly, because Scotland is a very small nation. I represent West Stirlingshire, and in the area, Bal Fron, Lennoxtown, Kilsyth, and Dennyloanhead, there is practically no industry at all. Most of the people in those areas have to go into other areas which are now designated as development districts—into Glasgow, for instance, and Airdrie and Coatbridge, where there are large numbers of unemployed. Does building a factory in Glasgow or Coatbridge cure the position of the people of Kilsyth or Lennoxtown who have to travel there? The whole conception of the Local Employment Act is fundamentally wrong, but apparently it is the only idea that the Government could bring out at this time to develop the industrial wellbeing of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) mentioned something which is rather important. It is true that very competent and capable people, many of whom could have developed Scottish industry, are no longer with us. It is also true that the system of taxation has a very detrimnetal effect upon anyone who desires to build an industry or to develop a present industry.

1261
The natural tendency, even for Members of this House, is surely to say: is it worth my while to invest money in a new industry and take all the risks involved? We must put that question to ourselves. If we have spare capital, what will we do with it? Most of us, if we have it, will consider very seriously whether it is desirable, from our point of view, to invest in some business that has been established for many years rather than use it in the establishment of a new industry, or even in the development of a small industry which already exists. One has all the worries and difficulties without any tangible return in the long run.
That is a factor which must be taken into consideration when we think about how to devise ways and means of furthering the development of Scotland. We can have academic discussions as to whether nationalisation is better than private enterprise, but that will not alter one iota what is to happen in the next four years. The people have spoken. The die has been cast. We can only appeal to the Government to utilise their good offices to try the best of both worlds. We can have a marriage of convenience for the time being. We should adopt the best of private enterprise and the best of nationalisation.
Let us have a joint effort, not only between the Government and the employers, but between the Government, the employers and the trade unions, not for the benefit of the employers or of the trade unionists, or of the Government, but for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Surely it is desirable that we should combine and help to start new industries? Let us also help the old industries and harness the initiative of private enterprise within the orbit of our national economy, even if it necessitates the financing of some projects by the national Exchequer.
We in Scotland have great opportunities, and I am with those who speak of the wonderful opportunities of our country. There is no doubt that easy access to the sea is of paramount importance to any industry which seeks to develop in Scotland. Scotland's highways, canals and railways run into first-class ports. Our roads require repairs and development, but do not let us tell people that they are not good enough for a bigger industrial development. I believe that
1262
we can get the industrialists to go to Scotland, or at least induce the Government to support private enterprise to develop parts of our own country.
As one who has been closely associated with the development of water supplies in the County of Stirling, I am aware that throughout Scotland there is, on the whole, first-class water supply for any industrialists who seek to go there. Drainage schemes are going on by leaps and bounds for the purpose of taking away effluent from the new factories which may be established there. There is cheap electricity for power. Where is there greater opportunity for electric power than in Scotland? Coal is at the door, at the cheapest possible rate. I can see nothing but the greatest opportunity for industrialists to go to Scotland.
Then there is the development of the arts, We often hear that industrialists' wives want to stay in London because the arts and crafts and the beauty of man's techniques are in that part of the world, but little do they know of the great development of the arts in Scotland. Little do they know of our beautiful towns, cities, and countryside. If only they would come and see them, I am sure that many industrialists would change their minds.
There are great opportunities for trade and commerce in Scotland. Like other hon. Members, I have given much consideration to the question of the Outer Seven free trade agreement. I am more worried about it than the President of the Board of Trade appears to be. I am concerned about its ultimate effect upon the paper industry of Scotland, for example. It is true that the industry today is expanding, but it is also true that the nullification of the 16⅔ per cent. tariff on the importation of paper to our country will soon take effect, and that will mean our industry losing a protectionist tariff worth £7 million a year. As I read the signs of the times, it is possible that the paper industry in Scandinavia will greatly expand so that it will ultimately be very competitive with our native industry.
All these matters will have to be taken into consideration. But the die is cast: the free trade agreement has been signed, and we must accept it. Even though great problems are associated with it, there are also great opportunities not only for trade with the Outer Seven but also with Iceland, Russia and East Germany. I

1263
had the opportunity of speaking to one of the representatives of East Germany, and I was interested to note that he was most anxious to obtain an agreement with this country for a greater supply of yarn and also electrical goods. He would place an order today for 150 bulldozers. We require these orders in Scotland. There is no doubt that the doors are beginning to widen. Scotland is well placed to take full advantage of the opportunities available for trade with the Outer Seven.
Not only that; America and Canada are at our door. The great demand of these countries for goods produced in Scotland is never satisfied. I see the possibilities of a great development in Scotland, if only we have the initiative and will power to put it into operation. It is imperative that the Government, in conjunction with Scottish chambers of commerce and the trade union movement, should set up a scientific research organisation. We should have a national scientific research and design organisation in Scotland, so that small established businesses and new businesses would be able to take advantage of the kind of first-class knowledge and advice which is apparently available to English industrialists through the auspices of the Board of Trade. We must consider this problem from the Scottish angle.
It is imperative that Scotland should have an encyclopaedia of trade and commerce in relation to world requirements. We should not allow industries in the remoter parts of Scotland to die out because they have not the "know-how" of what is required by Africa, America or Australia. This encyclopaedia should be freely available to anyone seeking to establish or develop industry in Scotland. The time is opportune for the Government to try new methods. They should seek to establish in Scotland a central organisation, if not to establish new industries on their own in the depressed areas at least to encourage them to do so by grants or in some other way. There should be a committee of experts to help to guide anyone seeking to develop new industry in Scotland.
We have a great opportunity. We have a great nation, with all the national resources of men, women and materials and with all the gifts that nature can bestow upon a nation. All we require is
1264
a Government with the initiative and will power to see that they push forward with new schemes and with new techniques to meet competing world trade and to establish in Scotland, once and for all, a unification of purpose between nationalised ideas and private enterprise ideas—a unification for the benefit of our country. If we could do that I am positive that this problem of unemployment would never rear its head again.
7.46 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Stodart: First, I would like to say that the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Baxter) was one which, for fluency and vigour, will be remarkably difficult to follow.
The first thing that comes to mind in considering the Report "Industry and Employment in Scotland" are the unemployment figures. The unemployment situation in Scotland has for long brooded like a dark cloud above whichever Government have been in power. I hope that it will be accepted that no one, in any political party, wants unemployment, and that we have all tried our best to dispel it. Hitherto, success—or perhaps I should call it failure—has been fairly equally distributed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinbugh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) said, in his maiden speech, this is not exactly a new problem.
I want to examine what I hope are relevant and dispassionate figures of unemployment in Scotland since the war. They show a remarkable similarity under the two Governments. During the period of the Labour Government the annual average figure of unemployment was 63,263 and during the Conservative Government, to date, the average is 62,268.
Mr. T. Fraser: Will the hon. Member say up to what point in time he has made his calculation?
Mr. Stodart: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said that his figures had been checked in triplicate. I have checked mine, and unless my division is hopelessly wrong my figures are applicable to the period up to the end of 1959.
Mr. Fraser: The figure that he has just given is an accurate one up to the end

1265
of 1958, but if he had taken into account the last eighteen months he would find that his figures were inaccurate.
Mr. Stodart: I deliberately left out of my calculations the first seven months of 1946, because I was advised that that might weight the Labour Government's average unfairly. The average in the first seven months was slightly higher than it was in 1947. That was due to the effects of the war. At the peak of unemployment the figure was 6 per cent. under the Labour Government and 5·4 per cent under the Tories.
Mr. Willis: What is the point of these comparisons?
Mr. Hoy: Where did the hon. Member get his figure of 6 per cent.? He first got mixed up with the years 1946 and 1947. We excuse him for that. But where did he get his second figure?
Mr. Stodart: The peak figures were in 1947 and in 1959.
Mr. Hoy: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to go wrong about 1947, which was the year to which he wants to refer, but it was a very bad winter, which he thought should be excised from the record. If that was the case with the overall figure, he should not choose it for the second.
Mr. Stodart: I said that I had omitted 1946 from the first figure. The average percentage rate throughout was 3·1 in each case, whereas the Great Britain average under the first regime was 1·7 and, under the present regime, up to date 1·6. Therefore, these figures are remarkably similar, and all I can say to the hon. Member is that if I have calculated them wrongly, I have at least done so in good faith.
Mr. Willis: Would the hon. Gentleman now tell us the relevance of these figures, and how they are more relevant than if he went back to the figures before the war?
Mr. Stodart: I am merely trying to point out—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) does not realise its significance—that this is a problem which has baffled both Governments, which I believe each Government have done their best to try to solve, though the one has not been much more successful than the other.
1266
One thing I do believe is that as we passed from the 'fifties to the 'sixties, we found that the trumpets had sounded. During the Christmas Recess, my impression was that the news of the development at Bathgate made a profound impact upon everybody in Scotland. If I may be pardoned for using a simile, I would say that on the farms of East Lothian there is a saying that if in the early morning there is a redness which comes into the sky and then climbs up instead of dying away, we will have a good harvesting day, but woe betide us if the redness goes back. We must be determined that in this case the redness that has gleamed in the sky must not be allowed to go back again. That is why I say that the reaction to what is going on is so very important.
When I look at the various headlines I have seen in the daily newspapers, I think that they are significant. I have some of them here. One, from the Scotsman, reads:
"300 industrialists flock to B.M.C. Supply Meeting."
"£35 million shopping list issue."
Another one reads like this:
"Break through by Scottish steel."
"Native industry on the verge of new era of prosperity."
Just to be fair in the matter, I will refer to the Daily Express, which is not a newspaper which particularly favours one side or the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should have said that it is at least as unpopular with one side as with the other. Its injunction is to "go out and sell Scotland", and to "rise to meet the challenge". That spirit is of more value—and I do not think anybody would disagree with this description—than the doubts and misgivings which have been expressed on many occasions by hon. Members opposite. It is, of course, the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but surely not to carry this opposition to the extent of frightening away every suitor for the hand of Scotland.
Mr. Manuel: That is ridiculous.
Mr. Stodart: It is lamentably easy to win the sort of reputation which drives a potential customer away. I read the other day, as I have no doubt other people read, the article by Mr. Francis Williams in the Scotsman. He is the ex-editor of the Socialist paper Forward and he complained about a self-pity

1267
which Scotsmen were tending to exude all the time and said it was dreadful to get into a state of permanent mental depression.
I have a close friend who keeps an hotel in Scotland, and he has often said to me that one bad meal served in that hotel requires 50 good ones to repair the damage that has been done. I do not want to make too much of the fact, but I believe that this operates within the minds of industrialists in the South. There is an expression known as "Red Clydeside", and that is why, whether we like it or not, one demarcation dispute on the Clyde probably does more psychological damage than three or four demarcation disputes elsewhere.
I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) when he was talking about the importance of management. I cannot help thinking—and I am never slow to put in a word in favour of the greatest industry in the country, namely, agriculture—what lessons there are to be learned by industry from the fact that since the beginning of the war there has been a 60 per cent. increase in production in farming in Scotland, with a labour force of 20,000 less than there was in 1939. There has never been any sort of labour dispute, far less a strike, ever since I started farming thirty years ago.
Mr. Willis: They might lose their homes.
Mr. Stodart: It seems to me, therefore, that we have something in farming that we should be able to offer to industry generally. How right, indeed, it is to say that peace in industry does not depend upon one side but upon amicable relations between both sides.
I want to turn now to the question of transport in Scotland generally. I think that it was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who referred to road conditions, a subject that has been touched upon by other hon. Members. Much has been said about the bad roads in Scotland, yet one thing I would say—and we should not lose altogether our sense of proportion—is that we should admit that, by and large, the surfaces of the roads in Scotland are first class.
Mr. Manuel: They are getting very bad.
Mr. Stodart: At any rate, much has been said about bad roads in the Highlands. The surfaces of our Highland roads. in my view and from what experience I have had of them, are far superior to the mountain roads in Switzerland What concerns me to a greater extent than the condition of the roads in the Highlands where, I agree, there is need for wider roads—though, I hope, not for the creation of motorways—is that I detect a slight lack of determination on the part of the Government regarding the building of the Edinburgh by-pass. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to picture himself in the cabin of a lorry at Pertlh, the driver having possibly travelled from Aberdeen. If I understand the matter aright, three years hence, on arrival at Perth, a lorry driver will be confronted with the alternatives of making far Stirling—Carlisle—Penrith and the South, or going over the Forth road bridge and taking the East Coast road.
It is all very well to say that a double carriageway from Carlisle to Stirling is the answer. It may help. But I think that it overlooks one factor, that no matter whether there be a single carriageway or a double one, a journey over Beattock, followed by Shap or the Pennines in the middle of winter, is not something which any lorry driver would readily wish to undertake. That is why I am certain that, given a by-pass round Edinburgh, the East Coast road will generally be followed.
It is true that within recent weeks a survey has been made on the outskirts of Edinburgh. financed in part by my right hon. Friend's Department, and that inquiries have been made about the intentions of motorists. I think, with respect, that the questions asked have been quite the wrong ones. When I was stopped the other day I was asked whether I was going into Edinburgh. I said that I was, and I was then asked which part and I told the inquirer. I was not asked the important question whether, if there were a by-pass, I would still go into Edinburgh Until that knowledge is revealed none of these statistics will be of real value either to the Scottish Office,

1269
or the people now queuing up to get through the centre of Edinburgh, and who, given the opportunity to do so, would use a by-pass.
From roads to railways. I notice in the Report that while freight receipts on the Scottish railway system are down passenger receipts are up, even though the number of passenger journeys is down. On many routes passenger traffic has risen sensationally, particularly, I am glad to say, on cross-country routes where dieselisation has taken place. Here I believe that the tide is on the turn. During the Whitsun Recess, thanks to the kindness of British Railways in Scotland, I was enabled to make a trip to see the recent effect of modernisation and I discovered three things which impressed me more than anything else.
The first was the absolute and complete punctuality on the railway. The second was the cleanliness and the third was the splendid spirit among the men at all levels. I was particularly impressed with the young firemen, who are obviously longing to become drivers of these magnificent new locomotives. One young man said that he had come to Scotland six years ago from Yorkshire, where he had worked driving a Ferguson tractor on a farm. I wished that I could get men of his type coming from the railways on to the farms.
We have now running between Glasgow and London what is known as the Condor express freight service, which is reputed to be the fastest in the world. I think that the Scottish Region of British Railways is being well run. There can be no region in which morale at all levels is better and in which the spirit of keenness burns more brightly. The only thing that I should like to see is the rolling stock labelled "Scottish Railways" instead of "British Railways". Future emphasis must be on punctuality. That matters to the general public far more than many other things. It is essential that the railways win back the confidence of the public that both passengers and goods will arrive on time.
The only thing which concerns me about British Railways is the tendency to solve its financial difficulties merely by putting up the fares. The civil airlines reveal a tendency to reduce fares in the hope—which is so often realised—of
1270
carrying more passengers. I am sure that we are all agreed that if the influence of Scotland is to blossom and expand there is no room for any restrictive attitude whatever. We are living in a highly competitive world. There is no room for the blunting of individual responsibilities. There is no time for any sort of benevolence which puts the brake on effort and which seeks to say, for example, that oil must be prevented from competing with coal or, for that matter, road haulage with rail.
I detected the key to this spirit in the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. If that spirit exists on both sides of the House from now on, I believe that there is a tremendous future for employment in Scotland.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I wish to make two points which have not been made in this debate so far, but, first, I wish to refer to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. It was a speech remarkable for its omissions. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that industry had been brought to Scotland by the present Government, and he put the claim forward under three heads. One, industries promised; two, industries guaranteed, and, three, industries that were not guaranteed.
Many hon. Members on this side of the House immediately asked where the industries were and the right hon. Gentleman was unable to answer. Hon. Members called out that the industries were not in their constituencies and I then intervened to ask the President of the Board of Trade to become more specific and to indicate the names and the locations of the industries promised, guaranteed or not guaranteed. The right hon. Gentleman was unable or unwilling to give particulars of the locations or the names. I know not why, He is at the centre of industry. He is the person responsible for implementing any plan with regard to industry. But the right hon. Gentleman was vague. His story, his short trip to Scotland today, was one of fantasy and illusion.
His speech was in bold contrast to the speech which had preceded it, that made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He gave facts and figures and was clear and definite in regard to the fortunes of Scotland today

1271
and the failures of the present Government. It must be evident to any student of public affairs in Scotland and her industry that the outstanding need of Scotland today is an integrated plan for the country as a whole and, secondly, for the implementation of that plan in a way which would do justice not only to the South which is congested, full of industry and of congestion of various kinds, but also to the North and the East.
Aberdeen has been clamouring for new industries and location of industries for a long time. It has been given promises of industries, but those promises have not been fulfilled. Why? It is because a clear, comprehensive and integrated plan for the whole of Scotland has not been implemented by the present Government. I want to refer to only two points on that and I shall present them as shortly, tersely and succinctly as I can.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. and learned Member has said that Aberdeen has been given promises of industry. Can he say what those promises were and by whom they were given?
Mr. Hughes: I shall come to that. I shall be very concrete and definite in regard to my two points. The party which supports this Government has been in office for eight years. It has failed to distribute industry fairly throughout Scotland. It has failed to repopulate the North of Scotland. It has failed to relieve congestion in the South of Scotland and, worse, today this Government are accentuating the relevant problems by driving many of our workers from the North-East and North to the South. Worse still, they are stealing our technicians and scientists by transferring them to the South, taking away our research establishments from the North of Scotland and taking away our scientists who matter.
That brings me to the first of my two examples. It is the example of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that Ministry with so odd a name, as if fish were not food and as if agriculture were not food. However, we must take it as we find it. That Ministry had
1272
at Aberdeen a research establishment in Greyhope Road. That establishment, after many years of unique service and while still doing good work, is to be closed and its scientific and other staff are no longer to be employed and will have to find other work.
Aberdeen feels very keenly about that, naturally. I wrote the Minister a letter of protest and got from him an astonishing, illogical and unpatriotic reply, admitting the success of the research station and using that very success as a bogus reason for depriving the public prosperity of its beneficent functions. I quote from that astonishing letter. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"The establishment has, as you say, gained wide prestige both in this country and abroad, and indeed, so far as I know, is unique throughout the world. But, as I indicated in my letter to you of 1st March, its very success and the progress which has been achieved are the main reasons for my conclusion that the developmental work on dehydration will by the end of this year have reached the stage where private enterprise should take over. I do not believe that we should be justified in spending further public money on the work once it has crossed the threshold from research to commercial exploitation."
Worse still, the establishment has actually on hand very valuable research work and, for the record, I shall stress the importance of the scientific work which it is actually doing and which it has in prospect to do. I quote from a statement sent to me by the Minister on 27th May this year:
"The establishment has also undertaken with the approval of the U.S. Department of Agriculture three research projects which are financed from Counterpart Funds under Congress Public Law 480.
These cover:

(i) biochemical and physical changes in meat fibres when dehydrated by A.F.D

(ii) isolation of flavoroids, xanthones and other polyphenolic compounds from selected plants in order to evaluate their properties as anti-oxidents and to prepare derivatives of maximum antioxident efficiency.

(iii) chemical changes in carotenoid pigments resulting from processing of vegetables by canning or dehydration, with the object of preventing deleterious effects by changes in processing techniques, by chemical inhibition or by choice of plant variety."

I apologise to the House for imposing those technical terms upon it, but I do so advisedly because I want to make clear the very valuable technical work which that research station is doing and of which it is to be deprived of the

1273
opportunity of doing in future. Notwithstanding that, I quote the Minister about the high prestige of this beneficial national and international work. The whole scientific plant is to be wantonly dismantled. On the authority of the Minister himself, I can tell the House of this almost incredible outrage on the public. I quote the Answer of the Minister to me, made in the House on 12th May this year. He said:
"The scientific and other plant at the Research Establishment is composed of preprocessing equipment for meat, fish, vegetables and fruit on an industrial scale, dehydration cabinets now of an obsolescent pattern and laboratory and scientific apparatus. In addition, there is one prototype dehydration cabinet, the property of an American firm and on loan to the Ministry for experimental purposes."
I had asked the Minister about the cost of the plant, and he said:
"The cost of the plant, equipment and apparatus (excluding the plant on loan) at the time of acquisition was £131,000. On closure of the Establishment in March next the industrial plant will be sold."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1960; Vol. 623, c. 592–3.]
It is disgraceful that this scientific research establishment which, to quote the Minister, is "unique throughout the world and is characterised by "success and progress", is to be savagely sacrificed to "commercial exploitation". Whatever the principle may be on which he is acting, I say advisedly that it is a poisonous principle, and I ask the House to disapprove of it, because it is contrary to the country's interest, both financial and scientific.
I pass from that. The only other example with which I shall trouble the House is the damage which the proposed European Free Trade Association will have on the fishing and papermaking industries. On 30th June I asked the President of the Board of Trade about this and, in an offhand way, he admitted my indictment of this aspect of the Government's policy. He said:
"The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned one or two industries"
—one or two industries; he might almost have said, "What do they matter?"—
"which may suffer greater competition as a result of the European Free Trade Association."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 1527.]
He went on to say that he felt—not that he reasoned; not that he was basing his decision upon reason, but that he
1274
was basing it upon emotion—that other industries may benefit.
In other words, the fishermen and papermakers may be dis-employed and left short of work. This is wanton, callous and bad statesmanship. The fishermen and the fishing industry are entitled to just as much consideration, and the papermaking industry is entitled to just as much consideration, as are other industries, and it is wrong that these men should be turned off and dis-employed in this casual way without any compensation; and I will come to that in a moment. There is an old country saying,
"Live, horse, and you'll get grass some time, somewhere."
That is apparently the Minister's attitude to the fishermen and the paper workers.
It goes further than that. The mere threat of the European Free Trade Association has had another adverse effect in the county of Aberdeen and, I suppose, elsewhere. A great paper-making company planned an extension of its premises costing £750,000. Obviously this would have given work to many kinds of constructional workers and later to workers in the paper-making industry. But on the mere threat of this European Free Trade Association, the company abandoned its plan to extend its premises, with great loss to the nation.
Mr. Hendry: The hon. and learned Member is probably referring to a paper company in my constituency. Where did he obtain his information? My information is that the work has already been carried out.
Mr. Hughes: I agree that it is in the hon. and learned Member's constituency, but a number of constructional workers from my constituency, and planners, architects and others, are involved. The company announced in a letter to me that in view of the European Free Trade Association it was abandoning its plans. My submission is that the abandonment of those plans is damaging to the constructional workers, to the paper makers, to the transport workers and, indeed, to all the ancillary workers who might have expected to obtain work in connection with that scheme. Yet Aberdeen is a scheduled area.

1275
I submit that this is another instance of the Government's inconsistency in promising factories and then taking steps aliunde to prevent the promises from being carried out. Notwithstanding these adverse effects, the European Free Trade Association, the Outer Seven Convention, has been pushed through, and it came into operation this very month, on 1st July. The effect of that is damaging. About 10,000 British fishermen are adversely affected by increased competition from European fishermen, and they are deprived of their tariff protection.
Scandinavia can now extend her fishing grounds and sell Britain—and these figures are not mine, but I will give my authority for them in a moment—£75 million worth of frozen fish per annum, employ 10,000 more workers in freezing fish in Scotland and deprive British fish workers of their work. This will damage all the ancillary trades, such as shipbuilders, trawler builders, engineers, net makers, ships' chandlers, fish market porters, transport workers and all those who are involved in the great fishing industry, one of the great industries of this country.
As recently as 6th July the British Trawlers Federation sent me a statement in which it said:
"The Norwegian fishing industry estimates that if Britain will accept frozen fish as an industrial product. Norway can sell her about £75 million worth a year. This would enable the Norwegian fishing industry to work all the year round and employ about 10,000 more workers in the freezing plants."
That is the precarious position in which the Government are putting the fishing industry in the whole of this island.
Only yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about it and about his attempts to resolve the fishery dispute with Iceland. Again he had to record failure. The fact is that the Government are a niggling Government, without plan and without vision for the whole of Scotland. I could quote other examples but those which I have given are sufficient to show that the Government have neglected the North of Scotland, have driven Scottish workers South, have closed a Scottish research station in Aberdeen, have sacrificed public research and valuable instruments to commercial exploitation, have thrown Scottish scientists out of work and have
1276
damaged the paper making and the fishing industries.
I have some questions to put to the Secretary of State, or perhaps to the President of the Board of Trade if he were here. The latter has had his short trip to Scotland today and has disappeared. I am glad that at least the Secretary of State is here. I will ask him a set of questions which I hope he will answer when he replies tonight.
Why do the Government deprive the public of the unique Greyhope Road research station? Who is the purchaser? What is the price? Are they giving it as a bargain to somebody at public expense? Why are they penalising Aberdeen in this disgraceful way? Why have they failed to bring other industries to Aberdeen? Why are they driving our scientists and other workers from Aberdeen to the South? What compensation are they offering the workers, or indeed the industrialists, in the paper-making industry and in the fishing industry? Why, by this Continental agreement, are they encouraging the fishing trade on the Continent at the expense of the fishing trade in Aberdeen?
This is only part of the indictment of the Government. Those are only two points in the indictment—there are many more—but those two points are sufficient to drive this Government out of office.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Forbes Hendry: The House has just listened to one of the most wicked and irresponsible speeches I have ever heard made in it. It is very easy for a bantam cock to make a loud noise with nothing behind it. That is exactly what we have just had. We have heard a great many alleged constituency points. I say nothing about the research station, except that it is quite irrelevant to the debate, but we have heard a great deal about two other points which have nothing at all to do with the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).
The first point concerned the paper mill. I do not know how the hon. and learned Gentleman got his information, but despite the conversations he had and the letter he received—I have seen a copy of the letter and I have had conversations with the owners of the same paper

1277
mill—he is probably not aware that a very large building, part of this £750,000 development, has already gone up. He is probably not aware that the paper mill in question is flourishing and is at present in communication with the Board of Trade with a view to assistance under B.O.T.A.C. I know from my own negotiations with the company and with the Board of Trade that that private company is receiving every possible assistance. That is a jolly good instance of the type of private enterprise which is being shown by private businessmen in the North of Scotland, and, I believe, throughout Scotland.
The second point I want to deal with arising from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is the question of fishing. This seems to me to be characteristic of a great deal that has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, until today, happily, and that is the moaning and groaning about what is happening to us in Scotland. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to think about it and tell us on another occasion what Norwegian fishermen have which our Scottish fishermen have not. There is an answer to it, but I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us.''] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) knows full well that the Scandinavian inshore fishermen have advantages which the Scottish inshore fishermen do not have, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell us that. I do not think that he knew. All we got from him was the complaint that we were being badly done by because of the Outer Seven, the Free Trade Association. Instead of this, I hope that we in this House will get down to it and see that we can make our fishing industry more prosperous and efficient and meet the Norwegians on our own ground.
It would have been far better if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the House when we listened to a most remarkable speech from my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). I am a constituent of his, and if he makes many more Tory speeches of the type he made this afternoon he will maybe get another vote, namely, mine, although I did not help to return him to the House on the last occasion.
Mr. Hector Hughes: It is not a question of meeting the Norwegian fishermen on their own ground. This Government are so unpatriotic that they are encouraging the Norwegian fishermen to sell their fish in this country.
Mr. Hendry: That is not what I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what he has said in answer."] Yes, that is what he has told me, but it is not what I asked him. I will now ask him another question, and possibly I shall receive an answer to it. He accused this Government of having promised industries for the City of Aberdeen and the County of Aberdeen. He said that the Government did not provide those industries. Perhaps he will tell me at some other time when he has had time to think about it what industries Aberden was promised which it did not get. I have never heard of them. I have quite as much contact with chambers of commerce and other bodies in the City and County of Aberdeen as the hon. and learned Gentleman has.
Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Member tell us what the industries were which we were promised today, but not guaranteed, by the President of the Board of Trade? The right hon. Gentleman would not tell us.
Mr. Hendry: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had better address that question to the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Ross: I thought that the hon. Member was more knowledgeable. The right hon. Gentleman could not tell us.
Mr. Hendry: At any rate, I ask the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North to give me the answer to a question which I asked not ten minutes ago but to which I do not think that he knew the answer.
To return to what I was saying, we had a most remarkable speech this afternoon from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. I am sorry to see that he is not now present, as I should have liked him to have heard my tribute. He said that if we could all get together—not go as beggars do asking people to do something for us, but get together to do something ourselves for Scotland—we should be better off. I pay

1279
this tribute to him, that he himself is one of the Scottish business men who has got down to it, who has used his own capital for his own business and has thereby added to the prosperity of Scotland. If a great many more of us did that, we would be a good deal better off.
There has been a great deal of castigation of Scottish business men in this debate. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) appealed to hon. Members on this side to go to their local associations and ask the business men to get down to finding the money to produce industry in Scotland. Various other hon. Members opposite have made the same sort of suggestion, but I would remind them that there are more than business men running industries in our country, and I should like to turn for a minute, not in a hostile way but with a view to constructive criticism, to certain nationalised industries which, I think, also have their part to play.
I would remind hon. Members opposite that there is on the Order Paper at the moment a Motion calling on the Government to produce nationalised industries in Scotland. Let us see how the nationalised industries have been shaping, because I think that they, as well as have the business men in Scotland, have quite a lot to learn.
I want to refer to a speech made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) in the corresponding debate last year. He is not in the Chamber now, but he was just a few moments ago. Referring to the railway workshops in Scotland, he said:
"Many of these workshops are in the same condition as they were a hundred years ago. In other railway workshops and establishments in the south of England modernisation is going on, but apparently in Scotland these workshops will be maintained as they are now laid out." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1959: Vol. 608. c. 646.]
The hon. Member went on to talk about the tendency of British Railways to centralise their workshops in the south of England. That, I am sorry to say, is still going on. It is right that British Railways should modernise their lines, but I wish that they would turn to their workshops to see how they can help Scotland there. Scotland is not getting
1280
her fair share of British Railway work at the moment.
The railway workshops in Inverurie, in my constituency, are not a small establishment like those at Inverness—now, unfortunately dead and gone. They are large, they have been producing locomotives for many years and, until recently, employed no fewer than 900 men.
The coming of the diesel has set these workshops back for many years, and for a very considerable period there has been a gradual drift from Inverurie to Swindon. My latest information is that no fewer than 50—and probably nearer 60 families—have left Inverurie for Swindon in the last year; families not persons. For a small town like Inverurie that is a very serious matter.
We in this House have no direct control over the internal workings of British Railways, but we have an influence over them, and it is worth while saying that. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will tell British Railways that we believe that in Scotland we have not been getting a fair deal in locomotive and carriage building.
The North British Locomotive Works in Glasgow has been through a very thin time and has not had a fair share of British Railways work. In Motherwell, British Railways have failed to maintain Motherwell's large wagon industry and one of the two firms there has closed down. It is not unfair—
Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Gentleman has accused my hon. and learned Friend of being inaccurate. I would ask him to take more care in accuracy for himself. The firm he mentions was bought out by an English firm and closed down. There was a take-over bid, and then it was closed down by an English firm.
Mr. Hendry: I stand corrected and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for the information he has given. I suggest that it is a fair inference that if the firm which was bought out and subsequently closed had had a fair share of British Railways work it would not have been closed down.
At any rate, I think I have said enough about that. I do not want to pursue the matter indefinitely, and I do not wish

1281
to criticise the nationalised industries as such, because I believe that they have a very great part to play. Nevertheless, they must take their share. As the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire said, both private business and nationalised business must play their part in the advancement and prosperity in Scotland. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pass on these observations to British Railways so that they may see to it that they play the part that they should.
I come now to another nationalised industry, again without wishing to criticise, particularly because it is suffering very great disabilities at the moment. I mean the National Coal Board. Hitherto, the Coal Board has had the advantage of being in a seller's market. It is now finding things extremely difficult because it has an enormous organisation which has not been geared to the situation confronting it now.
Miss Herbison: The hon. Member says that the Coal Board was for a time in a seller's market. That means that it could charge almost whatever prices it cared to charge. Is he not aware that the Government controlled the prices that it could charge for coal, even for the coal it had to import?
Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Lady had waited a moment and allowed me to finish my argument, she would have understood that that is not what I mean. The Coal Board could sell its coal without actually going out to sell it. Now it is finding great difficulty in selling the coal. I am referring not to the price but to the actual act of selling.
The Coal Board has built up stocks and, as a result of building up these stocks, it has taken certain action which I regard as grossly unfair, action which has led to a great deal of hardship in Central Scotland and, indeed, in the United Kingdom. I need not remind the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) about this. In his constituency there are many small licensed mines. These small licensed mines have been working small pockets of coal. The miners are mostly working men working on very small capital, their own savings, and hitherto they have done very well. Their mines are not so highly mechanised as those of the Coal Board, but they have been pro-
1282
ducing a very large quantity of coal throughout the country, mostly round coal which is the type of coal which is very much in demand now. There is not enough of it.
The National Coal Board has written to all licensed mines and said, "We are having a difficult time. We have far too many stocks. There is too much coal in the country. You must play your part and reduce your production". The Coal Board says that it has come to agreements with the Federation of Small Mine Owners, but what it has really done has been to issue a command to the owners of the small mines saying, "You will reduce your output, or else". That is what it boils down to. It is a very serious matter, and it has had serious repercussions on a tremendous number of workmen who have had enterprise and sunk their capital in the mines.
The figures are very interesting. About 2½ million tons of this sort of coal were produced in the United Kingdom last year. The level has been cut to a very great extent. I have not the actual figure here, but the reduction has been considerable, down to something over 1 million tons or so for this year. In some cases, even greater unfairness has been caused by taking the level in 1959 as the basis. In the case of a friend of mine who is in that industry, the figures are these. In the three years up to 1958, he was producing an average of 6,000 tons a year. In 1959, because he experienced certain difficulties, he produced only about 2,000 tons. The Coal Board in this case has allotted him a basic tonnage for the coming year of only 1,434 tons.
This is a very serious matter for working men who have sunk their capital in an enterprise of their own and it is very serious for the country also because the type of coal these mines are producing is the type which is very much in demand. I ask my right hon. Friend to make representations to the National Coal Board to help these small industries to survive and make sure that they play their part in adding to the prosperity of Scotland.
I do not want to speak at great length, but mention has already been made of British European Airways cutting its charges to fill its aeroplanes. It has done that to a certain extent, but I think that it could be done to a much greater extent, especially in the case of the

1283
Western Isles, where aeroplanes are at the moment flying at a loss and in many cases half empty. British European Airways must realise that it is working for a rural community and adjust its charges accordingly. There is still a disproportionate amount of traffic between the Western Isles and the mainland of Scotland going on the ships of MacBrayne. Last year, I understand the passengers carried by MacBrayne's numbered about 30,000 as against 5,000 by B.E.A. between the Island of Islay and the mainland. I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will pass that on as well.
Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Member consider, when he is talking about reduction in fares to the Western Isles, that at present B.E.A. lose about £800,000 on those social services, as they are called, and, despite the recommendation of the Select Committee that that should be a charge borne by the Government and not by B.E.A., the Government resolutely refuse to accept the charge and therefore prevent the reduction in fares that the hon. Member wants.
Mr. Hendry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. But he is missing my point. My point is that these aeroplanes are flying anyway, are subsidised, and are flying half-empty in many cases.
Mr. Rankin: Subsidised by whom?
Mr. Hendry: Subsidised by British European Airways, I agree. They are losing money and they might as well fly the aeroplanes full. I believe that with a comparatively small reduction in fares they might very well fill the aeroplanes and even reduce the loss. I would remind the hon. Gentleman, who, I think, has gone into this matter most particularly, that the Consultative Committee on Civil Aviation in Scotland, meeting recently under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Dolan, made such a recommendation to B.E.A., who has persistently disregarded it. This is a point which ought to be considered, and I hope that my right hon. Friend in his communication with B.E.A. will raise it and see what can be done along those lines.
Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Member be prepared to suggest that if B.E.A. is failing in this job private enterprise might undertake it?
Mr. Hendry: I certainly should. I see no reason why it should not—
Mr. Manuel: It has refused.
Mr. Hendry:—providing a fair deal was given to B.E.A. As the hon. Gentleman fully recognises, this was done by private enterprise previously, and done extremely well.
I have one other hobby horse I want to mention, and that is the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. No doubt the Board has done a tremendously good job since its inception, but there is one very serious defect in the statute that set it up and that is, that taking one year with another it has got to pay. This is extremely difficult to do, because one year it may be very profitable and then, after a series of dry years, it does not pay. I want my right hon. Friend to give very serious thought to the position of the Board and its possibilities in helping rural industry. I know that my right hon. Friend has been in negotiation with the Board on this point, and I hope that those negotiations will came to fruition at a very early date, because in my constituency and in other parts of the North-East, as well as in a great many other parts of Scotland, we are suffering from depopulation. That depopulation could in many instances be halted if only the power were there to enable local indigenous industries to spring up. In one village in my constituency a local joiner who had a one-man business, had a good idea about ten years ago and is now employing about 20 people, which is a very small number compared with the whole of Scotland, but it is a step in the right direction, and
"Mony a mickle maks a muckle ",
as everybody knows.
In a village called Sauchen, Willie Nicol, the local parish blacksmith, had a good idea for a new type of snow plough. Last year he was inundated with orders for it. He tells me that if he could get electricity he could increase his labour force to about 20 men making snow ploughs and agricultural implements. He cannot do that because of the ridiculous position by which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is not able to run a line through, even though he is prepared to make a contribution towards the cost, because

1285
it has not the money in the "kitty" as a result of the succession of dry years. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this point.
In conclusion, I should like to come back to the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. Do not let us keep saying to the Government, "Where are the jobs that you have promised us?" Let us get down to the job together, and let nationalised industries and business men co-operate. Let us put our heads together. Let us use the enterprise and initiative which are characteristic of Scotland. I am certain that, with the assistance which we have been given by the Government, Scotland is assured of prosperity in the future.
8.52 p.m.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: In case I should alarm the House, let me say that I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) in the sense of numbering off my constituents by name, not even the 3,120 referred to in the Report as being unemployed. However, I want to talk in one sense about figures. The debate has been full of figures. I have no doubt that in St. James's Park at least one goose has been impressed by a series of false figures. But we must not talk too harshly to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh,West, because he is in the company of the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who used similar figures over a year ago.
Several of us had to go right through the unemployment figures from the beginning of August, 1945, and make a comparison of them to find out whether the claims made by these two eminent men were true. They were not. We challenged them, and I am glad to say that they had the courtesy not to use them again. We have gone into this matter thoroughly and hon. Members would be surprised to know the great disparity in the records of both parties.
I admit that the chronicity of unemployment is a very difficult problem which will face any party governing Scotland. but I do not think that hon. Members opposite can skate out of the responsibility by saying that if we on this side did this until 1951, using the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West's argument, they cannot be blamed for doing no better. There is
1286
a fundamental difference between conditions at the end of the war and those six years after the war. It seems to be suggested by innuendo that the years from 1951 to 1959 would have been the same if a Labour Government had been in power—a not so very fine point denied by the hon. Member's own political propaganda.
The other point which I found distressing in this debate was the resort, not to the argument of the pipeline, as in the past, but, indeed, to the very oil well itself. We are not discussing 24,000 jobs in the pipeline, but 15,000 jobs which, somehow or other, will be drilled out of the terrain. This is a new argument, and, while it is interesting to get new arguments, nevertheless, it is a distressing one. It is even more abstract than the argument of the pipeline.
Let us cast our minds back to the promises which have been made by the Government. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on this score. My point was a constituency point, but it illustrates the general argument. In the debate in November, 1959, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that there were 3,000 jobs at least, on paper. Actually, he had the audacity to say that there were 3,000 jobs. Later, when I interrupted to say, "On paper", the right hon. Gentleman agreed, with one of his charming smiles. I grant him that.
Later, I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade and asked what were the 3,000 jobs on paper which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had mentioned in the debate. The President of the Board of Trade kindly wrote to me listing the five firms concerned. One was the graving dock, which would provide 1,000 jobs. The other 1,900 jobs were to come from the remaining four firms. The President of the Board of Trade could not break down the figures because, he said, the matter was private and confidential and he could not give the details.
I have certain sources of information in my constituency, some of them official and some unofficial. At least, I can say that they are reliable. I find that in each of the five cases, including the graving dock, not one of those claims has come true. The 1,000 jobs at the graving dock, for example, are denied by

1287
General Sir Gordon MacMillan, who has stated that only 300 jobs will eventuate at the beginning of the dock and that, although during construction the number might rise to 500 or 600, eventually it will settle down to about 300. Nobody who knows the real facts has ever suggested that the graving dock would provide 1,000 jobs.
In the case of International Business Machines, we were told that employment would rise, but that later proved not to be true. I know from official sources within I.B.M., which the Secretary of State and I visited not long ago, that the working force has actually gone down and now stands at 1,000. This, however, was supposed to be one of the positive increases that would be made. Only one of the firms in question has come anywhere near the estimate. It is unfair that I or any other hon. Member should be fobbed off with a story of so many jobs to come when, later, we find that it is not true.
When I first came to the House of Commons, the Minister of Labour, for whom I have a great admiration as a political Minister—at least, I did have until then—told me of the issue of industrial development certificates to a value of 700 jobs. I regarded that as quite remarkable. When I was at home, the following weekend, I went to the employment exchange and made inquiries. Within about ten days, I discovered that the 700 jobs were all on paper. A year later not one of the jobs had emerged, because they were merely the estimates given by firms to get approvals for extensions which were no more than reshuffles of plant in their own factories. They hired not a single additional man or woman.
If the Minister turns to page 38 of the Report, he will see the relevance of my argument. Referring to jobs, paragraph 153 states that
"In the single year 1959, the area completed in Scotland was 4·0 million square feet with over 7,600 jobs expected to result, compared with 4·3 million square feet completed in 1958 with over 8,800 jobs expected to result."
It is always "expected to result". It is never reality. According to paragraph 153 of the Report, 8,800 jobs were expected to result in 1958. We are now in 1960. Why cannot the Report say that we have, in fact, had 8,800 jobs? Would that be untrue?
1288
Hon. Members opposite must not he deceived by their own propaganda, or by their own administrative inefficiencies or claims. They must not believe the claims that they make for industrial development certificates if they do not become realities. They must not believe their own Government's statements in the Report unless they can tell us how many jobs emerge. There is no doubt that to a large extent these claims about jobs befog hon. Members. While hon. Members opposite accuse us of girning, we are entitled to accuse them of downright complacency. It is terrible even to see hon. Members opposite deceiving themselves with their Conservative Central Office briefs and gradually believing all that they say.
Mr. Manuel: It is dishonest.
Dr. Mabon: It may be dishonest in the case of some hon. Members opposite and, in a way, I can forgive them. It is the stupid ones I cannot excuse, the ones who will not look behind the so-called facts presented by the propaganda departments and view the real truth so that, at least in private, they can exert pressure on their own Ministers.
Even if we were to get all the jobs which the President of the Board of Trade says are in the pipeline and are now being drawn out of the ground, the fact is that he cannot give an estimate—he dare not—of the number of jobs which may be lost during that time due to the natural process of industrial development. The right hon. Gentleman talked, for example, about modernisation. Everyone who knows shipbuilding towns knows that modernisation is splendid. The modernisation in Greenock is a success. But the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the other side of the coin of modernisation.
First, modernisation has come a little too late. Shipbuilders should have modernised long ago—at least five years ago, according to the guides to good business given in the Financial Times and the Investors' Chronicle. They say that for years shipbuilders have been sitting on their soft backsides saying, "This is a wonderful world. We have full order books for five years", and now they are modernising at a time when unemployment in shipbuilding is rising and modernisation means redundancy. Redundancy is the natural consequence of modernisation, and while the workers

1289
of Greenock and other places are not Luddites they can hardly be content to see rising unemployment while modernisation in their towns forces them into joining the queues of unemployed.
I know that the argument about advance factories is an old one. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) gets his tenant as quickly as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) has got his. It took us a long time, in the last Parliament, to push the Government into building these three factories. They were absolutely and resolutely opposed to the theory of advance factories. They refused to accept it but, as the election drew near, towards the end of the last Parliament they decided to build them. Now if they get a tenant in Coatbridge and Airdrie they may concede that in Scotland the idea of building advance factories is a sound one.
When Ministers have come to my constituency we in Greenock have advocated the case not only of advance factories, but of pilot advance factories. We have argued from our post-war experience with three very large firms that if premises can be produced there and then—even small premises—to enable a firm to get started, industry can be attracted to a town. We want small pilot advance factories erected to induce firms to come in. Then if they are satisfied with the local conditions they can have a modern tailor-made factory provided for them. It took a long time to convert the Secretary of State to this view.
My town council and I were very pleased that after we met in February this year he wrote a letter on 23rd March in which he said that in principle he agreed to the idea. The council wrote back to say that it was glad that that was the case, but that the Secretary of State had misunderstood the local authority. It said, "We did not want to build the factory. We thought that you agreed to built it." The Secretary of State wrote back, "That is entirely different." It all boils down, therefore, to a question of money. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of pilot advance factories built by a town council, but he is not in favour of the Board of Trade building chem.
1290
Is this right in a constituency like mine—and there are so many in Scotland—where unemployment has raged for so long? And "raged" is not an exaggerated word. It has raged at roughly 7 per cent. for the last five years, and it has never been lower than 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. even in the best years of the Labour and Tory Governments. Is it not unreasonable that the Government should stint this town and other towns like it by not being willing to give money for the construction of these advance factories? We know that if we have an advance factory we shall find a tenant for it. We have not failed yet. There is no factory lying derelict in Greenock.
If we had a factory built by the Government with the additional advantage of a trading estate rent, we could fill it. It is no use hiding behind the argument that a graving dock represents a great deal of money, because that is not a matter for Greenock only but one for the whole of Clydeside. It is no use hiding behind the argument that firms have promised more jobs from proposed extensions and, a few months later, have had to withdraw the promise. There is no sense in that. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to realise that the Government should extend the advance factory programme, and I hope that Greenock will be considered as a good candidate for the very first one.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: We come to the end of the first day of the debate on employment and industry in Scotland. As the party which initiated the two days' debate on this important topic, we have departed from the usual routine once more. We invited our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to open the case for Scotland from this side of the House. I know that he knows that Scots appreciate that they are not very generous in their tributes, sometimes even to their friends, and so when I tell him tonight on behalf of all of us how grateful we are for the magnificent way in which he opened the debate, I am sure he will know that we mean that most sincerely.
I had hoped to offer a word of praise to the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), but he has apparently disappeared to another place. I hope he has not prematurely

1291
anticipated that transition. As the senior Member of Parliament representing the City of Edinburgh, I thought it might be rather nice if I said a word to the junior Member who today delivered his maiden speech. In his absence I would say that we appreciated his speech and look forward to hearing his second speech, which we shall be allowed to interrupt.
I turn now to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I am sorry that he is not present at the moment either.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member may be away looking for his noble Friend.
Mr. Hoy: It was rather unfortunate that the hon. Member chose 1947 for an unemployment comparison. It was obvious that he was mixed up about the years. I am certain that he was quoting from a brief supplied by the Central Office, and apparently it was not correct. The hon. Gentleman himself did not know better, and so he took 1947, which most people will realise had a most disastrous winter, for which no Government could be held responsible.
I would tell the hon. Member and the House that it does not add anything to our debates to compare the immediate post-war years with the present day in respect of unemployment.
Mr. Bence: It is dishonest.
Mr. Hoy: The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends should never forget that the Prime Minister of the day said that when the war finished this country was in a bankrupt state. That is what the Labour Government of 1945 inherited, and it was on that that they had to build. Therefore, to make that comparison is completely dishonest. When hon. Gentlemen opposite accuse us of using it for political purposes, let them think of some of the speeches which they themselves have delivered.
However, I should not expect too much from the hon. Member for Edinbugh, West—perhaps he will begin to realise what this House is for—because he has since 1945 become a viable politician, or a peripatetic politician. He started off in 1945 as a Liberal, became a Liberal Unionist candidate in 1950 and succeeded in winning a seat as a Tory in 1959. He has obviously moved through
1292
the political stages. Perhaps that is why he thinks that he is qualified to speak in this debate.
I want to say a word in defence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), although I do not really need to defend him. I am a little surprised to find that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) should seek to chastise my hon. and learned Friend for raising the question of the abolition of the research station at Aberdeen. The hon. Member seemed to think that it was irrelevant to the debate, and said so. Surely if Scottish hon. Members on both sides of the House have one complaint it is that research students in Scotland, after having passed their university courses, cannot find employment in Scotland. Every time a research station is closed down it means less employment for our research students. It was absolutely relevant for my hon. and learned Friend to raise this position.
I did not regard it as very bright of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West again to seek to attack the nationalised railways for not providing employment. We on this side of the House have sought for many years to get the nationalised concerns—both industrial and others like the Navy, the Army and the Air Force—together with private industry, to direct some of their work into Scotland. We have been very consistent in this, but Members opposite who single out the railways or any other nationalised industry and say that it ought to have directed workers to Scotland are being quite unfair. We accept that the nationalised industries, with others, should give Scotland its share of work. I only hope that when we are making these demands in future we shall have the support of Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) also paid tribute to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and it was well deserved. But he also wanted to join with that a tribute to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. I say quite sincerely, however—and I know that he will understand—that I regret that I cannot join in that tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I have met the President of the Board of Trade on many occasions, dealing

1293
with many industries and many problems, but I thought that his speech today was about the worst I have ever heard him make. I believe that he delivered it without conviction. He tried to be smart with some of his rejoinders, but I think that, on reflection, he will feel that he did himself no credit by that speech.
First, he seemed to argue that a depression in the light industries would immediately create more employment in the heavy industries and that, as a result, Scotland would be better off. I cannot see the logic of that argument. He went on to quote what light industries he meant. He said he was thinking of the production of refrigerators and that type of goods. But if we create a depression even in metal work, how does that create greater industry in shipbuilding, heavy engineering, and mining—the three industries which he himself instanced as being in decline? There is no logic in that argument. It is not good enough for him to make such an argument.
Then, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about shipbuilding, which is one of the key industries in Scotland, he was not saying anything new when he said that we in Scotland had been too long dependent on heavy industry. In every debate over the years this is a point which has been hammered home from this side of the House—that Scotland, if it is to play its part in the development of Britain, must become less dependent on heavy industry and must have a diversification of industry. Only in that way can we seek to tackle successfully our unemployment problem.
We have argued that because we believe it to be true. We were arguing it when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—the present Minister of Education—was President of the Board of Trade. At that time the Government had one of their economic panics, and as a result put the Bank Rate up to 7 per cent., imposed a restriction of credit, and said, "Poor Scotland will have to take its share of the business." They thought that, on the whole, Scotland's employment position would improve as a result of this action, but instead of that it got steadily worse. Therefore, there is no logic in the argument put forward by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon.
1294
I want to be a little more forthcoming than he was. I shall deal with the employment figures that he used. First, I disagree with his argument that an increase in the Bank Rate will have no effect on industry in Scotland or elsewhere. I cannot understand it. If that is so, I cannot understand why they took this action. Surely there must be some reason for it. This fact was well recognised by the Secretary of State. He and his hon. Friends are always telling us that on this question of employment and unemployment we should not introduce party politics. But the right hon. Gentleman does not mind doing a little of that when it suits his purpose.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I do not ever remember saying that we should not introduce party politics in this matter. It would be a counsel of such perfection that I would not expect to achieve.
Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman's ambitions are not very high, to begin with. Every time we have a debate of this kind he and his hon. Friends accuse hon. Members on this side of introducing party politics and painting a picture of gloom. But when the Secretary of State was addressing the Scottish Grand Committee, and making a pretty slick speech in reply to proposals put forward by my hon. Friends, he said, in effect, "I want to give the Committee a complete picture of what Scottish unemployment figures are today." He was able to produce figures that had been issued at noon that day, just before he spoke. He said, "I am giving them for the first time because I know that the Committee is not informed on these matters. The figures have only just been released, and I have got them because I am a Cabinet Minister." That is the effect of what he was saying, and he was using those figures to argue against the case put by my hon. Friends.
But he took good care not to disclose that an hour earlier his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imposed a further credit squeeze and had increased the Bank Rate from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Perhaps he was not told.
Mr. Hoy: I can hardly believe that the Cabinet treat the Secretary of State for

1295
Scotland so cheaply that he did not know that the Bank Rate increase had taken place. Nevertheless, he took good care not to disclose it to the Scottish Grand Committee when he was announcing the new unemployment figures.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member should not make that charge unless he understands the machinery of Government in these matters. If he will consult his right hon. Friends he will realise how the machinery of Government works in relation to the matters that he is now mentioning.
Mr. Hoy: Even if I ignore the situation with regard to the Bank Rate, if the right hon. Gentleman was not consulted about the Government's decision to impose a new credit squeeze it does not say much for him, because such things react much more against Scotland than against any other part of Britain. If he had been fair he would have told us that this action was being taken, but because it did not suit his argument he did not mention it.
Now I turn to the figures of unemployment. One of the things that surprises me in all these debates is that the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland claim credit for having reduced the unemployment figure to 69,500. Not so long ago they told us that it was over 100,000, but who put it up to 100,000? It was the right hon. Gentleman and his Government who increased it, and we are getting just a little tired of their claiming the credit when, having put the Bank Rate up to 6 per cent., and sometimes 7 per cent., it comes down. They talk as if it were a smart achievement. Really, this is nonsense. Although the figure is 70,000 and it has come down, it has only come down from the very high figure to which the Government increased it. With all the arguments as to whether it is 70,000 or 60,000, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the figure still remains the highest for any part of Great Britain. That is what we are facing tonight, and that is what we have to tackle.
As to the jobs which we have suggested, one thing that has to be admitted in the House and elsewhere is that my hon. and right hon. Friends have on many occasions been making suggestions how this problem ought to be treated. Indeed,
1296
the programme of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, which has received so much praise tonight, was the programme suggested to the Government by my hon. Friends a year or two ago. Let there be no mistake about it. That is the substantial contribution that we have made, and we are willing that it should be discussed. We may be wrong, but at least we have put forward proposals, and it is for the Government to say where they are wrong, and whether they can better them.
I go on to deal with the Government's proposal. I was a little surprised that the President of the Board of Trade was trotting out once more the figure of jobs in the pipeline.
Mr. Willis: It is a leaky pipeline.
Mr. Hoy: As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) says, it is a very leaky pipeline. On many occasions, we get this figure, and the right hon. Gentleman keeps on reiterating the same figure. It is like the roads programme. Every year, the Secretary of State brings out a new one which includes hundreds of miles which he told us about the previous year. If we had all the roads which the Secretary of State has suggested that we should have, we could give them away to England and Northern Ireland to get rid of them, because they would have become an encumbrance to us. That is what they are doing about jobs.
The President of the Board of Trade said that we have got 7,500 jobs in schemes which have been approved and some 16,000 in the pipeline. I wish to say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that I misled him a little. The President of the Board of Trade had, in fact, talked about 39,000 jobs, but he said that 14,000 of them had no firm promise. [Interruption.] I am sorry, it is 15,000, which is better for my argument, and I want to be generous to the right hon. Gentleman. For these 15,000 jobs, he said that we have no firm promise—I think I have quoted him correctly—so that, in fact, what we are faced with are the 24,000 jobs in the pipeline, which includes, of course, the B.M.C. at Bathgate, I take it, and the new factory of Messrs. Rootes. Is that included or not?
Mr. Maudling: I specifically said—the figures are quite simple—in projects under construction 7,000, projects approved but not yet under construction 16,000, and projects of which we know, which include the Rootes one, but not definitely settled, another possible 15,000.
Mr. Hoy: If we accept the numbers involved in projects not yet approved, it will be over a considerable number of years. I think it would be fair to say that. That is the position with which we are faced, if we take the figures which the President of the Board of Trade has given. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is admitted on all sides of the House, and certainly by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the trade unions, that even to keep step at the present time. we in Scotland require 12,500 new jobs each year. That is the figure. I do not think it has ever been disputed. So with the best will in the world, and with all this we are not keeping in step.
Let me remind the House that the President of the Board of Trade, when giving these figures, made no allowance for wastage. In one industry alone last year, the mining industry, we lost 6,700 jobs. The President said this afternoon that the outlook in that industry this year could reveal only a further number of losses. All these losses have to be offset against the jobs which the President mentioned. That is the measure of the problem confronting Scotland, and we on this side of the House have sought to direct the attention of the House to it.
There is the other problem of the young people and it is one which particularly affects Scotland. We must remember that in this year, 1960, we shall have about 61,000 school leavers. Next year the number will be 75,000 and in 1962 the figure will have risen to 82,000. When one looks at the figures for Scotland today, one is not filled with hope about the opportunities for these young people to find jobs in the years ahead. As the President said this afternoon, there are today many young people in Scotland who are accepting dead end jobs to tide them over for a year or two, and then they go on to the scrap heap. In my constituency I have well educated young people who have passed all their examinations, but they cannot secure an
1298
apprenticeship within the constituency, and that is tragic. The problem will worsen in the years to come and it must be tackled.
In addition to the figures given today by my right hon. Friend, at the end of last year the proportion of the total unemployed persons under 20 years of age in Scotland was 37 per cent. of the total for Great Britain compared with 1·6 per cent. in the Midlands. We do not wish to exaggerate the problem, but we think it right that the attention of the House and the Government should be directed to it. Another thing which must not be forgotten is that the number of insured workers in Scotland compared with those in other parts of the kingdom reveals that Scotland is in a far worse position. Between 1950 and 1959 the increase in the number of insured workers in the eastern and southern region was 15·5 per cent. In the south-western area it was 9 per cent. In London and the South-East it was 8·3 per cent. but in Scotland the increase was only 1·3 per cent. So we say that there is some stagnation and it is no use hon. Members in any part of the House denying it.
If the Government are in earnest they must get rid of some of their political bias and accept some of the schemes suggested by my hon. and right hon. Friends. We are quite prepared to face up to State undertakings and Government investment. There is not an hon. Member on either side of the House who wants to refuse State aid. Every large undertaking in Scotland today is receiving it. When the Government wanted to get rid of depression in Scotland, as elsewhere in Britain, they wanted to prime the pump by getting the nationalised industries on the way. Afforestation, hydro-electricity and coal have made a tremendous contribution to our economy and those things have brought some hope to great parts of Scotland which otherwise would have to go without.
I wish to make another suggestion. The shipping industry in Scotland, as in other parts of the country, is in a bad way. The President of the Board of Trade made it quite clear this afternoon that he did not think there was very much hope for it in view of the worsened position. In Scotland we feel it more keenly because we are so dependent on

1299
this industry. The recession in the shipbuilding industry can bring untold misery to many parts of Scotland because of its reactions over a wide area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) had a letter yesterday from the shop steward of the Blythswood Shipbuilding Company pointing out that that company had the last order on the stocks. After the ship had been launched in October this year it could see no further orders and 900 men would be out of work. That is a serious position. In my constituency, which has a fairly important shipyard, there is a continual pay-off of shipbuilding workers. Only a week ago when thirty-five men went to collect their holiday pay they also collected their unemployment books. That was not a very nice present for going away on a holiday. This is a problem which must be attended to.
A small contribution for the small yards can be made by the fishing industry of Scotland. The fishing industry of Scotland has spent money in bringing itself up to date. It has provided work for shipyards in Aberdeen and elsewhere, but a considerable amount more requires to be done. One of the awful problems which confronts it is the interest charges which I mentioned earlier. In the last eighteen months or less there have been seven changes in the interest rates and even in the last seventeen days the White Fish Authority has increased the interest rate on two occasions. This has a really depressing effect on people in the industry. It does not allow them to budget for carrying on their businesses nor to build new vessels. The industry can make a contribution to smaller yards, but the Government, whether they like it or not, have to come more and more to the assistance of Scotland.
Let us have no more humbug about State interference. Whether it is the North British Locomotive, Colvilles steel strip mills, farmers or shipbuilding, they are all willing to accept money to carry on their businesses. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. A. Woodburn), one of the first things the Secretary of State did after the Government were returned was to establish a nationalised shipping ser-
1300
vice to cope with the needs of people in the North of Scotland. We have made these suggestions throughout these debates on many occasions. We hope that eventually the Government will accept them. Let them understand quite clearly that in Scotland there will be no real hope for economic recovery without State assistance and State planning.
9.35 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): In going into bat on the first day of this very important two-day match, my first task is the very agreeable task of congratulating my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) on his first innings. At one time I counted him among my constituents, and I felt a special interest in his performance today, if I may say so. I thought that not only did he keep a straight bat but that he showed a remarkable variety of strokes all round the wicket.
He expressed the view that Scots were not natural salesmen, but as a Scot himself he belied that. Scotland has in him a very high-powered salesman, and we wish him a long and successful period of service in that rôle. He has shown that he means to uphold the great tradition of his family in Parliament, and that he is well equipped to do so. I join with others in welcoming him to our debates and in offering him our warm congratulations on his maiden speech. In choosing to make his first speech in the House on this subject, he chose well, for it is a subject of fundamental importance to Scotland.
Formally, the House is invited "to take note of" Command Paper No. 1045, which deals with industry, employment and roads. In effect, the Motion covers a very wide field, and it is natural that the debate should have ranged widely. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is to speak tomorrow afternoon in the debate, and the House may think it appropriate if I leave him to deal with matters raised today which are within his Ministerial sphere. I might perhaps refer to the remarks made on the subject of youth employment by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who always entertains us so agreeably with his speeches and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel).

1301
My right hon. Friend will deal with this subject more particularly tomorrow from the employment angle. It is true that we shall have a considerable increase in the number of school-leavers in the next two years, but one important factor is the much larger number of boys and girls who are staying on at school, as we wish them to do and as it is in the interests of the nation for them to do. In 1959, 51,000 boys and girls left school on reaching school-leaving age, but fortunately there is a definite trend to stay on, and in 1959, 34 per cent. of those leaving school from five-year secondary courses had finished the course.
In the last four years there has been an increase of 1,200 in the number of pupils aged 17 in our schools, and the percentage of this age group at school continues to rise. It is now as high as 10·7 per cent. Perhaps the best way for me to put it is to say that the rate of increase in practice in staying on at school between 1959 and 1960 is 17 per cent. compared with an average of about 7 per cent. over previous years.
That is a remarkable increase, and it will certainly make a contribution towards the solution of the problem of youth employment. It will enable those boys and girls, when they are employed later, to be more highly qualified for jobs. As I have said, I will leave my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to deal more particularly with the employment aspect which is in his sphere.
Mr. James Dempsey: Does the hon. Member realise that, in reply to a Question tabled by me last week, the Minister of Labour stated that nearly 82,000 young persons will leave school in 1962, which is 19,000 more than the number who left last year, and that we still have 152 children who left last year who are without a job?
Mr. Macpherson: The figures are encouraging. In the past month, unemployment among young persons was 2,849, which was 761 less than two years ago, although still 1,000 more than in June, 1957. That is a very considerable improvement. Of 12,259 Easter school leavers, 184 remained unemployed at 30th June.
1302
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with the housing point which has been raised. I am sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), but my right hon. Friend will deal with the point which he raised, and also with the points raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire on the railways. My right hon. Friend will also deal, as I think is appropriate, with the speech of his neighbour, the hon. Member for. Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).
As regards the form of the Report, for the first time there has been included in it a section on outlook. The Report, instead of being confined to the calendar year, has been brought as closely up to date as possible. All the same, the Report has avoided the rôle of prophet which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) seemed to think we ought to adopt.
Mr. T. Fraser: Used to adopt.
Mr. Macpherson: I should like to say how very warmly we welcome the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition in these debates. He spoke of himself as an outsider, but, to use an American phrase, one might call him a very ranking outsider.
If the Report is to be available in time for the Estimates debates, it is clearly not possible to include in it the actual expenditure on roads in the previous financial year, but arrangements are being made to print a supplement, which will be issued in the autumn.
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) challenged my right hon. Friend to say whether the expenditure on roads this year will be less than it was last year. The answer is that the expenditure will be about £650,000 more, apart from the £1,400,000 loan which is being made in respect of the Forth Road Bridge in the current Estimates.
Listening to the Opposition today, one would think that the Scottish economy was in a state of collapse. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition referred to "the Scottish economic decline". Unemployment in June at 3·2 per cent. is lower than it has been for two and a half years. It is true, as my right hon.

1303
Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, that recovery started later than in some other parts of the country and has not yet caught up, but recovery has been uneven in other parts of Great Britain.
What cannot be disputed is that there has been a substantial recovery in Scotland. Scottish output in the fourth quarter of last year was over 4½ per cent. higher than in the fourth quarter of 1958, and in the next quarter was 6½ per cent. higher than in January to March, 1959.
Miss Herbison: For the purpose of this debate, the comparison ought not to be with 1958. The correct comparison should be with this time in 1957 before the Government took the panic measure of raising the Bank Rate to 7 per cent., which led to over 100,000 unemployed.
Mr. Macpherson: What we are dealing with in this debate is the question of trends. The trend is definitely upwards now. That is the important thing. Nor can it be disputed that the measures taken in 1957 were absolutely necessary to restore the economy of the country and keep it on an even keel. The measures taken by the Government have certainly contributed to this recovery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which recovery?"] I am speaking of the recovery which has taken place.
The Board of Trade has 376 tenants in Government-owned factories in Scotland. In the period between the coming into force of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958, and the Local Employment Act, 1960, firms in Scotland received 22 per cent. of the total amount of assistance recommended by D.A.T.A.C. and nearly 20 per cent. of the total number of jobs related to the recommendations. As my right hon. Friend said, 50 per cent. of the work on building Government factories is now taking place in Scotland.
As to the assistance available under the 1960 Act, all D.A.T.A.C. applications that were outstanding on 1st April and which would equally have been eligible under the 1960 Act were automatically carried over for consideration by B.O.T.A.C. Of the 100 applications received by B.O.T.A.C., either from
1304
D.A.T.A.C. or direct, ten have so far been approved under Section 4, which is concerned with loans or grants, and 60 are still under consideration. Five applications for building grants under Section 3 are also under consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) raised the question about availability of information. I ought to tell him that he need not be so despondent about this. Information about particular labour availabilities is always to be had from the Ministry of Labour district officers, and information about firms and premises is to be had from the Board of Trade in Glasgow. All B.O.T.A.C. applications are seen by the Board of Trade at the headquarters in Glasgow.
As to the local service in Aberdeen, my hon. Friend is probably aware that a visit is made two or three times a month from Inverness, and as regards the North-East Development Committee, there have already been considerable discussions in London with the Committee's Aberdeen representatives. One meeting was held very recently indeed. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board of Trade is prepared to give every possible assistance and advice to the Committee once it gets going.
Perhaps, at this stage, I might also refer to the observations made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) who, in the course of a very interesting speech, referred to the need for an encyclopaedia of world trade requirements. If firms used the export services that are available in the Export Service Branch of the Board of Trade, they would find that there really is a complete encyclopaedia available to all. The Special Register of Information gives firms who join the most up-to-date information about all parts of the world, and the more the hon. Gentleman can do to make that known to firms in his constituency the better they will fare.
Mr. W. Baxter: Is this register kept in Edinburgh or in London?
Mr. Macpherson: The Special Register of Information is kept at the Board of Trade headquarters in London, but information can easily be made available in Glasgow or anywhere else.
Mr. Baxter: We are talking about Scotland.
Mr. Macpherson: It has been suggested that the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fend off inflation would lead to a reduction in this kind of assistance. My right hon. Friend stated yesterday that he intends to keep investment in the public sector in the next financial year at its current level, but made it plain that particular Votes will not necessarily remain at their present level. Some will be up and some down, but it would be quite wrong to assume that investment under the Local Employment Act is bound to suffer.
It is not only in development districts that industrial development certificates have been given. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said that in the past six months the factory area covered by these certificates—at 4·6 million sq. ft.—is greater than that in any complete years except 1946, 1954, 1955,—or, indeed, last year—and that the jobs to be provided exceed those provided in any whole year except 1946.
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) thought that this was not enough. He thought that it ought to have many more than that, because we need 12,000 a year, but my right hon. Friend referred to jobs to the number of nearly 24,000 that are in sight, including 7,500 in factories under construotion—[Interruption.] One is really like a man advancing over a countryside—
Mr. McInnes: And then coming back again.
Mr. Macpherson: One can see to the horizon. From this point, one can see a certain number of jobs such as those at B.M.C. Such peaks stand out, and the high points to be planned are still further in advance. They stand up, and as one moves forward, the prospect of still further jobs will become apparent. This is not the complete story for any particular period of time. This is what actually can be seen on this side of the horizon now. It is really not so very unsatisfactory.
Mr. Hoy: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. We have expressed our thanks for the jobs which are coming. We are grateful for them. All we say is that these jobs will still
1306
not satisfy Scotland's need, because we still require 12,500 a year to keep us in step. In view of the wastage which has still to be taken into account, plus the school leavers, the Minister ought to be able to calculate how many we will require, and not disparage what we say.
Mr. Macpherson: There is no question of disparagement. There is here a certain number of jobs for an indeterminate period. More jobs are to come along. We know the number we should like. This is what is in sight, and 24,000 jobs, fairly secure, are not, as the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, not to be sneezed at, especially if one has the possibility of another 15,000 coming along.
Mr. T. Fraser: At some time, will some Minister take into account the number of jobs which it is known are to disappear in existing industries and tell, us what the Scottish Office believes will be the net increase over any period it likes to choose?
Mr. Macpherson: The real point is that this is a running figure all the time. It is very difficult to specify at any particular time the number of jobs for a definite period. Factories close down. That makes headlines and, of course, it makes a great impact; it is taken as a portent. The real fact, on the other hand, is that there has been a very great deal of progress and improvements made.
Mr. Fraser: The B.M.C. factory has made the headlines and has been the subject of a lot of speeches. It is to provide, so we understand, about 5,600 jobs. But there were 6,700 jobs lost in the mining industry last year, with no headlines about that at all. Will the hon. Gentleman try to give us the complete picture at some time, with the net increase in the number of jobs?
Mr. Macpherson: What we are trying to do is to look at the tendency at present. We know the difficulties, in shipbuilding and in coal mining for instance, but it is right that we should look at the general and the improving position. For example, there is the steel strip mill which has already resulted in enhanced activity. This is referred to in the Report. Orders for machinery at Ravenscraig are being executed in Glasgow by the Davy and United Engineering Co.

1307
It would be foolish to expect that all the needs of Colvilles and B.M.C. will be met in Scotland. After all, firms in Scotland are supplying boilers to Ford Motor Company at Dagenham, and axles also. There is, however, good reason to suppose that Scottish firms will supply a great deal of what they need. Last Friday, in Glasgow the Scottish Board of Industry, on its initiative, arranged a meeting of firms which might be intertsted in supplying the needs of British Motor Corporation.
It is important that the House should realise what is happening and the developments which are taking place. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) referred to firms which are closing down, but what of the new enterprises like the Caterpillar Tractor Company at Tannochside, Burroughs Adding Machines at Cumbernauld, to which work has been transferred from Nottingham, the American firm which is manufacturing transistors at Glenrothes, and the Glacier Metal Company at Kilmarnock? Also there are extensions to existing enterprises at Peterhead, Glasgow, Greenock, Hillington, Dundee, Edinburgh and Larkhall, not to mention the extensions of Colvilles at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. It is widespread. One could give many examples.
The Opposition like to give the impression that the only buildings going up—I do not mean in flames—are whisky stores. Even in food and drink, that is far from the truth. There are bakeries, canning factories, quick-freezing plants. fish processing works, and so forth.
One thing which the Report brings out is the willingness of some firms. when demand for their main products goes down. to embark on fresh activities, for example, manufacturers of mining machinery—reference has been made to that during the debate—and manufacturers of jute products.
I have not tried to disguise the fact that recovery came later in Scotland and is still lagging behind. We all know the particular problems, that too many of our highly skilled people are leaving Scotland and that there is too large a proportion of areas of high unemployment. To deal with those problems in Scotland as elsewhere, we are using not
1308
only the methods of the Distribution of Industry Acts to encourage firms to go to areas of high unemployment, but we have improved on them by the Local Employment Act this year, in particular, by enabling firms to obtain grants towards the cost of building factories themselves, by concentrating assistance on the districts most needing it, and by making it possible to take account not only of a persistent and high rate of unemployment but also of the expectation of a high rate of unemployment. This is a flexible system and not a rigid one.
May I say to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) that there are no firm permanent lines of demarcation. The expectation is that as progress is made on an area it will obviously cease to be a development district.
The basic condition of giving assistance to a particular firm is that there must be good prospects of it being able to carry on its business successfully without further aid. In other words, it must ultimately be able to compete on level terms. This is a combination of State and private enterprise.
Reference has been made to State factories. Let me put this to the Opposition. Would State factories pay their way? This is the dilemma. If they could pay their way why should not, industrialists undertake the task? There is no certainty of it. If they would not, do the Opposition really accept that noncompetitive State enterprises should be permanently subsidised in competition with other manufacturing industries? That is the dilemma that the Opposition has to face.
Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman is talking about State industry. Did not S. G. Brown pay its way as a Government concern? Why did the Government take it over?
Mr. Macpherson: We are talking about the steering of industry and the setting up of industry and this is the dilemma that has to be faced.
The challenge of factories paying their way is a challenge which we do not shirk in Scotland. It is right that they should stand on their own feet, We on this side

1309
of the House are anxious to see firms encouraged and assisted to come to Scotland. But there can be no question of giving any permanent subsidy for the privilege of working and living in Scotland. Firms and communities can prosper only by producing the right quality at the right price. It is up to us to see that they do so. Many firms have shown
1310
what they are doing and can do, as the Report shows. We on this side of the House accept the challenge and we believe that if it is properly put to them the great majority of Scots will do this.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Noble.]
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION)
9.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I beg to move,
That the Cotton Finishing (Woven Cloth) Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.
I suggest that it would be convenient also to discuss the following Order:
That the Cotton Finishing (Yarn Processing) Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.
The drafts of the Cotton Finishing (Woven Cloth) Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1960, and the Cotton Finishing (Yarn Processing) Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1960, were laid before Parliament on 30th June and I would like to thank the House for its indulgence in allowing us to debate them after so short an interval.
Almost exactly a year ago, the House approved the Orders bringing into force the Reorganisation Schemes for the spinning, doubling and weaving sections of the cotton industry shortly after the passage of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959. That Act and the White Paper which preceded it clearly envisaged the need for a reorganisation scheme or schemes to provide for the elimination of excess capacity in the finishing sections of the industry, but it was recognised last year, by the House as well as by the industry, that time did not permit the finishing sections to be dealt with at the same time as the manufacturing sections and that it would be appropriate to defer them until a later stage. The work has taken longer than was then anticipated.
The Cotton Board, which is responsible under the Act for preparing reorganisation schemes, were necessarily fully preoccupied for some time in implementing the earlier schemes. Moreover, owing to the complexity and variety of processes and equipment involved in finishing, the task of preparing satisfactory schemes in those sections presented much more complicated problems than in the manufacturing sections. The time, however, has
1312
been well spent in evolving, after careful consideration what appear to be satisfactory and workable schemes within the framework of the Act and appropriate to the special conditions of the finishing sections. For this, considerable credit is due to the Special Committee of the Cotton Board which is responsible for the work under Lord Rochdale, and to the Director of Reorganisation at the Cotton Board and his staff, as well as to those in the industry who have been concerned in the detailed discussions for the preparation of the present schemes.
It may be asked why the Government are prepared to continue to provide public money to assist the cotton industry which for some months has been able to benefit from a marked revival in trade. As I have already indicated, the Cotton Industry Act empowers the Cotton Board to prepare reorganisation schemes for any section of the industry to provide for the payment of compensation for the elimination of excess capacity. These provisions extend to the finishing sections no less than to the spinning, doubling and weaving sections, and it was fully recognised at the time that reorganisation schemes for the finishing sections might well be required and would follow the other schemes as soon as the necessary work could be done in order to complete the arrangements for establishing the cotton industry on a more compact and competitive basis.
I would not care to speculate on how long the present "boomlet" in demand for cotton textiles will persist. The cotton industry is notoriously subject to marked periodic fluctuations in activity, and it would be imprudent, and perhaps irresponsible, to refrain from taking full advantage of the Cotton Industry Act on the assumption that current trading conditions have come to stay. Nor would further delay be justified.
The Cotton Industry Act was designed to give the industry, with Government assistance, an opportunity to establish itself on an up-to-date and efficient basis as rapidly as possible. By going forward with the policy which Parliament has adopted, there is every prospect, as I shall indicate later, that excess capacity in the finishing sections will now be substantially eliminated. This will be achieved by orderly and organised measures over a relatively short period

1313
of time, with arrangements agreed with the trade unions, as required by the Act, for compensation in respect of loss of employment due to the elimination of excess capacity under the schemes. The alternative might well be a long drawn out haphazard, and piecemeal process of attrition without such arrangements.
On all grounds, the time to deal with excess capacity in the finishing sections is now. If we let the opportunity go by, the successful application of the Cotton Industry Act will be impaired, and not only the finishing sections but the cotton industry as a whole will suffer.
The Special Committee of the Cotton Board has advised us that it is fully satisfied that excess capacity in the finishing sections has led to serious damage from weak selling and too high costs of production. By eliminating it production will be organised on a more compact and efficient basis. The work-people will benefit from more stable conditions of employment and the considerably reduced risks of short-time working during periods of reduced demand, while there will remain ample scope for meeting peak or seasonally high demand by reasonable overtime working Moreover, removal of excess capacity in the finishing sections will in- crease their competitive efficiency and thereby strengthen the cotton industry as a whole. It is the finishers who put canton goods into the state in which they will be eventually sold to the customer.
Our exports of textiles are becoming increasingly dependent on high quality products where the best designs and the most up-to-date finishes are of crucial importance. The two Schemes now before the House are designed to complete the arrangements for the reorganisation of the cotton industry under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, on a more compact, efficient and competitive basis. As the House is aware, the Board of Trade may only confirm a reorganisation scheme proposed by the Cotton Board if certain conditions have been fulfilled. These are laid down in Section 1 (2) of the Cotton Industry Act.
First the Board of Trade must be satisfied that the reorganisation scheme makes adequate provision, in point of time as well as in point of quantity, to the end of eliminating excess capacity
1314
in the section concerned. The Cotton Board's investigations have revealed that there is substantial excess capacity in the finishing sections. This naturally varies from subsection to subsection, but it is broadly of the order of between 30 and 35 per cent. I will discuss later proposals for its elimination.
As to timing, applications for compensation must be made during the period of three months ending 31st October, 1960, with the possibility of an extension to 31st January, 1961, at the latest. Units in respect of which compensation is payable must be closed down by the end of the sixth month following the acceptance of the application and the machinery must be scrapped by 31st December, 1961. This is a somewhat longer scrapping period than was permitted under the earlier schemes, but what is important is the closing down of the production unit rather than the actual scrapping of plant and machinery.
In the second place, the Board of Trade must be satisfied that arrangements have been made within the section and agreed with the trade unions concerned for the payment of compensation in respect of loss of employment due to the schemes. This has been done. The arrangements provide for the compensation of operatives, depending in some cases on the age of the recipient and in other cases on his length of service with the firm. The compensation will be paid partly in the form of a lump sum and partly in weekly instalments. They differ in detail according to the particular subsection concerned. For example, an operative in bleaching or dyeing with 40 years' service would get £180. Similar arrangements will be applied to the workers in supervisory, clerical and managerial grades in respect of salaries up to £2,000.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Gentleman has said that somebody with 40 years' service would get £180. If it is on the lines of the old agreement, that would mean £90 down and £90 by instalments. Under the old agreement, a person with 40 years' service but who was not fit to continue working would lose £90. Does that still apply? Has the person still to be fit for work after 40 years' service and able to sign on in order to qualify for the weekly payments?
Mr. Rodgers: There are various schemes depending on the various subsections. This is a complicated matter to deal with now. The lump sum down is much smaller than the hon. Member has mentioned. The weekly payments continue even if the man gets another job, provided that it is not with the same firm, but they differ between the various subsections. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) will, I think, agree that it is too complicated a matter to debate these actual terms on the Floor of the House.
I was about to refer to the managerial grades, because I know that a great many hon. Members are worried that the operatives are being covered and that the owners of businesses are getting compensation whereas, perhaps, the managerial class is being excluded. Arrangements have been made for people in the supervisory grades up to £2,000 a year to receive compensation. Anybody in receipt of more than £2,000 a year would receive compensation for the first £2,000 a year. I hope that individual firms will make a voluntary addition to the sums laid down in the agreed schemes. I know that this point has caused concern to hon. Members opposite.
As the House is aware, the responsibility for settling the terms of compensation rests with the employers and the trade unions and the Government believe that there could be no better way of safeguarding the position of operatives who lose employment due to the reorganisation schemes. The schemes, of course, provide that compensation will not be paid to firms eliminating excess capacity unless they have done everything necessary to ensure that their displaced employees are eligible to receive the compensation to which they are entitled under these arrangements. The schemes also provide for levies to obtain the money for this purpose from the section or subsection concerned.
Turning to the schemes themselves, the Cotton Board came to the conclusion, after careful study and full discussion with the industry, that it would be necessary to tackle the finishing sections on a broad, comprehensive basis, having regard to the many specialised processes involved. Accordingly, there are only two main schemes, one for the woven
1316
cloth sections and one for the yarn processing section. These two schemes are similar in all respects except that the woven cloth scheme operates by reference to three main sub-sections—(1) bleaching, (2) dyeing, raising and finishing (only) and (3) printing—for the purpose of ensuring that each subsection bears its appropriate share of the industry's contribution to the cost of eliminating excess capacity.
I should, perhaps, add that "finishing (only)" simply means the application of specialised finishing processes such as drip-dry as opposed to bleaching, dyeing and printing. Firms will be allocated to subsections according to their main activity in the industry. A great many firms are involved in a great many of the processes, but their main activity will decide into which subsection they go.
There are four main features in which the schemes differ from the schemes for the spinning, doubling and weaving sections of the industry. As in the previous schemes, each of the finishing schemes provides a minimum figure of elimination which must be reached before the Government contribution of two-thirds of the cost of compensation becomes payable. This minimum is about 20 per cent. of present capacity.
In the woven cloth scheme there are also minima for the three subsections; if any of these is not reached public money will not be payable in respect of that subsection. However, unlike the spinning, doubling and weaving schemes, the finishing schemes will be operative from the outset. Compensation will be payable and elimination must be effected even if the minimum figures are not reached.
The reason for this—and I know it is a matter for concern why the schemes should differ from previous schemes—is that since only complete units can be submitted for elimination—there is no provision for partial scrapping—firms could not take the risk of their intentions to close down becoming known without an assurance that a re-organisation scheme would become fully operative from the outset, and thus that a measure of elimination of excess capacity would be guaranteed. This is why the scheme would proceed whether a minimum target had been reached or not. The important difference is that, in that case,

1317
there will be no Government contribution and the whole of the cost of compensation instead of only one-third, will be borne by the industry. The fact that the industry was prepared to accept this shows the importance which the industry itself attaches to having such a reorganisation scheme.
As to closing down, there is in the finishing section no single machine which, like the spindle or the loom in the manufacturing sections, can be used as the yardstick for measuring the capacity eliminated and to which the compensation can be related. In addition, the processes involved in finishing are complex and inter-connected.
In these circumstances, eliminated capacity can be effectively measured only by reference to the closing down of production units, as a whole, that is complete works. There is accordingly no provision for the elimination of part of a unit's activities, scrapping some part only of the machinery and plant. The Cotton Board must be satisfied that all the activities of the unit in the section concerned have been permanently discontinued.
Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Gentleman is putting this forward as justifying the expenditure of public money. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much public money he intends to spend on these schemes and how much has been spent under the Act so far?
Mr. Rodgers: I intended to deal with that later. I will certainly answer the right hon. Gentleman later in the debate.
I should like to say a few words about the realisation companies. There is every reason to hope that the minimum figure of 20 per cent. elimination referred to above will be reached, and in this event a very worthwhile contribution to the efficiency of the industry will have been secured. It is, in fact, highly desirable that it should be exceeded.
Provision is therefore made for the industry itself to offer additional inducement to close down and scrap. The whole of the cost of this additional payment—and not merely one-third—will be borne by the industry itself. For this purpose, the Cotton Board may approve the incorporation and constitution of a separate non-profit-making realization
1318
company for each of the three sub-sections of the woven cloth section, and for the yarn processing section. that is four in all. The realisation companies cannot operate unless their incorporation and constitution have been approved by the Cotton Board. The principal object of the realisation companies will be to acquire productive units, or the companies to which they belong, from their existing owners, in order to close down the works and scrap the machinery and equipment. The realisation companies will receive the compensation payable for the units which they close down, and they will dispose of the units' other assets and discharge their liabilities. Any deficit of the realisation companies will be met entirely by levy from the sections or subsections concerned. Thus, the additional inducement to close down will be afforded without any extra cost to the taxpayer.
The realisation companies will be able to operate whether or not the 20 per cent. minimum is achieved, but if it is not achieved, the industry will, of course, bear the full costs of compensation unaided. If it is achieved the industry will still bear unaided any extra costs arising out of the deficits on the operations of the realisation companies.
There is no question of compulsion on firms to offer units to the realisation companies any more than to submit units direct to the Cotton Board for compensation for closing down. Both decisions will be entirely voluntary and it will be for the firms themselves to decide how to proceed, or whether to proceed at all. Equally, there is no obligation on the realisation companies to acquire units which may be offered to them.
I now wish to say a word about acceptance of applications. As has been explained, the participation period will begin on 1st August, assuming that these Orders are approved, and applications may be submitted at any time up to 31st October, either by the firm concerned or by a realisation company. At the end of this period the Cotton Board will review all the applications received.
It is not desirable in the finishing sections to do as was done in the manufacturing sections and accept without question every eligible application for compensation made within the stated period. The variety and the complexity of the finishing processes are such that

1319
to accept all applications might result in leaving the section short of essential capacity, whether in the woven cloth or yarn processing section as a whole, in individual subsections or in particular specialised subsections and processes.
It is, therefore, essential to maintain control of the process of elimination so as to ensure that adequate capacity is retained, both overall and in detail, while still encouraging the fullest possible elimination of the excess. Accordingly, at the end of the participation period. the Special Committee of the Cotton Board, with its access to experienced advice from all the sections of the cotton industry—manufacturing and merchanting as well as finishing—will consider all applications.
The intention is to accept all eligible applications save where this would be likely to lead to a shortage of capacity either generally or of some particular kind. It is hoped that in practice there will be comparatively few cases where it will be necessary to exercise this power of refusal, but we are satisfied that the power must be available and that the Special Committee is the right body to exercise it.
I want to say a word at this point on the method of operation. If at the end of the participation period—31st October—it appears to the Special Committee that there is room, in the interests of the industry, for further elimination than is involved in the applications already accepted, it may announce a supplementary participation period lasting not longer than 31st January, 1961, during which further applications may be submitted. It will be during this period that the realisation companies, to which reference has been made, are likely to be most active.
During the participation period, all applications will be considered on their merits irrespective of the date of submission and this will give every firm in the industry, whether large or small, equal opportunity to consider the full implications of the offer of compensation for closing down and the possible arrangements which are open to it to make.
Further applications during any supplementary participation period will be dealt with on a "first come, first served" basis since the Cotton Board will wish to bring
1320
the period to an end, before the terminal date of 31st January, 1961, if necessary, if it considers that there is any risk of too much capacity being eliminated.
As in the participation period, it will also be concerned to avoid imbalance in the industry as a result of a shortage of capacity for particular processes. The Order does not lay down any precise maximum limit for elimination, but in practice the Cotton Board would regard as an overall effective maximum the extent of the excess capacity which its figures show to exist in the industry—some 32 per cent. in the woven cloth scheme and 34 per cent. in the yarn processing scheme.
In fact, this limit would only be reached if applications came forward in an exactly balanced proportion in relation to the different processes involved, and this appears unlikely. Once an application has been accepted by the Cotton Board the applicant must close his works down completely by the end of the sixth month following the acceptance—subject to extension in exceptional circumstances—and, as I have said, must scrap his plant and machinery not later than 31st December, 1961.
The detailed arrangements for compensation which are laid down in Part II of the schemes provide, as I have explained, that only if the minimum figures for elimination are reached, two-thirds of the compensation will be provided by public funds and one-third by levy on the industry; otherwise the whole cost will be provided by the levy. In fixing the level of compensation the object is to provide a proper inducement to the firms concerned to scrap the excess capacity.
Making allowance for differences in the circumstances of the different sections, the compensation provided under the present schemes bears a similar relation to such relevant factors as capital employed, average profitability, and book value of fixed assets, as was the case with the compensation for the manufacturing sections. Since, however, there is, in finishing, no standard machine, such as the loom or spindle, on which the compensation payable to an individual applicant can be calculated, it will instead be related partly to the applicant's turnover and partly to the written-down value of his plant and machinery.

1321
For both schemes the detailed figures are 10s. per pound sterling of the written-down value of plant and machinery and 3s. per pound sterling of turnover in the last complete financial year prior to 31st October, 1959.
The House will observe that there is no provision for varied rates of compensation comparable to the standard, premium and discount rates of the earlier schemes. This is because the present schemes do not, and cannot, provide for the scrapping of only a pant of a unit's plant and machinery; they require that in all cases the whole unit must be completely closed down; nor in the circumstances of the finishing section could regard be had to previously idle capacity.
The Cotton Board is satisfied that the rates of compensation are fair and reasonable, and have a good prospect of eliminating a substantial part of the excess capacity. As regards the cost of the proposals, it is estitmated that, assuming some thirty per cent. of capacity is eliminated, the total cost of compensation under both schemes would be of the order of £3·6 million.
The Exchequer contribution would be two-thirds of this, namely £2·4 million of which just over £2 million would be for woven cloth and about £300,000 for yarn processing. If 30 per cent. were exceeded, the Exchequer contribution would then be likely to rise above £2·4 million but, as I have indicated, the Cotton Board will be concerned to prevent the elimination of capacity exceeding safe limits.
As I have pointed out, the figures it has in mind for this purpose are the extent of excess capacity shown to exist in the industry—some 32 per cent. in the woven cloth and 34 per cent. in the yarn processing section—and it is unlikely that applications will come forward in an exactly balanced proportion, so that these figures may nit be reached to the fullest extent.
Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman going to tell us how much has been spent on these other schemes?
Mr. Rodgers: I would like to finish my explanation of these schemes and then come back to that point.
1322
On the other hand, if less than 30 per cent. of capacity were applied for and accepted, the cost would be proportionately less, down to a figure of the order of an Exchequer contribution of f1·6 million. This is what it would cost, on the estimates I have been using, to eliminate the minimum 20 per cent. and, as I have already explained, if eligible applications do not reach the minimum figures, there will be no Government contribution at all.
Part III of the Schemes provides for the collection of the levies which will produce the funds for the industry's share of the compensation for closing down, and also the compensation for displaced operatives. In order to secure that, in the woven cloth scheme, each sub-section finances its own elimination, the levies may be collected at different rates in the different subsections.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I believe the schemes have been drawn up, after careful consideration, to provide a reasonable and practicable method of eliminating sufficient excess capacity to improve greatly the efficiency of the finishing sections, while avoiding the risk of creating shortages of essential capacity. They have the support of the industry and the Cotton Board, and will benefit not only the finishing sections but the cotton industry as a whole. I hope, therefore, that they will have the support of the entire House.
I now want to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—
Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister does that, I should like to assist myself, with the aid of the House. The Minister appears to have been talking about the two Orders. My ignorance is such that I do not understand this, but from my point of view there are two Questions. Is it accepted as being for the general convenience of the House that one Question shall be put and that the Orders shall be simultaneously discussed?
Mr. Rodgers: I had very much hoped that we could take the two Orders together.
Mr. Speaker: Very well, if the House so desires.
Mr. Rodgers: I understand that that is also convenient to hon. Members opposite.
I have been asked what we expect the cost of the whole policy of reorganising the cotton industry to amount to. In the debate on the earlier Schemes, the then President of the Board of Trade estimated that the cost of compensation—if the minimum figures of capacity elimination were achieved—would be £7½ million, of which the Government's share would be £5 million. In fact, the minima were considerably exceeded, and the cost to the Exchequer of these three Schemes is now estimated at £10½ million, of which £4·1 million has so far been paid.
The amount of re-equipment for which applications have so far been submitted for the spinning, doubling and weaving sections is £9·2 million. Assuming that all these applications proved fully eligible the Government's share of this would be £2·3 million, but it is much too early to say what the total cost of re-equipment may be. As I explained, the cost to the Government of the Finishers' Schemes is estimated at about £2,400,000, assuming that 30 per cent. of capacity goes out; it has not yet been decided whether there shall be re-equipment grant in this section.
The figure which has been previously given to the House as the best estimate which can be made of the total possible cost to the Exchequer of reorganisation and re-equipment under the Cotton Industry Act is £30 million, over 5 years or so. At the present early stage of the policy I do not think I can usefully try to offer any more accurate estimate.
Mr. Hale: How much has gone in compensation to the workers up to now?
Mr. Rodgers: I am afraid that I should require notice of that question—but that comes under the agreement between the two sides of the industry.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Thornton: These are extremely complicated Orders, and I am grateful to the Minister for the details which he has given the House tonight. But there are still a number of points which I do not regard as being sufficiently clear, and I shall have certain questions to pose after I have made a few general observations.
1324
It would appear that under these Orders the expenditure of public funds is fairly well limited to about £2½ million. To that we must add the £10½ million that has already been spent or to which we are committed according to the hon. Member's latest estimate. I believe that his previous estimate was £11¼ million, and I take it that that estimate has been reduced by £750,000. The £2½ million, together with the £10½ million to which we are committed on the spinning, doubling and weaving orders, means an expenditure of about £13 million for scrapping machinery only. We must add to this between £20 million and £40 million for re-equipment. In all probably not less than £35 million—and it may be as much as £55 million—of public funds will be spent on the industry.
What will the public purse get for this? I am afraid that it will get nothing. If similar schemes are presented to Parliament, we must surely think in terms of loans and repayments, or the taking of equity shares in return for moneys advanced. This is perhaps not practicable where scrapping is involved, but certainly it is where advances are made for re-equipment. I am led to the belief that in future the emphasis should be more on re-equipment and less on scrapping. I frankly admit that the Schemes of which we have had experience have worked out better than I expected. There has been less dislocation and far less chaos than I expected. We have been fortunate in that the implementation of these Schemes has coincided with an upturn in our internal economy and—perhaps even more important—with the great boom in textile industries throughout the world.
Our industry should now face the future somewhat more confidently, but let us remember, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that activity in this industry is cyclical, and it is unlikely that there will be no slump following this great upsurge of the last twelve months. There are disturbing indications. The trend of our exports still remains downwards and the trend of our imports remain upwards, and these two factors together are rather disturbing.
In the first five months of 1960 imports of cotton cloth were valued at £24 million. Exports of cotton cloth were valued at £20 million—£4 million less. In respect

1325
of yarn, in the first five months of 1960 imports were valued at £3 million and exports at £4 million. In terms of volume, imports of yarn and cloth were approximately double the exports. That is because, generally speaking, the qualities and values of the yarns and cloths that we export are higher than those that we import. Without doubt, the trend is in the direction of the growth of imports of finished cloth rather than of grey cloth.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the important difference between these and previous schemes and said that even if the minimum is not reached the present schemes before the House will still be operated. I am not convinced by the reasons that he advanced, although I agree that there is something in what he said.
I now come to the lessons that we have learned from the operation of the three schemes governing spinning, doubling and weaving. We should have learned some lessons by now, and I think the hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade in general have learned some of the lessons which are indicated in some of the changes which are made in these Orders as compared with previous Orders. The first lesson that I have learned is that the terms offered for scrapping machinery under the spinning, doubling and weaving schemes which the House approved last year were too generous. In saying that, I am admitting that I am being wise after the event. Most of the machinery scrapped was already out of operation on 23rd April, 1959, and was unlikely to start up again. Therefore, the actual cost of machinery put out of action as compared with 23rd April last year is something like four times the standard rate of compensation offered.
I would point out that the effective cost is about £3 per spindle and about £250 per loom. Two-thirds of this has been paid from Government funds, so the burden of the costs of the remaining firms is not likely to be unduly heavy, but I see the danger in these finishing schemes that, through the realisation companies, the actual cost of scrapping machinery can prove as heavy, comparatively, as it has been in the spinning. doubling and weaving schemes. While it is true that the extra cost will not fall on public funds, it can mean a very
1326
stiff levy on the remaining funds, in fact, so heavy as to damage their competitive efficiency.
Once realisation companies are formed, will there not be a tendency for smaller firms to stand out for better terms, particularly if the applications fall short of the 20 per cent. in the first participation period to which the hon. Gentleman referred? The terms here under these conditions can, I feel, in fact prove too generous. Then we have the danger—and this is a distinct danger having regard to the large combines in each of the four sections—of these schemes leading to eventual monopoly in the four different sectors.
The second lesson that I think we have learned is that discrimination in accepting or rejecting applications is desirable and possible. The Government rejected our pleas from this side of the House when the cotton spinning, doubling and weaving schemes were going through that there should be discrimination to prevent social dislocation in certain one-industry or one-mill areas. The Government said that discrimination was wholly undesirable, if not impracticable. The Government now accept discrimination, but on other issues, that is, to prevent unbalance in production sections. I ask the question, and I think I pose it quite fairly, why not, then, discrimination also to prevent social unbalance?
The third lesson—and this is the last I shall reach—is in relation to operatives' compensation. I am grateful for the details which the hon. Gentleman gave the House. I am conscious from very long experience—thirty years—of negotiating trade union agreements, that it is far easier to criticise an agreement than to negotiate one. I am fully conscious of that. Weekly payments in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections have proved a shocking farce. It is a really scandalous situation.
There have been months of delay in these weekly payments. The case is not isolated where operatives have waited twenty-five weeks for weekly payments and then have been paid in a very much delayed lump sum. It is not fair to pin the blame for this scandalous situation on to the administrators. They have been given an administratively impossible task. Thirty thousand claims, or thereabouts, with all the incidences

1327
of sickness, varying wages and unemployment and one-hundred-and-one variations, have made complications that are administratively impossible where so many claims are involved.
The net effect has been in many cases that the second part of the total entitlement which the operative was justified in receiving—if he took another job, for example, at a lower wage—has not been paid in weekly payments, but as a much delayed lump sum settlement. It has been really scandalous. I hope the hon. Gentleman will look into that.
The purpose of these weekly payments has been completely frustrated and defeated. I opposed the idea of the weekly payments all along, and I warned the House of the complications that would arise. It is surely right and fair that, if the employers and managerial staffs are being compensated by a lump sum payment, the employees also ought to receive a lump sum payment instead of having this ridiculous situation of weekly payments which are impossible to administer.
These weekly payments were intended to tide over and help the worker during the transition period of losing one job and getting another, or, perhaps, adjusting himself to a substantially lower paid employment. The delay in payments have without doubt caused frustration, annoyance and anger among the operatives. Doubtless the unions in the finishing section have made the best possible bargain, but their bargaining position is not as strong as we have been led to believe because there is a realisation that whether there be a scheme or not—as was the case in spinning, doubling and weaving—a number of producing units are going to close down.
It appears to me that the employers have been tight-fisted and even less generous than was the case in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections. It is estimated, I believe, that under the spinning, doubling and weaving schemes about £3 million will be paid for compensating workers and approximately £5½ million for the scrapping of machinery. Both these amounts will be raised by levies on the industry.
In the finishing section, my estimate —and it is difficult to make an estimate
1328
—is that there will be somewhat less than £½ million paid in operatives' compensation. That is on the assumption that a 30 per cent. closing of units will be achieved, and, of course, we all realise that some of those units have already closed. It is probable that in the finishing section about £1¼ million will be raised by levy for wrapping machinery. This figure can be substantially exceeded if the realisation companies have to offer bigger inducements to achieve either the 20, 25 or 30 per cent. level of closing down.
As I see it, the operatives in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections are getting about half of what is being raised for the scrapping of machinery, but in the finishing section it is likely to be less than one-third of what will be paid for the scrapping of the machinery, and raised from the industry by levy. These, at least, are some of the lessons that I have learned from the operation of the spinning, doubling and weaving schemes.
I ask the employers and the unions—and I do so in no critical sense—to look again at the weekly payments aspect of their compensation agreement in the light of the very bad experience that we have had in the spinning and weaving sections.
A further point that must surely arise in considering the paying out of a further £2½ million is whether it is justifiable that public funds should be paid to such large, wealthy firms as are in the finishing section of the industry. I refer to the Bleachers' Association, which I understand has net liquid assets of £2 million, the Bradford Dyers' Association and the Calico Printers' Association, which each has approximately £2½ million of net liquid assets. It raises public misgivings. I say this in no carpingly critical way. In many ways these are fine firms, well managed and efficient, and my praise would certainly outweigh my criticisms of them, but we should be burking the issue if we were to think that there was no public disquiet at public funds being given to wealthy firms such as these.
As I indicated earlier, I have some questions to pose to the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I take it that the aggregate capacities of 25·2 million

1329
imperial pounds and 534·5 million linear yards relates to the actual performance of the production units rather than to the total capacity of the machines running 24 hours per day seven days per week. Is it that the returns made to the Cotton Board, as referred to in paragraph 2 (3) on page 4 of both Orders, will have been subject to levies under the Cotton Industry Development Council Order, 1948, and will therefore be a reasonable guarantee that the capacity has not been over-stated in the claims?
Secondly, I suppose the minimum figures of 25·2 million imperial pounds and 534·5 million linear yards relate to the aggregate through-put or capacity per year. I emphasise "per year" and ask whether this point is adequately covered by reference to paragraph 2 (3) or elsewhere in the Order. Does the capacity of the production unit refer to annual capacity?
Thirdly, what percentage of the yarn processing section's total estimated capacity does the minimum of 25·2 million pounds represent? Is it a round 20 per cent., as I have seen referred to in one or two articles? Likewise, with respect to the minimum aggregate yardage, what percentage in the three subsections do these yardages represent?
There is reference in the Orders to "less direct materials consumed". Is the yarn or cloth processed a direct material consumed? This is a point which I should like clarified. If the minimum figures of capacity are not reached and, in consequence, no Treasury funds are payable for scrapping machinery and what scrapping is effected is financed wholly from the levy on the units remaining, will the second levy for operatives' compensation still have statutory effect? In other words, is the levy for the operatives' compensation dependent upon the Government making a financial contribution towards the scrapping of machinery?
Is it intended that the Cotton Industry Act, 1959 will be operated to permit of the 25 per cent. re-equipment grant provided for in that Act, or is that something which we have to wait for, which will be dealt with by subsequent Order presented to the House?
1330
My last question—this is an important point—relates to the realisation companies. I am a little unhappy about this set-up. Can a realisation company be set up by one firm in a particular section? For example, the Bleachers'Association has over one-half of the trade in that section. The Calico Printers Association does, I understand, two-fifths of the trade in its section. What control will there be? In what way will the Cotton Board or the Board of Trade have control over the setting up of a realisation company? It is very important that this should be watched very closely indeed.
We shall not oppose these Orders. They follow naturally on the previous ones we disposed of last July. But if an Act or order comes forward for other industries, as well they might in this rapidly changing world where some industries are expanding and, in consequence, others must inevitably contract, we shall certainly press that there should be some financial return to the Exchequer for public funds found for private industry and some return to the public purse out of profits subsequently made.
10.51 p.m.
Mr. F. Blackburn: At this late hour, it is not my intention to make a speech. I wish to ask three questions.
One of the reasons given in the past for the large imports of grey cloth has always been that we had excess capacity in the finishing side of the trade. If we are to scrap part of the finishing section and imports remain at the same level, will not this have a bad effect upon the other part of our industry?
My second question relates to discrimination. If there are more applications than the percentage which the Board of Trade has in mind for scrapping, what criteria will be used to decide which firms will be allowed to go out of existence and which must carry on? My hon. Friend for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) referred to discrimination on social grounds. Will that be taken into account? Will the efficiency of the firm be taken into account? What will be the criteria used in deciding which firms have to go out of existence and which must carry on?
My third question is this. When the machinery in one of the mills has been

1331
scrapped, what is to prevent some other firm coming in and starting up again in the same part of the finishing trade in the same mill? There is nothing in the other Orders to prevent that in weaving and spinning, and there are one or two very unfortunate examples which have occurred of people starting up under different names. I want to know whether there is to be anything to prevent that. When a decision has been made about the size of the industry, is there any way in which we can control new sections starting up in firms where compensation has been paid?
10.53 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: At this late hour, it is my intention to make a speech. I was not responsible for the decision to discuss a matter of this importance at this late hour and in this way. One of the reasons that the House of Commons is so obviously dying on its feet and democracy is quoted on the Stock Exchange at about the same rate as Government consolidated stock is the complete failure of Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's advisers to give the House any information on any topic. I can understand the Members of the Government on the Front Bench having a very sound reason for a lack of self-confidence. I can understand their reticence. But day after day we are confronted with what is described in the Parliamentary Press as able stonewalling, as a refusal to give an answer.
Tonight, we are discussing two Orders which refer to an important section of what was once a very great industry, and still is an industry very dear to Lancashire hearts and to hearts in some of the constituencies of my hon. Friends from Scotland, too. These are two Orders of great complexity, two Orders which, so far as I can see, have not even been considered by the Statutory Instruments Committee—I can find no report on them, and its last Report is dated 28th June—two Orders which have been before the House for only a few days, which have an Explanatory Note which really is an insult to the House, which contain definitions which refer to five separate Statutory Instruments, which are about 6,000 words in length, and in respect of which, on very many subjects, the Minister has not thought fit to give a reply at all.
1332
In the singularly able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), there were only two sentences with which I disagreed. One with which I violently disagreed was when he thanked the Minister for giving information about the terms of compensation. I began to feel that I had dozed off in the course of the hon. Gentleman's speech and had missed the paragraph to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend speaks with more authority on this subject than any Member of the House, and he always speaks with great moderation. He has asked a number of questions, which shows—he will not mind my saying this, because it is certainly not his fault—that he does not yet know what the scheme is. He has asked a number of extremely important questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) followed with two or three questions of first importance and which. for the most part, were related to criticisms that we made of the previous scheme on similar grounds, when we were told that everything was all right.
Another of the difficulties of our situation today is that it is very difficult to criticise the spending of £2 million on an industry in relation to a Government that throw away £100 million on a bomb or missile that will not work and was never expected to work and which has never gone into production. It inhibits criticism. It is all rather sad. We have reached the stage when Ministers come along and say "It was only an extra £50 million on defence—and what is £50 million?". I would rather see it go to the cotton industry than on defence. It inhibits criticism.
The other sentence, if I may break the news softly to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth, with which I disagreed was when he said that we were rather surprised that this restriction had worked so well. Restriction always works well. The Tory theory is, and always has been, that we want unlimited competition. The Tory theory was that the great laws of supply and demand and competition produce efficiency, that the more cut-throat the competition is, the nearer we get to a really competitive price, and so on.
Restriction, so far as it consists of planning an organisation, is a Socialist

1333
theory, but it conflicts with another Socialist theory with which it must be adapted that we should produce goods for use and not for profit and that so long as people never have shirts—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) never understands this. I know that he tries to understand; I give him that credit. But there are still old-age pensioners in Oldham who come to see me every week and say that they get £2 10s. on which to live, that they live by themselves and that they cannot afford to buy clothes. That is one of the arguments against restriction.
The other argument against restriction is the historic parallel all over the world that we spend one period giving compensation for reducing output and then we spend another period giving subsidies to induce people to produce the same thing again, because once we force them to reduce they are a little reluctant to expand. Indeed, the trouble of the cotton industry has always been that people were afraid of the future.
Generally speaking, relations between employers and workers in the cotton industry have been remarkably good. I agree with every word my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth said about that. Generally speaking, in working out this difficult and complex agreement, both sides have tried to honour their obligations. I have no doubt about that. I agree with my hon. Friend, too, that this difficult agreement, arrived at quickly, is a remarkable agreement. One can, of course, criticise it—one always can afterwards. It compares favourably with other unintelligible documents. People can understand it.
No Parliamentary draftsman or counsel, no brilliant lawyer, could ever foresee all the problems that would arise in relation to compensation for workers in an industry of this kind. We in this House have become humble, because we serve on Committees and points keep cropping up which nobody had thought of. We know that this is a process and that in Committee we must be strictly empirical. The Parliamentary Secretary owes a duty to the House of Commons in this connection.
The major criticism that we made of the agreement was that too much was being given for destruction. That was one criticism. Now the Parliamentary
1334
Secretary, in a brief aside which was not even in the speech which he had had prepared—there were some notes on a separate sheet which he had had added in case he was pushed—said "By the way, on that item: it was not £5 million; it was £9 million. But, after all, what is another £4 million to a Government like this? "It is rather staggering.
The second criticism that we made—it really was a criticism—was that the framework of the compensation did more for the badly equipped firms and did nothing for those who really had to re-equip.
Mr. Dan Jones: It was just a liability on the firms.
Mr. Hale: Yes, it was just a liability on the firms. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We said that. This is exactly what the Government are doing again. I can understand that two factors in relation to the basis of compensation are required, but the main basis is depreciated value. Although certain taxation loopholes have, we have been told, stopped or there have been diversions to other channels, in relation to this everybody knows that when someone buys an old firm he upgrades the value of the machinery in order to nobble as much depreciation as he can as an Income Tax concession. That is always done. The result is that people with very old machinery usually show on their balance sheet as much depreciation for their machinery as those who bought new.
My hon. Friend said—I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary might have answered the question because it is so fundamental to our consideration; I should have thought it a reason for moving the Adjournment of the House if we did not get a reply—that it is not clear whether the 500 million yards of cloth and the 26 million lbs. of cotton, which is the basis of the estimate of productivity on which assessment is made, is based on actual output or upon statistically computated output. Surely that is vital. Surely we can be told about that. Surely we ought to know what the Government are compensating and why.
Turning to the agreement, as I have said, it really was a pretty good and workmanlike job. The trade unions and the employers have set up arbitrative committees to solve difficulties. The fault of the agreement is not in the

1335
agreement itself. The first fault is in the terms which were forced upon the industry by the Government. I think that the fault applies to this scheme. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us—if he understands the Orders. If he does, he might give us more information.
The great fault was that all the workers and firms which had just closed down and all the workers and firms which closed down after 31st March did not qualify at all. I am now referring to the old scheme. So far as I know, that will continue. But the firms which had closed down before the scheme qualified for compensation and have only to declare a formal intention to reopen and they are qualified; but the workers cannot do that.
I thought we were to have figures. The last figures I have—I am quoting from memory and I apologise if I am inaccurate—were given to me a couple of months ago. My impression is that about 33,000 or 34,000 claims had been submitted a couple of months ago on behalf of workers in the industry as against a loss of employment of about 100,000 since 1955. It must, of course, be remembered that the trade unions submit the claims in general. It is not 100 per cent. membership but it is a very high percentage membership. Those who are not in trade unions have to submit their individual claims or go to the manager of the mill. The trade unions submit only those claims which they are reasonably sure ought to qualify, and more than 2 million had been either turned down or adjourned for further consideration.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that a person in the finishing industry who had been employed for forty years would qualify for £180 compensation, paid partly by lump sum and partly by weekly payments. I thought that that would mean 50 per cent. payable in each way, but he said that it did not mean that but that a person could get less in relation to the lump sum payment.
One gets case after case, and the House should consider whether this sort of thing is good enough. It may be a good agreement—I think that it is. It may be that it satisfies the unions and the employers, but that hon. Members
1336
still have to deal with individuals who did not understand, who had high hopes, who perhaps heard the Prime Minister, at the election, say that £50 million spent in Lancashire was bound to do someone a bit of good.
These individuals come to me and ask: "How mush good does it do for me? I have worked in the industry for fanty years but my firm closed before the appointed day." I have to say to them that I am sorry but they get nothing. A few weeks ago a lady came to me and said that she had been forced to go to work because her husband had been sick. She was now getting on in years. I told her that she would surely qualify for full compensation, and that she would get half of it down as a lump sum. She said that as she had thought that she had 26 weeks payments to come, she decided she would stay at home and look after her husband, who had been in bed for so long with virtually no one to look after him. She had learnt only too late that she could not share in the 26 weeks' compensation because she was not genuinely seeking work.
Another man told me that they had said he had bronchitis, but it was actually byssinosis. He was advised to go slick, and he did so, but then the compensation was suspended, at any rate until he was able to go back to work. It was suspended because he was not available for work.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: Are there many cases like this?
Mr. Hale: Yes, in my view. Of course, they come under different headings. I speak from memory, and I apologise for not having checked the figures, which I got in Oldham two months ago, but my recollection is that 2,000 cases were under criticism and investigation. Many workpeople have written to me and I have had to reply and say that a decision on this has been given and there is nothing I can do Everyone of them is a hard case.
The point is that, if a man has been forty years in the industry, then he has just about reached the age when he is not fit to go on working any longer, and the person who has worked longest in the industry is getting the smaller

1337
chance of receiving weekly compensation. These are serious matters. We have not tried to criticise this in a controversial spirit, but they are important matters. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should consider some of them.
The question of the depreciation process is important. We should have a second look at that, and at least take the right to have a valuation of the machinery where it is obvious that, for taxation purposes, or because of stamp duties, a wholly fictitious figure has been put on old machines—not fraudulently, for it is a common, recognised practice, done quite frequently. But one should at least not qualify for compensation on the basis of a fictitious figure.
I hope I have made it clear that I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth said. The more I look at this agreement, the more I think that both the unions and the employers did very well in all the circumstances. The more I see the problems that are arising, the more I realise how impossible it would have been to provide for them all. But I still think that the Minister failed a little in his duty to the House in this connection by not saying that he had an agreement over which he was unable to exercise limited Parliamentary control. I am always a helpful sort of bloke. I introduced a Bill to enable him to do so. It could have passed on the nod. But the Minister did not move an inch. There was always someone to say "Object!" and to apologise afterwards and say, "You know what the Whips are."
Lastly I would say, quite seriously, that when democracy is ceasing to exist all over the world, one of the hopeful signs in this House has been the coming of some very able younger Members on the benches opposite, and also on this side of the House. It would be a good thing if Ministers took a second thought about their attitude, and said, "Our first duty is to make clear the facts." The House exists as a great inquest of the nation upon the facts, and must have the evidence in front of it before it can give a decision on any subject. The Prime Minister sets a good example in this respect, but many Ministers seem to think it is their duty to say nothing unless they are forced
1338
to do so; to produce no information unless it is demanded, and to fall back on, "I must have notice of that," or "I cannot go into that now," or some explanation of that kind.
It is to be regretted that we are debating a matter of this importance in circumstances in which the debate has the aspect of becoming rather more of a formality than it should. I hope that the Minister will ask the leave of the House to speak again—unless he has another Minister to speak—and make a statement in answer to some of the important questions that have been put to him.
11.12 p.m.
Sir John Barlow: I do not propose to speak for very long at this hour, but these are very important Orders for many people in Lancashire. I welcome the explanation which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has given of these very complicated documents. It was a thorough explanation, given very lucidly and in a very short time. Likewise, I welcome the questions put by the hon. Member for Farnworth IMr. Thornton), who speaks with great sincerity and authority on this great industry.
Those of us who have been in the cotton industry for thirty or thirty-live years know a little of its difficulties and great complexities. I wonder whether anyone in the House tonight does not welcome these schemes in a general way. Both the last scheme for spinning and weaving and the Orders before us have been criticised. Many points have been criticised by hon. Members opposite, and there may be criticisms from this side of the House, but is there anyone knowing anything about the industry who does not welcome the schemes as a whole?
Having been in different parts of the industry for so long, and having seen the diminution of the whole industry, with its ups and downs, over a period, many years ago I came to the conclusion that it would be fatal for the industry and for the welfare of Lancashire to let the laissez faire policy of attrition continue to the end, because it would have meant untold misery to all concerned. For that reason, I pressed this Government for many years before they agreed to some redundancy scheme. At long last they introduced the scheme for spinning and weaving, last year.

1339
There were things which could be improved, but it was the first scheme of its kind, and I know that it worked extremely well on the whole. We know there was great delay in payment to some workers. That was deplorable, but quite impossible to avoid, in the circumstances. I, with many other hon. Members, investigated cases to ascertain why some workers were paid so slowly, but I was convinced that in the circumstances it was quite impossible to gather together a competent staff to deal with such a big business in such a short time. Let us be fair to the people. They had an almost impossible burden put on them, and I regret the way in which some of the workers suffered in a scheme which had not been tried before. I think that this scheme is an improvement on the other. Although I have been critical of the fact that the Cotton Board has been so long in bringing forward the finishing Scheme, this delay has given ample time for us to see some of the difficulties and pitfalls of the scheme.
I do not propose to go into the details, but I think I should mention the suggestion that this will lead to a monopoly among the three main finishing sections. I do not think that is likely. We know how monopolies occur these days, and in the printing trade, of which I know something, I believe there are more than twenty printing places, mostly in Lancashire and Cheshire. I think there is little chance of the industry as a whole suffering from monopoly.
One hon. Member has pointed out that he considered it unnecessary to make large payments to the three main companies. He named three companies, and, as hon. Members are well aware, I know something about one of them, and perhaps, something about the others. It is so easy to quote figures about liquid assets, but if one looks more carefully into them it is very often found that the assets are taken up in the working of the business. Furthermore, very often there are bank overdrafts, which in present circumstances tend to put up costs. Because there are so-called liquid assets—a liquid surplus—it does not follow that there are ample working assets and the companies are very flush of money. It simply is not the case.
1340
I do not think that this sort of scheme should be applied to the other industries, but it is established that the Lancashire cotton industry has made out a very special case. I welcome this scheme and wish it the best of success.
11.18 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Steele: So far the debate has been confined to hon. Members from Lancashire.
Mr. Blackburn: And one hon. Member from Cheshire.
Mr. Steele: Yes, but during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage of the Act it was probably only Lancashire and Cheshire which were mentioned, and until my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) observed me sitting here with a few notes, I think that perhaps you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have also tended to think of this as a Lancashire and Cheshire debate in the way your eye has rolled past me.
The Orders which we discussed last year for the spinning, weaving and doubling sections did, in the main, concern those counties; but those we are discussing tonight, dealing with the finishing trades, are very important to my own constituency. We have two firms there; British Silk Dyeing, and United Turkey Red, and I should like to say a word about the U.T.R.
This is a firm established as far back as 1897—
Sir J. Barlow: Earlier than that.
Mr. Steele: Established in my area, then. That is the information I have. At the height of its production it was actually employing more than 4,000 workers in the Vale of Leven and the surrounding district. It was no accident that this firm was located in this area because, as other Members who are better informed on these matters know, large volumes of fresh water are necessary, and this site was chosen because of the large quantity of pure water which comes from Loch Lomond.
Difficulties occurred around the 1930s, and because this firm was the basic industry in the area and because of those difficulties, in the 1930s 75 per cent. of the insured population were unemployed. There are many scars to be seen to this day. One can see the effects of those

1341
days reflected in the attitude of some of my constituents. We have many memorials in the shape of old, large, gaunt buildings on both sides of the river, to remind us of that time. The United Turkey Red Company employs 1,350 workers, and that is a large number of people. Their memories go back to those days and what happened then, and I think the House will appreciate their fears and apprehensions.
In passing, I would remind hon. Members that in the Committee stage of the Cotton Industry Bill an Amendment was moved requesting that account be taken of the social consequences of any proposed closures. That Amendment was rejected in very strong terms by the Minister. He said
"If we introduce the third condition, that in considering which mills should close we should have regard to their situation, to the employment in the area … we should get right away from the prospect of making an efficient industry."
The Amendment was rejected by the Minister, and, while I do not want to go into this in great detail, he said one significant thing to which I will refer later. He said
"What would happen? The owner of a mill in a town where there was not much alternative employment would say, 'I wish to qualify for a compensation grant'. The Board of Trade would have to say, 'You cannot have that grant because of the employment situation in your area'. That is what would have to happen. If that occurred, I think the mill owner would say, 'We are making a loss. We will not continue on this basis. Will you subsidise us?" Before we knew where we were, we should be in the realm of subsidising firms which wanted to close and take the compensation but were told by the Government that they must not close."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1959; Vol. 607. c. 551.]
On those grounds the Amendment was rejected. But I should like to draw attention to the fact that when the President of the Board of Trade was rejecting that Amendment and was advancing this argument, entirely the opposite was happening. At that point of time, the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee was arranging a loan to this firm of U.T.R. of £400,000, and that loan was granted with an agreement on an overdraft up to £300,000 from the bank. So, in effect, this firm, at the period when the Bill was going through the House about elimination of excess capacity, was getting help from the Government up to £750,000. I was not com-
1342
plaining at the time, and I am not complaining now—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to assist me a little. Is this strictly relevant to the two Orders we are now considering?
Mr. Steele: Yes, Sir, because I am making a special plea on a special case. There is no provision so far as I can see in the Orders at present dealing with a firm which has a grant of this kind. I want to know whether a firm which had already had a loan under D.A.T.A.C. of £400,000, plus the agreement for £300,000 overdraft—one of the basic conditions before the grant being that the Committee had to be satisfied that the project assisted would provide continuing employment—will be able to satisfy the conditions if it wants to close.
It was not without significance that the condition was that before the grant was given to the firm it had to satisfy the Committee that the project assisted would provide continuing employment. I think the whole House will agree that this was an area which wanted assistance. The high level of unemployment in the area is well known. It is true that the loan was not given to provide new jobs; it was to safeguard the employment of the workers in the United Turkey Red factory. In fact, if this grant had not been given it would have been a real tragedy and probably this firm would have been closed by this time.
This money which was given has been used by the firm. Reading the balance sheet, which has just been published, we see that the chairman said:
"During the first four months of 1960 the Works have been busy and, if the improvement in trade is maintained, it is probable that trading losses will be eliminated and a small profit emerge for the current year."
That is rather different from the years before when nothing but trading losses had accrued and, so far as it went, under the circumstances of the firm this was not unsatisfactory.
Now I come to something which, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I assure you is very pertinent to these Regulations. It is something which has caused considerable concern in my constituency. On 7th June, not very long before these Regulations were published, the Calico Printers Association made a bid for the take-over

1343
of the United Turkey Red Company. In a letter which the Board of Directors of U.T.R. sent to its shareholders it advised them to accept this offer. One of the reasons indicated in the letter was that the redundancy scheme which we are discussing tonight would not provide as good terms as were, in fact, being offered by the Calico Printers' Association.
I cannot speak on the financial situation. I do not know whether the terms were as good or not, but in any case that was the view of the directors of U.T.R.
Sir J. Barlow: I think I am right in saying that the offer was made some time before the redundancy terms were issued. I suggest that to the hon. Gentleman just to keep the matter clear.
Mr. Steele: I am sorry if I created any misconception in the mind of the hon. Baronet. What I intended to say was that in the letter which was sent out the chairman of the company indicated that the board was of the opinion that this offer would be better for the shareholders than what they would get under any redundancy scheme that was likely to be put forward. It was a long letter, but that was the purport of it.
To me the important thing about the letter is that the advice given by the directors to their shareholders made it absolutely clear that they had lost faith in themselves and in the future of their company as an independent firm. They also said:
"In the same event, the future conduct of the business of your Company will pass out of the control of your Directors and they cannot forecast its course."
The letter then went on to deal with the fact that a redundancy scheme would be coming out and finished by saying:
"In these circumstances C.P.A. has advised us that it cannot state its intentions regarding the future operation of the Company's print works until the provisions of any Government Scheme are known."
The immediate reaction to all this was that it was thought that the factory was going to close. It is easy to understand, in the difficult employment situation in the area, the deep apprehension that has been caused.
1344
I am not, I think, guilty of over-statement, but when one reads in the local newspaper headings such as
"Grave fears of shut down at U.T.R. Jobs of 1,300 employees threatened"
and then goes on to read:
"It now appears that there is no cause for complacency in the take-over bid that the Calico Printers' Association are making for the United Turkey Red Company in Alexandria. Many of the 1,300 workers at this factory fear that the move may threaten their employment, and it seems that these fears are in no way unjustified. If the take-over bid succeeds, the factory may be closed by the end of the year. That is not just the view of union officials but of senior executives of the firm as well."
Therefore, the fears and apprehensions that have been caused are quite understandable. I hope and pray that these fears are groundless, but they are there and will remain until some authoritative statement is made.
May I also make it clear, because it is terribly important, that I, the workers, and the trade union officers in my constituency have no quarrel with the Calico Printers' Association. Indeed, if the Association decides to continue work at this factory and, with the assistance of a reorganisation grant, modernise and improve the works, it will not only have my blessing, but the active co-operation of the whole community.
It is obvious that the directors of the United Turkey Red Company have lost faith in themselves. Had this bid not been successful, it is very likely that they would have accepted the redundancy scheme and made an application, and the firm would have been closed. Therefore, our hope—I am expressing now the hope of the people in my constituency—is placed in the hands of the Calico Printers' Association, which will provide a better management. By modernising the works, it could continue to provide work for our people. Mr. Lee, the chairman of the C.P.A., has most willingly agreed to meet a deputation from Alexandria on Friday of this week in Manchester.
Hon. Members who took part in the debates on the three previous schemes which came before the House, namely, the doubling, spinning and weaving Orders, expressed fears about what would happen, particularly regarding employment. Tonight they said that they felt reassured in their fears and that what

1345
they thought might happen has not happened. We are all very happy and pleased that that should be so.
Those hon. Members should not overlook the fact that they have been rather differently placed from what would happen in my constituency. In Lancashire and Cheshire they have been fortunate. They have had a period of high employment. Whilst there has been inconvenience, difficulties and problems with cornpensation, at least those who have been displaced have been able to find employment, but that is not the position in Dunbartonshire.
The whole of today and tomorrow in this House is taken up with a debate on industry and employment in Scotland. Hon. Members on both sides, not only on this side, are expressing their grave fears about the situation. The fact is that work is not available. The Parliamentary Secretary is very well aware of the situation. Not so long ago I took a deputation to meet him and discuss the problems of Dumbarton. He was very pleased to meet us, but I recall that when he answered me he said that one of the hopeful signs was the £400,000 being given to United Turkey Red, which would provide and maintain employment in that area.
The Parliamentary Secretary said tonight that one of the results of this re-organisation and the elimination of excess capacity would be the provision of stable employment. I am sure that he meant in Lancashire and Cheshire, but certainly not in Dunbartonshire. There would be no doubt about the effect of closing down the United Turkey Red Company. There would be 1,350 workers unemployed, and they would have no opportunity of finding work anywhere else in the locality. It would be not merely a blow to them; it would be a blow to their families and to the whole community.
I am comforted by the answers so far received from the President of the Board of Trade. In answer to a Question by me on 2nd June, he said, with reference to the fears which I expressed,
"The Government would be very sorry to see anything that aggravated the unemployment situation in this part of Scotland".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June. 1960; Vol. 625, c. 213.]
1346
On 23rd June, in answer to another Question, he said:
"I am aware of the need for employment in the Dumbarton area, and I hope that … employment will continue to be provided at these works".
That was a step forward. When I questions him further, he showed the concern which he himself feels, because he went on to say:
"We have been in touch with the Calico Printers' Association and pointed out that the Government very much hope that nothing which is done will create greater difficulty in the employment situation in Dunbartonshire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1960: Vol. 625, c. 664.]
I very much appreciate what the Minister has said and what he has done. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I am sincere when I say that. I feel that, coming from the President of the Board of Trade, these are not words which can be lightly cast aside. Any board of management is bound to give them serious consideration.
The Act under which the Orders are made, unfortunately, does not give the President of the Board of Trade anything other than power to make a plea of that kind. That is not our fault on this side of the House. We moved an Amendment in Committee to ensure that such a situation would be provided for. However, I am sure that the plea will be heeded. I should be glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary announce tonight a favourable reply to his right hon. Friend's representations. That, of course, may be too much to ask for, but, in any event, I am sure that he will be very glad to underline the assurances which the President of the Board of Trade has already given. That would strength and encourage our deputation to Mr. Lee in Manchester on Friday.
The Minister cannot escape his responsibilities in this matter. He cannot, on the one hand, say that he is doing what he can to provide employment where it is needed and, on the other hand, stand aside when regulations are being passed through the House which might have the very opposite effect to what he is trying to do. At this time, he must bear in mind that, when consideration is being given to what closures should take place, it is only sensible to ensure that the closures take place in areas where alternative employment will

1347
be easy to secure, not in an area where unemployment is high already and where a closure of the kind I have described would be a tragic calamity.
I am sure that the Minister fully realises that the matter is one of extreme importance to the welfare of the 1,350 workers in the factory, their families and the traders in my constituency, who would warmly welcome a statement which allayed their fears and apprehensions.
11.45 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: It is too late to make a speech, but I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary three questions. First, can he give an assurance that the small minority of workers on whose behalf the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) made such a strong plea will have their position reconsidered and that in those cases where help can be given, it will be given, especially when it affects the older workers, who will find it more difficult to get another job when they are turned out under an amalgamation?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend do his best to meet the United Turkey Red position? He will remember that I put down a Question some weeks ago on this problem from two angles. The first was the fear of monopoly and the second was the fear of unemployment in Scotland, where, unfortunately, unemployment is much heavier than in England. If my hon. Friend is able to satisfy the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) that his fears will be allayed as regards the United Turkey Red, will he give an undertaking that if similar cases arise under the scheme he will do his utmost to ensure that firms are not ruthlessly closed irrespective of social consequences?
I am terribly keen on having industrial efficiency, but it can be bought at too high a price. We can pay too much even for efficiency. I say that as one who has been chasing it all my life.
I represent those who buy the services of the Lancashire cotton trade. As taxpayers, those of us who buy the services of either the finishing trade or the yarn section are entitled to say that if public money is being poured into this industry, efficiency should show itself in lower prices or better-quality goods.This
1348
public money ought not to be poured into the Lancashire trade to give those who already have a stranglehold on the industry greater powers of monopoly.
Will my hon. Friend do his best to see that those of us who buy what Lancashire produces and then use it still further in the hope of meeting the demands either of our home market or of the export market will, as a result of the scheme, get either lower prices or better quality or, if possible, both? If my hon. Friend does these three things, he will be doing a service to the whole trade.
11.48 p.m.
Mr. J. Rodgers: I should like to try to answer some of the questions which have been raised during this rather late debate. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), with his usual courtesy, gave me notice of some of the questions he raised and I should like to answer them. They are a little technical and detailed, but I appreciate why the hon. Member wants the answer to them.
First, the hon. Member asked whether capacity has not been overstated and whether it has been calculated on a basis of seven days a week, working 24 hours a day. As regards the capacity of the finishing sections, the estimates, which relate to capacity, not past performance, were produced by the Cotton Board on the basis of the returns made on Forms F.C.2 and Y.P.1, which are described in paragraph 2 (2) (b) of each Scheme, which is printed as a Schedule to the Order. These forms asked for
"the annual capacity of the works if all the appropriate plant were run full time with a full labour force for the customary working week or 45 hours whichever is the greater"
The forms also stipulated that this should be
"a figure which is capable of achievement, not a purely theoretical maximum".
The Special Committee has assured me that in the light of the checks which it has been able to make and as a result of inquiries which have been made from a number of persons concerned, it is the opinion of the Committee that the figures of capacity shown by the returns give, in the aggregate, a reliable estimate of the current capacity.
In estimating the capacity of particular units for the purpose of determining whether the minima have been achieved the same Forms F.C.2 and Y.P.1 will

1349
normally be used. They are related to annual capacity. Having regard to the wording of the forms themselves—they were statutory returns called for under the Cotton Industry Development Council Order, 1948—we are satisfied that paragraph 2 (3) is adequate.
In addition to Forms F.C.2 and Y.P.1, the Cotton Board may specify such information and records as it thinks necessary to satisfy itself about the capacity of individual units. The returns made for the purposes of the Cotton Board's ordinary levy under the 1948 Order will not provide a crosscheck since they are on a different basis. However, I think that the Cotton Board will have all necessary power to satisfy itself of the accuracy of the returns.
I might add that a number of firms which considered themselves to be working at full capacity in 1959 gave their 1959 output as their capacity figure, which helps to demonstrate, I think, that the returns have been carefully and accurately made.
The hon. Member also asked what percentage of current estimated capacity is represented by the minimum figures. Both in yarn processing and in woven cloth the figure is 20 per cent. In the woven cloth scheme these are also the subsectional minima—which do not, of course, add up to the sectional minimum. They are: bleaching 15 per cent.; dyeing 17 per cent.; and printing 15 per cent. They are calculated on the basil of 50 per cent. of excess capacity or 15 per cent. of current capacity, whichever is the larger.
I am glad to assure the hon. Member that the levy for compensating displaced operatives will still have statutory effect even if these minima are not reached. That is an important point for all to appreciate.
As regards the hon. Member's question whether the yarn or cloth processed is "a direct material consumed" for the purpose of estimating turnover under paragraph 10 (4) of the Woven Cloth Scheme and paragraph 9 (3) of the Yarn Processing Scheme, the answer is no; where the work is on commission the finisher does not own the raw material.
The hon. Member raised a query with regard to the realisation companies,
1350
whether this would lead to a heavy levy on firms which remained in the industry by the granting of too generous terms to the people going out. If small firms want to stand back in an attempt to get better terms from the realisation companies during the supplementary participation period, they take the risk of being too late and missing their chance. The Cotton Board will bring the period to an end if it feels that it has eliminated enough excess capacity. That is a sufficient guarantee that excessive rates will not be paid.
A number of questions have been asked about compensation for the workers who lose their jobs as a result of the schemes, not only by the hon. Member for Farnworth, but also the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). As I have explained, the 1959 Act requires the Board of Trade to be satisfied that arrangements have been made for the payment of compensation and have been agreed by bodies representing the interests of a majority of the employees. The Government, therefore, have no responsibility for the terms of the arrangements for compensation for employees. These terms are for the employers to settle with the employees' organisations. I am assured that the agreements which have been made will provide compensation for the employees of all units which receive compensation for closing down.
I understand that three agreements have been signed for the finishing section of the cotton industry between the employers and the various unions concerned. The details of the different agreements vary, and I do not think I should try to give illustrations of the amounts which will be payable in different circumstances. I can assure the hon. Member that they are very complicated.
The House may like to know, however, that all the agreements provide for setting up a joint board consisting of nominees of the employers and the unions to administer the compensation fund. This fund will be raised by statutory levy by the Cotton Board. It is also provided that firms which apply to close down must inform their employees as soon as practicable after their applications have been accepted. The employers and the trade unions have undertaken to co-operate in attempting

1351
to find alternative employment in the section for such redundant employees.
There has been some criticism of difficulties and delays experienced by employees in obtaining payment of compensation under earlier schemes, and it has been suggested that the Board of Trade should intervene. In November. 1959, the hon. Member for Oldham, West obtained leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule to make the President responsible for compensation arrangements. I must, however, emphasise that under the 1959 Act the responsibility for reaching agreement rests on the employers and the trade unions in the industry. We think that is the better arrangement. This is the type of question which is customarily negotiated by them, and I am sure the House will agree that this is the most satisfactory way of dealing with such matters.
Reference has been made to suggestions that compensation payments are less generous than those negotiated in other sections of the industry. I do not think that the facts will support this. There are differences in the agreements which, no doubt, arise from differences in the circumstances of the different sections. In any case, these are the arrangements which are acceptable to the unions. I understand that these criticisms—and perhaps this is where the hon. Member for Oldham, West gets his information—stem largely from a statement by the General Secretary of the Guild of Calico Printers, Bleachers, Dyers and Finishers Foremen, who is reported to have said that his Guild was not consulted in any way. I am informed, however, that the Guild has never taken part in any negotiations relating to the wages and conditions of its members, and has no standing in this matter whatever.
Mr. Hale: Would the hon. Member try to confirm that, assuming a figure of £30 million compensation under the old agreements, the division of that compensation will be roughly of the order of 18s. in the £ for a small number of employers and 2s. in the £ for a large number of workers?
Mr. Rodgers: If I may I will write to the hon. Member about that point, which is rather complicated. Another point made in the debate was about delays in paying the workpeople com-
1352
pensation under the spinning, doubling and weaving schemes. I can assure the hon. Member for Farnworth that I will look into this. I understand that nearly £2½ million has already been paid out over all, and I can well imagine the difficult administrative problems that are involved, but I am sure that the board, as well as both sides of the industry, are anxious to deal with outstanding payments as quickly as possible.
I have not previously had these matters brought to my attention by the unions, or by anyone else, and perhaps the hon. Member for Farnworth, who is usually so moderate in presenting his case, slightly exaggerated for once when he referred to these delays as a scandal. I will look into it and will write to him.
I will now say something about the possible effects if the United Turkey Red works in Dumbarton are closed down. I realise that there is special anxiety about the situation which may arise in Dumbarton if the works were to be closed. On the general question, I understand from the Cotton Board and from representatives of the industry that there is no reason to fear that the schemes in general will cause any considerable amount of unemployment, or that such difficulties as arise will be persistent. In general it is expected that most of the displaced workers will be able to find employment elsewhere in the finishing section.
There are standing arrangements between the employers and the unions to help secure this, and it is also provided for specially in the agreements about the compensation of operatives. Since the finishing workers are largely men, they tend to be rather more mobile than the operatives in other sections of the industry. If there should be pockets of unemployment in particular localities, the Board of Trade will do all it can to help in providing other employment, and, of course, in development districts the powers provided by the Local Employment Act will be available.
It has been suggested that the Calico Printers' Association will apply to close down the United Turkey Red works, and that this application ought not to be granted. I am aware that C.P.A.'s bid has now been declared unconditional, but I understand that it has stated that no decision has yet been taken about the

1353
future of the Dumbarton works. If an application to close it down is received, it will have to be considered on its merits by the Cotton Board, and I do not think I can properly attempt to pre-judge the decision.
Mr. Osborne: Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that the social as well as the economic consequences will be taken into account in such a proposal?
Mr. Rodgers: I will come to that point in a moment. Clearly there can be no question of ruling particular undertakings out of the schemes in advance. It is true that this particular firm received a D.A.T.A.C. loan, but it would not have been possible to make it a condition of this loan that the works should continue in operation or that the shareholders should not dispose of their shares. Even if the Calico Printers' Association had not made a bid for this firm it would have been perfectly possible for the existing management to apply to close down under the scheme, as the hon. Member pointed out. If the Dumbarton works should close we should do all we could to help in providing other employment for the operatives. Some hon. Members have suggested that the schemes ought to include provisions requiring that special regard ought to be had to the effects on employment when considering applications to close down works in development districts, such as Dumbarton.
I would remind hon. Members that when the 1959 Act was before the House Amendments to this effect were rejected on the ground that the object of the schemes is to produce a more compact and efficient industry. If we take steps to discourage firms which are anxious to leave the industry from going so we shall cramp the operation of the policy, and the schemes will be that much less efficient in creating a healthy industry.
Mr. Steele: I accept that we need a more compact industry, but that does not mean that we must have a concentration in one area of the country.
Mr. Rodgers: I accept that, but I must emphasise that though the Cotton Board might be able to refuse particular firms or particular sections of the industry permission to participate in the schemes it could not prevent them from going out
1354
now or later if they wished to do so. All it would then have achieved would be to prevent the workpeople from being eligible for compensation. The people in Dumbarton would be worse off than they are now.
But in certain circumstances it may be necessary for the Board, in reviewing applications to close down, to make a choice between applications which relate to units of otherwise comparable capacity, and to decide that one or more of these must be rejected. This would arise if the pressure of applications were so heavy that it would be impossible to accept them all without impairing the industry's ability to meet reasonably foreseeable demands.
The choice in these circumstances will be in the hands of the Special Committee, which consists of three independent business men and a trade union representative under the Chairmanship of Lord Rochdale. I am satisfied that they are well qualified to make such a choice. If I were asked what considerations I would expect to guide them in such circumstances I would suggest that they would be likely to have regard to such factors as the effect on the efficiency of the industry, on export trade, and, of course, on unemployment. These are obviously the sort of factors that they will have to bear in mind. That is also a partial answer to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde who raised this matter in general terms.
Two points were raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. He asked whether the workers would get compensation if their firms closed down before the operative date. Operatives in firms which receive compensation for closing down, if this took place between 24th April, 1959, and the end of the closing down period, will, I understand, be eligible for compensation for loss of employment. Firms which closed down prior to 24th April, 1959, will not qualify for compensation under the present scheme. "Closed down" means permanently closed down. If firms have closed down prior to April, 1959, they will not be eligible to claim compensation for scrapping machinery, as their capacity has already been eliminated before the date on which the Government's proposals were announced. If such firms had been inactive, although

1355
not closed down, the odds are that they would not have been employing any workpeople during the period in question.
Mr. Hale: I cannot let that pass. It is true that the odds are that if a firm is temporarily closed down it has not employed workpeople, but it is equally true that the odds are that the work-people would not go back, and so the firm would cease to deal with them. So it appears that the firms will receive compensation but the workpeople will not.
Mr. Rodgers: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is correct, but I will write to him on that point.
We have had a very useful debate. This is a complicated subject.
Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member has not answered both my points. He has half-answered one.
Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry. I have only one point in my notes. Perhaps he would remind me of his other one.
Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member partly answered my question in regard to excess capacity. I also asked what was to prevent another firm coming in and starting up again when one firm had received compensation for the machinery in a factory. The third point was about the imports of grey cloth and the excess capacity in the finishing end of the trade. My question was whether, if this is to continue, will it not have deleterious effects on the other sections?
Mr. Rodgers: I think I have answered that point. What I was dealing with was the new firm starting up in the same mill. The Cotton Board must be satisfied that the plant has been scrapped, and it would be theoretically possible for the company to start up anew; but it would be a pretty expensive process to start from scratch, and it is doubtful if re-equipment grant would be payable; no decision has been taken on whether this will be paid to the finishing sections. But there is nothing to prevent a new man from coming in and buying an existing building; if he does, then I say "Good luck".
I should like to thank all hon. Members, and especially the hon. Member for Farnworth for the manner in which they have received these two Orders, and also for their constructive comments. They are complicated Orders, as has been shown in our debate, but I think that it is generally acknowledged that the previous Orders, in the weaving and other sections, have worked better than any of us dared to hope or anticipate. I have every confidence that these schemes we have discussed tonight will work equally well, and I hope that the House will now approve them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Cotton Finishing (Woven Cloth) Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.
Cotton Finishing (Yarn Processing) Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1960, [draft laid before the House, 30th June], approved.—[Mr. J. Rodgers.]

SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]
12.7 a.m.
Sir Frank Markham: It is now already past midnight and I feel that I ought to apologise for detaining the House a little longer; but, in all truth, I regard this opportunity to discuss school buildings as one of such importance that I think I need not apologise. I very much welcome this opportunity.
The story begins by my seeing, almost inadvertently, some of the newest of the many schools which are being built in this country. My own reaction in looking at some of these buildings has been "Good gracious, how awful", or "How incredibly ugly" and I wondered if this view is shared about the few I have seen, or whether those few were due to the personal idiosyncrasy of one county architect, or whether it was general. In the last few months I have extended my investigations over Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire and, in a smaller way, Lancashire, and there is this same story of increasing ugliness in school building to such an extent that I doubt if one could find uglier buildings in this country built since the Army huts of the war years.
The curious thing is that many schools which were erected before 1957 were beautiful in balance and design. I wondered what was the cause of this change, especially as the change was spread over several counties so far as my observations went I finally came to the conclusion that whilst the county architects are held responsible for the external and internal design of schools, subject to certain conditions laid down by the Ministry as to cost, space, air circulation, heating requirements and so on, nevertheless county architects, with few exceptions, study carefully the bulletins issued by the Ministry which give them advice as to design.
To my mind, the most iniquitous of these bulletins is No. 33, entitled "The Story of Post-War School Building." It is wrongly named. This pamphlet should be entitled "Instructions to School Architects." It has almost become the bible of school architects.It begins
1358
valiantly. I do not think anyone would object to the preface, and I will quote a sentence to show the way in which the theme begins. On page 5 of the preface, we find these words:
"The vision and energy of a generation is often most strikingly embodied in the buildings it leaves behind. The post-war schools, like the mediaeval churches, dominate the local landscape. By their purpose and design they testify to the spirit of their age. They will show how fat we applied our imagination and resources to the future of our children."
Noble sentiments these, and sentiments with which we can all agree. But when we look in this pamphlet at the sort of buildings that the Ministry recommends, we see the shocking illustration which appears on the reverse of page 9. There without question is one of the ugliest post-war buildings erected in this country, except perhaps for one or two temporary factories.
Why should this be? The answer is combined a little further on in this patruphlet, in which the Ministry makes it clear that it expects architects to eschew in their school buildings what we may call traditional ornament. It says on page 25:
"There can be no classical facades, ornamental cornices, gothic windows, stone dressing, rubbed brickwork or wrought ironwork."
On the next page it says:
"It is only prestige buildings which can afford to appear in these habits."
In other words, the Ministry in this most important pamphlet has recommended and advocated the starkest simplicity of design. Consequently we get these modern schools with apparently the flattest possible roofs, walls of glass—just a series of boxes with here and there a touch of funny colours.
I want to mention some of the schools that I have seen and which have been completed since 1957. I know the Minister is an exceptionally busy man, but if he could find time to visit one or two of these schools they would illustrate the point. In my own constituency there are schools such as Radcliffe School at Wolverton; the College of Further Education, also at Wolverton; Winslow, which is a modern secondary school; and Wing. Wing is redeemed by a lovely sylvan setting, but it does not alter the fact that this and the other buildings show rectangularity

1359
run riot, with an excessive amount of glazing, and nothing to break the severity of design, except an ugly chimney at Wolverton, or an eccentric superstructure like a hat box at Winslow.
If we go beyond my constituency we come across even more striking examples, such as High Wycombe High School for Girls, probably the ugliest school building erected in the last five years, some of the schools at Aylesbury, and Dunstable Girls' Grammar School and Dunstable Technical School in Bedfordshire. I do not know if the Minister plays golf. I hope he does, because it is good for Ministers of Education to take recreation now and then. If he does, and gets to Dunstable golf course, up on the Downs, as he goes to the fourth, fifth, sixth and even the seventh holes, he will see the beautiful panorama of Dunstable spread before him. As he looks over that expanse he will see the whole town, and spoiling the whole view are two buildings of extraordinary ugliness, Dunstable's two newest schools. I ask him to see this for himself, a panorama looking down on these monstrosities of architecture which masquerade as beauty according to the Minister's own handbook.
I am not going to blame the county architects entirely. I certainly would not dream of blaming the headmasters, the teachers, the governors or divisional executives because, when they put up objections to design, even to internal design, they are told by the architects, "This is what the Ministry wants" and the pamphlets are quoted in support. A lot can be adduced, not only from this pamphlet, but from all the other bulletins of the Ministry, that the Ministry's aim is to produce the simplest—and, incidentally, the most ugly—externals for schools today.
I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. I know it can be said:
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
and that this is only my opinion, but I ask him in all seriousness to withdraw pamphlet 33, go to the Royal Fine Art Commission, get it to look at these school buildings, and report. I see that Sir William Holford is a member of the Royal Fine Art Commission. Certainly what he has had to say recently about modern commercial buildings could be
1360
applied word for word to modern school buildings. I hope the Ministry will get an outside body, apart from its architects and development groups, to look at these schools. I suggest the Royal Fine Art Commission as a body which should advise the Ministry and its architects in this whole matter.
My second point is that one could bear this ugliness if it produced pleasant internal conditions and efficiency, but part of this ugliness consists in excessive glazing on the south side of classrooms. Here again the Ministry's advice is the cause. If hon. Members will again glance at this "Story of Post War School Building," they will find on page 33 the direct advice to architects that
"Every teaching room could be made to face south."
There are diagrams on pages 36 and 37 definitely showing that every classroom should ideally have the maximum possible sun coming through the maximum possible glass, and of course on the south side. The result is to turn the classroom into an incubator, or, better still, a greenhouse. The children are treated not as children but as tomatoes. The more heat you can generate through glass apparently, the better according to these designs.
A school that was opened only a few days ago, Wing Secondary Modern School, is shown in other photographs I have here. The glass in some rooms goes right down to the ground. In other words, there is a complete wall of glass. This is going beyond what the Ministry recommends for the Ministry says the glass should be only from the sills up.
The point I wish to make is that this sort of glazing of the classrooms produces greenhouse conditions. We have had the case, to which I have already drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention, at Carnforth in Lancashire, which is one of the Ministry's prize schools and which has been used as a show place for visiting educationists from all over the world. So many children in this school were affected by heat just before Whitsunthat the whole school, 400 children was sent home.
The Minister will remember that on 28th June I asked him a Question about this. I understand that he is making inquiries, and I certainly value very much his promise to let me see the full results

1361
of these inquiries when available. But the plain fact is that any horticulturist. or anybody with any experience of working under glass, knows that the temperature gradient under glass goes up by 16 to 20 per cent. during the school hours of June and July. While the outside temperature may be 80 degrees, which is hot enough, the school temperature may go up to 95 or 96 degrees. This creates almost impossible conditions for the children and teachers too.
The partial answer has been internal blinds. Again I would ask the Ministry to consider the experience of horticulturists in this matter. If horticulturists want to moderate the heat of greenhouses they do not have internal but external blinds, which deflect the heat before it gets under the glass. Once it gets under the glass the temperature certainly rises.
I need hardly say that for generations now industry has learned that the valuable light is the north light. This light does not give a reflection from machinery, from the drawing board or from the typewriter. Schools have rejected the experience of industry. They have gone out for maximum glare and under-glass heat, and the result is that we have many examples of eye strain and irritation. Alternately, we get lethargy and somnambulance on humid and hot days.
I want to be constructive in this matter. It is not my purpose just to condemn. The suggestion which I make is that the Ministry should ask the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to make investigations in schools on the subject of glare, temperature and humidity. I know that the D.S.I.R. has already made investigations into temperature, but I would like it to go into the effect of this extra glazing on internal room temperatures in the summer months, and this, again, with special reference to what one might call the minor tragedy of Carnforth in Lancashire.
My third point is that these new designs instead of being more economic than the old—if they were they could possibly be defended on the grounds of economy—actually cost more. I would refer the House to the Ministry of Education Building Bulletin No. 4 which is entitled "Cost Study." On page 137 of that Bulletin there is a very sound
1362
demonstration that windows fixed in metal sub-frames cost 22½ per cent. more than brick walls. It is extraordinary that windows should be more expensive than walls.
The Minister, I think, certainly agrees with me that if there is more glass than is needed, which is the fact today, we are increasing the cost of many schools unnecessarily. Therefore, in addition to obtaining greater efficiency by limiting the amount of glass facing south, my contention is that building economies would also be achieved. I ought not say that that money would be saved. Let me say boldly that we could spend this money on the children in better ways.
My next point is that every school in the country which has this new style of building—this glass shoe-box style with the maximum glare—has had to have curtains or blinds fitted, and these are expensive. The Ministry in its pamphlet o.n costs says that the cost of these for a primary school is now at least £500. For the Radcliffe School at Wolverton it may well be over £1,000. So much of this could be saved if the southern lights were limited and the northern lights expanded.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the third point I want to make on this, namely whether money now being spent on blinds and curtains to control the glare, irritation and extra heat could not be spent much more wisely on improving the exterior of the buildings.
To recapitulate, I ask the Ministry of Education, represented so ably tonight by the Parliamentary Secretary, to accept three suggestions. The first is to submit the whole question of the external design of schools to the Royal Fine Art Commission. The second is to invite the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to extend its investigations to include temperatures and humidities inside these classrooms and to investigate the question of glare, and their effects on children. The third is the cost investigation of curtains and blinds and their effectiveness when they are inside contrasted with when they are outside the glass.
I hope—I know that the Minister will agree with me in this—that we shall achieve the ideals which the Ministry

1363
has set out, namely, that we shall build schools which will embody the best that this generation has. I hope that they will show how far we applied our imagination and resources to the future of the country and not be, as they are now becoming, the ugliest monuments to the visual lack of imagination of our generation.
12.27 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I welcome the opportunity this evening of saying something about the school building programme and about the design and functional proprieties which have marked the progress of that building programme over the years since the war. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) for having stated in quite clear terms his views on the subject and the changes he would like to see made.
I can help best by saying at the beginning that there are one or two misapprehensions which can usefully be removed from his mind before we begin to consider exactly what happens in the preparation and building of a school. First, Pamphlet No. 33, from which my hon. and gallant Friend quoted, is not a directive in any form from the Ministry to local education authorities or to school architects. It is an historic account of what has happened in school building since the end of the war. It is not intended to have any force of recommendation or to contain anything in the form of guidance or precept for the future. It is an account of how we came to arrive at the situation in which the Ministry stands today in its relationship with local education authorities and with the architects who design, prepare and build the schools.
Nevertheless, the Ministry has a part to play in the process of seeing that the schools we need are provided where they are needed, in the numbers in which they are needed, and of a kind which will serve the purpose to be achieved. This is achieved by the use of three main controls by my Department.
In the first place, we exercise our judgment in the preparation of an overall building plan by which we are able to allot our resources among the various
1364
education authorities in the country so that they can see ahead to the points at which they will be called upon to start building the various schools which find a place in their building programmes. This programme is the first of the controls which the Department exercises. It enables authorities to see ahead and to know when their effort must be made in the one, two or three years before them, in the knowledge that, if they have a place for a school project in the building programme, there is very little, if any, likelihood of their efforts to be ready being frustrated or at a later date being subject to change.
The second control is that my right hon. Friend has to see that the schools which are provided in the building programme achieve at least a minimum standard in terms of functional efficiency in the building. He issues building regulations which say that a school for a certain number of primary children in a certain area, and in certain conditions, shall achieve certain minimum standards. These are simply the functional requirements of the school. They have nothing whatever to do with the design of the school from an aesthetic point of view. It is laid down simply that a school for a certain number of primary children, or secondary children, shall abide by certain minimum requirements.
The third control is that my right hon. Friend says that a school finding its place in the programme at a certain time and designed to accord with the regulations set out by the Department shall also be built within a certain ceiling cost set by the Department. The ceiling cost is not an idle, "catch-as-catch-can" piece of guesswork on the part of someone with a rather casual approach to the matter. It is the product of a great deal of research, much of which is referred to in the pamphlet No. 33 to which my hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention. It is the result of the accumulation of a great deal of experience over a long time and intensive study since the end of the war. Our present experience, of course, is the distillation of lessons learned, often at great cost in terms of money and certainly after travelling a very hard and difficult road since 1945, which we are now trying to harvest for the benefit of all those who are engaged in the job of providing the schools we need.

1365
My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly free to form his own judgment about what is a nice school or an ugly one. I am sure he will accord the same liberty to those who may or may not agree with him. I happen to take the view that many of our schools being built today achieve a quite remarkably high standard of attractiveness. Here, of course, we are dealing with the beauty which lieth in the eye of the beholder. It may be that the box-like structure which he condemns does not appeal to him. I know that it is possible to see too many of the box-like structures and to imagine that this is all that the architect can do.
I have myself seen in many parts of the country during the past nine months or so since I have held my present appointment many schools containing variants of the box-like structure, together with other structures having a different basis of design, which have produced a quite charming effect, some of them in areas to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred in his rather general castigation of this type of architecture.
I am not, however, called on to express an opinion about the aesthetic end product when the school is built. My right hon. Friend has no power to direct an architect to build a school of a certain design. That is the responsibility of the local architect employed by the local education authority. I am sure it is right that it should be left to the free choice and decision of the architect, with his education committee to guide him and his local authority to be satisfied, to have these things done as they, the local people on the spot, exercising their own free and uninhibited judgment on these matters, would like to have them. My right hon. Friend's duties end when he has carried out the requirements of the three main controls to which I have drawn attention.
We are not alone in feeling that our schools cannot be so bad after all, having taken full account of the rights of the individual to form his own choice about what he likes and what he dislikes. My right hon. Friend is leaving this weekend for Milan, where he is to attend the opening of the twelfth Milan Triennale, an exhibition of architecture from Europe. At the invitation of the
1366
Italian Government, we are exhibiting one of Britain's post-war schools built to designs which have been the distillation of the experience we have gained since the war, of which we are proud and of which, I believe, the Europeans who will see it will be envious. I have seen it myself. It is an attractive design in my eyes and it is functionally highly efficient and satisfying to those who work in it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity of seeing some schools built either to that design or to a compromise between that design and some of the other designs which have gone before and that, whilst they may not be his idea of the ultimate beauty of form, they will at least cause him to moderate to some extent his general criticism.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other points, but I have barely time to deal with them. The amount of glass in the side of a building has nothing whatever to do with my right hon. Friend or his regulations, except in so far as the results of inquiries and examinations conducted by the research department of the building industry show that there should be a minimum admission of light into a school from outside. Two per cent. is the figure that is thought to be the right amount of light which should come from outside to the inside of a room.
All that we say to the architect is that he must design his buildings so that the windows he provides will be of a size and properly sited to admit that amount of light into the school. Whether the architect wants it on the north or on the south side is no concern of my Department. It is a choice to be made by the architect himself. If he puts it on the south side and it is subject to strong sunlight, the architect must provide blinds, either inside or outside at his own choice or decision. What we say is that within the building cost limits that we set, he must make it possible to design the building within the terms I have described and find room—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Staff)
  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Staff)
  Housing
  Housing
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Unemployment, Greenock
  Unemployment, Greenock
  Schools, Glasgow (Damage)
  Schools, Glasgow (Damage)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Local Employment Act (Expenditure)
  Local Employment Act (Expenditure)
  Moquette Fabrics
  Moquette Fabrics
  Pedigree Livestock
  Pedigree Livestock
  East-West Trade
  East-West Trade
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee (Applications)
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee (Applications)
  Staffordshire Potteries Water Board (Tenders)
  Staffordshire Potteries Water Board (Tenders)
  Peruvian Fishmeal
  Peruvian Fishmeal
  N.A.T.O. (POLARIS)
  N.A.T.O. (POLARIS)
  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (STATEMENT)
  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (STATEMENT)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  QUESTIONS TO PRIME MINISTER
  QUESTIONS TO PRIME MINISTER
  WORLD REFUGEE YEAR (LETTER)
  WORLD REFUGEE YEAR (LETTER)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Credit Restrictions (North-East Area)
  Credit Restrictions (North-East Area)
  Imports
  Imports
  Cigarette Lighters (Duty)
  Cigarette Lighters (Duty)
  Civil Servants, Belfast
  Civil Servants, Belfast
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Firm, Birmingham (Smell Nuisance)
  Firm, Birmingham (Smell Nuisance)
  Land (Purchases)
  Land (Purchases)
  Land Site Values
  Land Site Values
  Land, Chesterton
  Land, Chesterton
  Land Development (Urban Areas)
  Land Development (Urban Areas)
  Urban Renewal Research Unit
  Urban Renewal Research Unit
HOUSING
  Building Programmes
  Building Programmes
  Land (Prices)
  Land (Prices)
FIJI
  Sugar Crop
  Sugar Crop
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Colour Discrimination
  Colour Discrimination
MALTA
  Television Service
  Television Service
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
TANGANYIKA
  Expatriate Civil Servants
  Expatriate Civil Servants
HONG KONG
  Bribery and Corruption (Committee)
  Bribery and Corruption (Committee)
  Colonial Regulations
  Colonial Regulations
  Petition
  Petition
  Gambling Organisation (Arrests)
  Gambling Organisation (Arrests)
UGANDA
  Bukedo Tax Riots (Report)
  Bukedo Tax Riots (Report)
  Franchise
  Franchise
  FUNDS IN COURT (REPORT)
  FUNDS IN COURT (REPORT)
  LAND TENURE
  LAND TENURE
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Brick Supplies
  Brick Supplies
ROYAL NAVY
  Rosyth Dockyard (Assisted Travel Scheme)
  Rosyth Dockyard (Assisted Travel Scheme)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Scottish Lochs
  Scottish Lochs
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Communist China (Press Correspondents)
  Communist China (Press Correspondents)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Unemployment, Scotland (Cost)
  Unemployment, Scotland (Cost)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Radio Frequencies (Allocation)
  Radio Frequencies (Allocation)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Glasgow (Damage)
  Kiosks, Glasgow (Damage)
ROADS
  M.1 (Weeds)
  M.1 (Weeds)
  Widening Scheme, Birmingham (Properties)
  Widening Scheme, Birmingham (Properties)

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

SHEERNESS HARBOUR BILL
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: 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 the Chairman of Committees when the Report of the Select Committee on the Sheerness Harbour Bill will be submitted to this House.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, the Report from the Select Committee to which the Sheerness Harbour Bill was committed, was, printed in the Minutes of the House for Thursday, June 23, as follows:
"That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, as I understand it, therefore, the Bill is dead on the decision of the Select Committee—a Bill which received a Second Reading in this House—after consideration of an Amendment which was subsequently withdrawn. What opportunity has the House of expressing a view on the decision of the Select Committee?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the only course open is for a Member of the House to move that the Bill be recommitted to another Select Committee. That has been done, but it has not been done for a very long time. The House might be interested to know that the last occasions I can find when it was done were in the 1880's. It was done on two occasions then and, as a matter of fact, on both those occasions the Bill was subsequently passed. But as far as I can find, it has not been done in this century. That, my Lords, as far as I can see, is the only course open to a Member of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House—I have not given him notice of this question—whether, if one is completely dissatisfied with a decision arrived at, based upon the manner in which the evidence for the Petitioners against the Bill was either not presented or not represented by witnesses, it would be quite in order for a noble Lord to put down a Motion to call attention to it and to debate it?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I think it is very important that the House generally should support the decisions of the Select Committees of this House which it appoints. Of course, I cannot myself control the actions of any noble Lord. If any noble Lord feels sufficiently strongly on a matter, then it is certainly open to him to do as the Lord Chairman suggests. I would only say that in the long history of this House it has very seldom been done. But if the noble Viscount, or any other noble Lord, feels that he wants to move that another Select Committee be appointed, then I could not prevent him.

SOVIET NOTE ON SHOT DOWN AMERICAN AIRCRAFT
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government, of which I have given them Private Notice. The Question is: To ask if Her Majesty's Government will make a statement about the Note received from the Soviet Government relating to the American aircraft shot down over the Barents Sea?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if it is convenient to the noble Viscount, I should like to answer that Question about half-past three or a little after that time.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COLLEC TION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1960
2.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the first of these two statutory instruments, which is concerned with the collection of levy, arises principally out of the abolition of entertainments duty in the Finance Bill. It is generally agreed, I think, that the producers as well as the exhibitors ought to share in the benefits of that abolition. Accordingly, it is proposed that the levy should be increased from one-tenth to one-ninth, but at the same time some modifications in favour of the exhibitors are proposed. First, there have always been some exhibitors who have been exempt from entertainments duty, and the existing regulations exempt these exhibitors also from payment of levy. But they do so in language which would result in those exhibitors becoming liable for levy now that the entertainments duty is being abolished. That anomaly is corrected by the amended Regulation 3 (2) (a) of the first instrument, and also in the Schedule. It is further proposed that the exemption limit shall be increased from £150 a week to £250. At the same time we have agreed to a request put forward by the exhibitors that in calculating the amount of takings for the purpose of exemption the receipts from charitable entertainments and children's entertainments shall be disregarded.
Then, in order to protect any exhibitor who might in exceptional circumstances actually suffer loss from these changes, it is provided in subsection (4) of the new Regulation 3 that the amount payable in levy shall not exceed the amount which would formerly have been payable in entertainments duty and the old levy combined. The intention of these changes, of course, is to ensure that the additional levy for the benefit of producers shall be paid mainly by the larger exhibitors who can afford to pay it and not by the smaller exhibitors whose financial difficulties are usually more acute. The result of the various modifications which we propose is that although the levy is increased from one-tenth to one-ninth it is estimated that the additional amount of levy available for distribution among the producers will only amount to £100,000.
124
The other instrument, which deals with the distribution of levy, gives effect to one or two undertakings made during the passage of the Cinematograph Films Act of this year. Your Lordships will remember that newsreels were brought in for the first time, but we promised that they would only receive the levy at the basic rate of their rental without the benefit of the two-and-a-half times multiplier; this is now provided for in paragraph 1 of this Statutory Instrument. Then we also promised that a newsreel which was classified as British on the understanding that over a period of three months it contained a certain proportion of British material, and failed to fulfil that undertaking, should cease to be qualified for receipt of levy and that is given effect to in paragraph (3) at the bottom of the first page of these amending Regulations. The only other change which we make in these Regulations is that we have met a request from the British Films Fund Agency that their balances of money may be invested in Treasury Bills instead of being left on deposit at the banks, so that they will get the benefit of the higher interest which is payable from Treasury Bills compared with the very meagre interest which is paid by banks to their clients on deposit.
We have consulted the Cinematograph Films Council about all these changes, and the Council has agreed to them. When they were approved last night in another place I notice that of the only two non-Government speakers who said anything, one remarked that this was the only thing the Board of Trade have ever done which had been received with unanimous approval by the film industry, and the other speaker remarked that the unanimity of the trade was so astonishing that it left her speechless. While I am not entitled to assume that your Lordships will be equally uncritical or equally speechless, I hope I may now move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl if he would help me? I find myself in some difficulty. I thought I had read the Regulations on the collection of levy

125
very carefully, but I can see no reference in it to the increase in the amount from one-tenth to one-ninth. Could he tell me precisely where it is?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is less than half-way down the first page, paragraph 3 (1):
"Subject to the provisions of this Regulation, the levy shall be computed by reference to the payments received by the person liable to pay the levy for admission to entertainments taking place during any period mentioned in Regulation 2 of these Regulations at any theatre and, in respect of each such payment, at the rate of one-ninth …"
I am sorry these lines are not numbered. It is on the first page of the Collection of Levy Regulations. The amount used to be one-tenth.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry, but I have another print. This slays "payment, at the Irate of 10 per cent."
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: These are the Regulations I am moving.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And these are the Regulations I have. Have there been two editions? This is the print I got from the Printed Paper Office. It is 1960.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They are all 1960.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My copy (says "Made…" then the date is blank. "Coming into Operation 17th April, 1960".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think perhaps the noble Lord has got hold of the old. Regulations, which I moved on the 5th April this year.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: These are the only copies available in the Printed Paper Office.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords may I say that I have just been at this moment to the Printed Paper Office to find out whether they have a copy of the draft Regulations which are relevant to the speech the noble Earl has made, but I can only get the old Regulations to which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth is referring.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am not responsible for the Printed Paper Office, but these are the amended
126
Regulations which I am moving. It seems to me that the noble Lord has a copy of the old Regulations which I remember moving on April 5 last, and not the new ones which I am now moving. If they are not available, I am sorry; but I did not know that they were not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Well, I am certain that I am not going to delay the proceedings by asking that we adjourn this debate so that the Printed Paper Office can be properly instructed. But I think it is very remiss, to put it no higher, that the appropriate Government Department cannot see that the proper documents are in the Printed Paper Office for the benefit of Members of your Lordships' House. I have been trying to follow the noble Earl's speech with my draft and I have not been able to do so. However, I listened to it most attentively, and I am not going to delay the approval of the Regulations.
Having some knowledge of the discussions that have gone on with the film industry, speaking for myself, and I think for other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, who holds a prominent position in the film industry and can comment for himself, I do not think we shall wish to delay these Regulations. There is only one point about which I want to ask the Minister. He said that these Regulations arise from the abolition of the entertainments duty. Before the noble Earl was such a prominent member of the Government Front Bench, from this side of your Lordships' House I raised a question in the debate in 1957 on the Bill which later became an Act and which set up the British Film Fund Agency. My question was as to who was going to pay for the collection of this levy, and was it going to be a charge on the fund. I wanted to know why the cinema industry was going to be charged by Customs and Excise for the cost of collecting this levy when, on behalf of Customs and Excise, the British film industry collected the entertainments tax for nothing. All I was told by the Government spokesman was "After all, it is only going to be a trivial amount."
I remember asking the Government spokesman how much it was going to be, and the first Government spokesman said that it was going to be less than one-half of one per cent. on the anticipated

127
revenue of £3¾ million. By a quick mental calculation I made that something in the region of £18,000. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who then occupied a similar position to that of the noble Earl, later on said, "There is going to be no mystery about it. On my humble reckoning, the sum is about £10,000 to £15,000." In the first report of the British Film Fund Agency I see that the amount for collecting this Fund was £34,100—another example of the inability of Her Majesty's Government to forecast what it costs to collect taxes.
What I want to ask the noble Earl is this: if it cost £34,100 for Customs and Excise to collect this levy when at the same time they collected the entertainments duty, now that there is no entertainments duty, what is the estimate of the noble Earl of what it is going to cost in future to collect this money? It is a charge on the Fund and I think we should know something about it.
I was going to make a suggestion to him—I do not know whether it is a good one; it may be a good one from one point of view and a bad one from another. Before we set up the British Film Fund Agency, this levy was operated on a voluntary basis by the industry itself. My information is that in those days it cost about £20,000 to collect. Now there is a statutory body and a statutory levy. If I were to suggest to the noble Earl that if the Government at some time thought it wise to revert to its being a voluntary levy it might cost less to collect, I have the unhappy suspicion that his answer to me would be, "Yes; but when it is a voluntary levy there is no enforcement of payment. The advantage of having a statutory levy is that everybody has to pay, because payment can be enforced." So I am not going to press the point of turning it over once again to the industry. But I should like him to tell the House—I gave him notice that I was going to ask this question, so perhaps he has come armed with the information—what is the approximate estimate of the cost in the future. I ask that because next year, or when the British Film Fund Agency produce another annual report and statement of accounts, I do not want to see the costs go up. Because they have only to collect this levy and they will not be able to
128
offset any of their costs against collecting entertainments duty. That is all I have to say. I wish the industry well. I think perhaps the Fund may be a little bigger in the future. Broadly, I believe it has been received well by the industry and by every well wisher of the industry.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the only thing I wanted to say was that 23 or 24 years ago your Lordships were often put in great difficulties because Departments laid Orders in blank on the Table and noble Lords who were interested in them could never draw them to ascertain what was in the Order. It was an abuse which was most strongly protested against, and I had hoped that it had been cured by now. I am sorry to see that it has been creeping back, and I hope that the noble Earl will make such representations as will prevent its happening again, so that when Orders are to be approved by your Lordships they should be made available to your Lordships from the Printed Paper Office.
2.59 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, I do not want to delay the approval of these Regulations. I must say that the absence of the correct draft Regulations put me in no difficulty—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I may just interrupt the noble Lord, immediately this point was raised my noble friend beside me went to the Printed Paper Office to see what was the matter, and he has come back with a copy of the amended Regulations which I am now moving. So they are there. I do not know by what misunderstanding some of your Lordships have an out-of-date copy instead of the amended Regulations which are on the Order Paper. But they are in the Printed Paper Office; I gat this one some minutes ago from the Printed Paper Office.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, did the noble Earl's colleague find out at what time they were there? I had two copies yesterday afternoon and another one to-day at a quarter to one, and those were for April, 1960. So they must have realised their mistake and substituted the right ones for the wrong ones.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will inquire at what time they were in the Printed Paper Office, but they were certainly there at the moment when the noble Lord made his protest.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I do not want to labour the point, but when I heard the noble Earl speaking I could not relate the points he was making to the numbers of the paragraphs in the draft that I had had from the Printed Paper Office, and I went back to that Office and asked that a search be made for the draft on which the noble Earl was speaking. It was not available then —which was not more than two minutes before his noble friend found them there; so the mystery, I suggest, is still unsolved.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we seem to be reducing the period during which the crime took place to narrow limits.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I must confess, that I had no difficulty in following the noble Earl, because naturally I was familiar with the proposals which were contained in the draft Order which I had been unable to obtain; and I followed the matter, therefore, from pre-knowledge and not through having the advantage of the printed sheet. In an industry like the cinema industry, where there are naturally very divergent interests as between, so to speak, producer, wholesaler and retailer, it is very difficult to get complete unanimity with regard to proposals of this character; and I should like to pay a tribute to the Board of Trade, and particularly to the officials concerned, for the ingenuity which they have shown in producing Regulations which are not opposed (and I will not put it higher than that) by any section of the industry but which, on the whole, are accepted, if not corn-mended, by all sections of the industry. I believe, therefore, that it would be true to say that not only has the Cinematograph Films Council given its blessing but that, by and large, the industry is also in agreement with these Regulations. I am, naturally, still anxious to hear the reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not take too seriously his suggestion of reverting from statutory to voluntary levy.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have just been informed that these Orders which I am now moving were published on June 21. With regard to what might be called "The Mystery of the Printed Paper Office" and the question of why they were not there and, so to speak, "who done it?", I will do my best to examine the question and let both noble Lords know.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, did the noble Earl give the date as June 31?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, the Orders were published on June 21—quite a long time ago.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, when the noble Earl has made inquiries and obtained the information, will he let the House know about it? Because this is not a matter that should be treated lightly. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth thinks it right (and my noble friend Lord Archibald has concurred) to let this Regulation go through; but it is a very serious matter if a Regulation is before the House and if noble Lords have asked for the text of that particular amending Regulation and have been given the wrong one; because the House does not know what it is doing. This is rather a mockery of the responsible conduct of Parliamentary affairs. I think there is a responsibility on the Government to find out what happened and for the noble Earl to make a public statement to-morrow, or on some other day, on what occurred.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, but I am at a disadvantage because the only pieces of information I have are, first, that the Orders were published on June 21, and, second, that. I found them in the Printed Paper Office about a quarter of an hour ago when clearly they were there. But I will certainly find out what has gone wrong and let the House know.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for giving me notice that he intended to ask about the cost of collection. He is quite right in saying that the original estimate of the cost, which I believe was one-half of 1 per cent.—which he worked out at £18,000 —was an under-estimate. In the last year for which we have a published figure

131
the cost was £34,000, which is about 0·92 per cent. But the noble Lord is not quite correct about the cost under the voluntary levy. The figure of £20,000 which he referred to under the old voluntary levy represented the cost of administration, not collection. At that time the Customs collected the tax freely, at a cost to the public and not to the film industry. That is not so now. Under the 1957 Act the cost of collection is borne by the Fund and not by the taxpayer.
The Board of Trade have considered whether collection could be made more cheaply from the distributors, but they reached the conclusion that there was no point in contemplating a change in the law; and for a number of reasons they considered that there would be grave difficulties in collecting levies from distributors of films, so that it will continue to be done by the Customs. As the noble Lord rightly said, since we cannot now divide it up between entertainments duty and levy, the amount applicable to the collection of levy will be considerably more than £34,000. It is very difficult to give an estimate of the cost of collecting the levy in a full year when entertainments duty is abolished. The Customs can make only a tentative estimate, and they have suggested a figure of a little over £50,000; but that must be treated with considerable reserve as it is only a provisional estimate. I should have expected it would be something in that region, because when we consider that they collected both taxes—the levy and the entertainments duty—it seems clear that there must have been a very considerable saving in the amount applicable.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Earl be kind enough to explain to the House why it should cost £34,000 when entertainments duty also is collected and that when we take off the cost of collecting the entertainments duty the figures should jump to £50,000? Surely they will employ less. Has the British film industry to subsidise the Customs and Excise in duties outside the collection of this levy? That is what it sounds like to me. I should have thought it would not cost any more, because it would take less trouble and less expense, with less staff.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl has taken into account the much smaller number of exhibitors from whom the levy will have to be collected, in view of the raising of the exemption limit for levy from £150 to £250?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that illustrates the great difficulty the Customs and Excise are under in making any estimate at all. They did not want to make an estimate, but after the noble Lord had given me notice that he was to raise this matter I have got from them the best figure I could; and I was asked to make clear that it was a very provisional figure which must be treated with great reserve, for reasons such as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald has mentioned. It is obvious, however, that the figure of £34,000 was not the whole cost, but that part of the cost of collecting the two taxes in one go which was allocated to the levy. The cost of collecting the levy and entertainments duty together must have been more than £34,000. That figure was what the Customs considered was a fair proportion of their work to allocate to the collection of the levy. Now that they do not have to collect any entertainments duty they still have to have a fairly large amount of correspondence with people who used to pay both levy and entertainments duty, and that will be about as expensive as sending out one notice to collect both.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DISTRI BUTION OF LEVY) (AMEND MENT) REGULATIONS, 1960
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL
Read 2a(according to Order), and referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Establishment and constitution of Mental Welfare Commission]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking made by my right honourable friend on Report stage in another place. Its effect is to write into the Bill what, in any case, my right honourable friend would have ensured: that the position of Commissioner in the Mental Welfare Commission cannot be held by anyone while he is a civil servant, which includes medical commissioners; so that medical officers employed by the Department of Health for Scotland are barred. There can thus be no doubt about the impartiality of the Mental Welfare Commission in the exercise of its new duties to protect the interests of the patient. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) No person who for the time being is employed in the civil service of the Crown whether in an established capacity or not, and whether for the whole or Part of his time, shall be appointed to the Mental Welfare Commission; and for the Purposes of this subsection civil service of the Crown includes the civil service of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Foreign Service and Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Proposals for provision of services by local health authority
".—(1) Every local health authority shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, submit to the Secretary of State proposals for carrying out their duties under this Act.
The Secretary of State may specify different periods under this section for proposals relating to different duties.
(2) Not later than the day on which any proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State the local health authority shall serve a copy thereof—

(a) on every voluntary organisation with which the local health authority proposes to make arrangements for the purposes of section twelve of this Act;

(b) on the Executive Council constituted under Part IV of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 and the Regional Hospital Board for the area in which any part of the area of the local health authority is situated;

and any such voluntary organisation, Council or Board may within two months of the service on them of a copy of the proposals make recommendations to the Secretary of State for modifying the proposals, and shall, not later than the day on which such recommendations are made, serve a copy thereof on the local health authority.
(3) The Secretary of State may approve the proposals with or without modifications, which may include additions or exceptions, or may remit to the local health authority to submit new proposals, and it shall be the duty of the local health authority to carry out their aforesaid duties in accordance with the proposals submitted and approved for their area under this section.
(4) A local health authority may at any time, and if directed by the Secretary of State shall within such period as he may specify, submit new proposals, and the last two foregoing subsections shall apply to any such new proposals.
(5) If any local health authority fail to submit any proposals which they are required to submit within a period specified by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may himself make proposals, and they shall have effect as if they had been submitted and approved under the foregoing provisions of this section:
Provided that, before making any such proposals, the Secretary of State shall serve a copy of the draft proposals on the local health authority and on every voluntary organisation which to the knowledge of the Secretary of State provides in the area of the authority services of the kind dealt with in the proposals and on the bodies mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, and give an opportunity to that authority and

135
those organisations and bodies to make recommendations to him for modifying the proposals."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name upon the Order Paper. I may explain that my noble friend Lord Greenhill should be moving this Amendment, but unfortunately he is delayed in Scotland; so he has asked me to look after it for him and to do my best. If I display a lamentable ignorance of Scottish local government and Scottish Mental Health Service provisions, I hope that the Committee will excuse me, but I have had very short notice to cope with this subject.
The purpose of the Amendment is to strengthen the Secretary of State's hand in seeing that the local authorities actually implement the schemes which are the essential basis of this Bill. As the Committee will be aware, this is Mental Health Week, and The Times newspaper to-day has a very fine leading article on the implementation of an Act on this subject dealing with England and Wales. The one point about which The Times newspaper expresses doubt is the capacity and enthusiasm and ability of the local health authorities to do the actual work of carrying out the creation of these new community services, which is essential if the Act is to mean anything at all. The Times points out the shortage of expert workers, of psychiatric social workers, and of the homes, and so on, and it says:
"Nor is there any evidence that local authorities by and large have carefully ascertained what the precise needs are going to be. What sort of care will they need? How many will be capable of doing work? That the authorities have by and large accepted the principle that something must be done is easier to believe than that they know exactly what it is."
If we had been perhaps a little quicker off the mark when dealing with the England and Wales Mental Health Bill, before it became an Act, we might have suggested a similar provision to that which I am now proposing on behalf of my noble friend.
The point here is that we have lifted a clause out of the National Health Service Act. We have simply taken the section in the National Health Service Act which provides for the local authorities: to take the necessary steps to make a
136
scheme and submit it to the Secretary of State by a certain day, and then to make sure that they carry it out. In fact, if one takes the new clause, subsection by subsection, as we have put it down, it well be seen that it falls into a series of parts. First, it enables the Secretary of State to specify a date by which schemes have to be submitted. It makes a sort of "appointed day" for the submission of schemes. Secondly, it makes sure that all the parties concerned know about these schemes. The third thing it does is to make it a duty on the local authority to carry out the scheme once it has been approved. Fourthly, it enables the local authority to submit new schemes if things have changed; and, finally, it contains a sanction: that if a local authority fails to submit a scheme, then the Secretary of State may himself draw up a scheme.
I am sorry that this is such a formidable-looking new clause, but its purpose is quite simple. It is to make sure that the Secretary of State has the power to make this Bill a reality. Needless to say, we are not in any way wedded to the wording; we are concerned with the reality. We want to make sure that there is a service such as we all want to see, and that the Secretary of State has the power to see that the local authorities do the job. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for entering the lists on behalf of Scotland. He expressed doubts about the ability and enthusiasm of the local authorities to do this work. That is a task for all of us, and we must be especially glad of the growing interest taken by the public generally in mental health, which so much helps all concerned. The question that faces me is whether the Bill would be strengthened, or whether our efforts would be strengthened, by putting this new clause in this Bill. I must agree with the noble Lord that its provisions are necessary.
Except for two necessary drafting points, the new clause is an exact duplicate of Section 21 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, which deals with the local health authority's duty to

137
submit to the Secretary of State proposals for the provision of services under Sections 22 to 27 of that Act. The noble Lord will remember that Section 21 applies to Sections 22 to 27 of the 1947 Act. So far as training and occupation functions of the local health authority are concerned, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 12, he will see that it specifically applies Section 21 of the 1947 Act to the Bill; in other words, the new clause is specifically applied to the training and occupation functions. So far as the general functions of the local health authorities are concerned, Clause 7 of the Bill adopts Section 27 of the 1947 Act, which automatically applies Section 21 of that Act. What Clause 7 does, as well as adopting Section 21, or applying it, as the noble Lord wishes, is to expand Section 27 of the 1947 Act to cover mentally disordered people as well. I must tell the noble Lord that I am advised that the intentions of his new clause are already fully achieved in the Bill as it stands, and that there would be no advantage at all in giving my right honourable friend the power that the noble Lord wishes by re-enacting Section 21 of the 1947 Act at length in this Bill. For that reason, I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord, and I must ask your Lordships not to accept the new clause.
LORD TAYLOR: Could the noble Lord explain two points? Will there in fact be an appointed day, as it were, by which time schemes must be submitted; and, having been approved, will these schemes then be mandatory on the local authorities for them to carry out?
LORD CRAIGTON: As I explained on Second Reading, we must go very gently here. We must not make any scheme mandatory on a local authority that the local authority cannot properly carry out. What we are therefore going to do is to ask the local authorities to submit schemes, then get all concerned to examine them, and then, in the end, we shall have to make mandatory a scheme which the local authorities feel that they are able to carry out in a proper manner.
LORD TAYLOR: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, and on the undertaking that he has given I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.22 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Provision for training of psychiatric social workers and occupational therapists
"The Secretary of State shall make provision for the training of psychiatric social workers and occupational therapists and shall co-operate with local authorities and other employing bodies in providing field work training of the necessary standard."
The noble Lord said: This second new clause deals with something which my friends in another place found was out-with the scope of the Bill. In other words, they were trying to implement the Younghusband Report by adapting this Bill, in so far as it affected psychiatric social workers and occupational therapists. Having found that it was impossible to introduce a training council for social workers, we thought the best way to tackle it would be to make sure that the Secretary of State had powers to assist in and to encourage the training of psychiatric social workers and occupational therapists, and power to co-operate with the local authorities in this matter.
I understand that the situation with regard to trained occupational therapists in Scotland is a very serious one. Apparently, there are only about 47 trained occupational therapists in Scotland, and at one hospital, the Hartwood and Hartwood Hill Hospital, there is not a single trained occupational therapist. Clearly something needs to be, done. How it should be done I do not profess to know for certain, and I am not at all sure that the wording of my new clause is the right wording. One might have preferred to say that the Secretary of State shall have power to assist in the making of provision rather than that he should himself make provision, because it might be that it should be done through some voluntary agency with his assistance; but we should like to feel sure that he has the power to provide the raw material for the working of this Bill, because unless he has these trained social workers and occupational therapists, then these local authorities cannot really do their job. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD CRAIGTON: We have no quarrel at all with the intention behind this

139
new clause. We have carefully considered it and have decided that it would not be right to put into the Bill this obligation on the part of the Secretary of State, and I hope to be able to convince the noble Lord that we are right. First, let us take the training of occupational therapists. These skilled people are only one group of a number of medical auxiliaries employed in all types of hospitals, not merely in mental or mental deficiency hospitals. There are also, for instance, radiographers or physiotherapists. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to single out one type of medical auxiliary for specific statutory provision of this kind, especially in a Statute dealing only with mental health. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the training of occupational therapists is a serious matter, and it is being treated very seriously. There is a long-established training school at the Astley Ainslie Hospital in Edinburgh, and the Western Regional Hospital Board are, at the request of my right honourable friend, investigating where in Glasgow a second Scottish school should be established.
Then there is the training of psychiatric social workers: the actual provision of training for psychiatric social workers is a matter for the university authorities, with grant aid from the Department for individual students where it is appropriate. So it really would not be right to transfer this function from the university authorities to my right honourable friend. But this training, too, is not being neglected. At present, there is a year's university course, and my right honourable friend has already arranged for his Department to discuss with the psychiatric social workers how best their numbers can be increased. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will appreciate that, in rejecting this Amendment—on the grounds, as I have said, that it would not be appropriate to put into a Mental Health Bill one of a number of medical auxiliaries, or to transfer from the university the functions they are already carrying out—we are already doing what this Amendment seeks to do, and that it would not be appropriate to write into the Bill the new clause which he desires
LORD TAYLOR: I have never been really satisfied that if one could not go, the whole way one should not do any-
140
thing at all. I must say that I should have liked the noble Lord to take back this clause and look at it again, to see whether there was not some way by which he could at least permit himself to assist in these processes without specifying the nature of the professions supplementary to medicine which would require assistance—and I do see the difficulty there. For example, I should like to feel that he had the power to make grants to assist in the maintenance of such persons during their training period. One knows that it is the most difficult thing at the present time to get girls (these are primarily women) to come forward for this type of work, and one would have hoped that he could say something a little more positive on the subject of training, although I admit at once, of course, the validity of his claim that the mechanism by which the machinery of training should operate should continue to be through the universities and the regional hospital boards.
LORD CRAIGTON: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, may I point out that I did say that in the case of psychiatric social workers my right honourable friend has power to make grants in appropriate cases.
LORD TAYLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. What about occupational therapists? Has he the power there?
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like notice of that question.
LORD TAYLOR: I hope that the noble will look at it; and, if he has not the power, perhaps we can persuade him to put down an appropriate clause on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 8 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Detention or guardianship of certain patients after the age of twenty-five]:
LORD CRAIGTON: With your Lordships' approval, I will mention with this Amendment Nos. 5 and 6. These are all drafting Amendments. After Amendments in another place, subsection (1) of Clause 40 has become too long. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 18, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(2) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection,").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 19, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 21, leave out ("said age") and insert ("age of twenty-five").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 26, after ("patient") insert ("and").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: Under the Bill, the Board of Management or local health authority concerned receive reports from the responsible medical officers which renew authority for detention or guardianship after the special review when the patient reaches the age of twenty-five. By this Amendment, the Board of Management or local health authority, on receiving such a report, must forthwith inform the patient, and his nearest relative. This is important, as the patient or relative has only twenty-eight days from the patient's twenty-fifth birthday in which to decide whether to exercise his right of appeal to the sheriff. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 27, after ("informed") insert ("forthwith").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Requirements as to medical evidence]:
LORD CRAIGTON: By leave of the Committee I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. They are required as they apply to children or young persons compulsorily detained after being brought before a juvenile court the right which is given
142
to others in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 57, for the child or his guardian to arrange for a medical examination, in private if so desired, for the purpose of producing evidence to rebut the medical reports on which he was committed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 24, after first ("person") insert ("that subsection (4) shall have effect as if for the reference to an accused person there was substituted a reference to a child or young person").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 26, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("the said subsection (3)".—(Lord Craigton)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Removal of alien patients]:
3.32 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after "there" to insert:
"and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him,".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is rather unusual. When a person who is mentally ill is to be moved from Scotland to England or Wales, or from England or Wales to Scotland, under the terms of the Bill, there is a provision stating that it must be in the interests of the person to remove him. When, however, an alien becomes mentally in Scotland, these words are omitted. It seemed to my honourable friends in another place that this was a little hard and that aliens should not be treated differently from citizens of the United Kingdom, particularly in so much as we all feel, that the National Health Service is something of which we are very proud and should be available to everybody who lives in this country. Therefore, they proposed twice, once on Committee and once on Report stage, that the same words should apply to aliens as apply to natives of Scotland, England and Wales.
We now hope that the Government may have had second thoughts, or that perhaps they may be prepared to accept the slightly altered wording of my Amendment, and make it so that at least it

143
should not be against the patient's interests if he were removed to another country. In the old days, patients in mental hospitals for treatment were usually there for prolonged periods but nowadays, thank goodness! most new admissions are there for short periods and, therefore, in future it will be very rare that an alien, having been admitted to a mental hospital, will remain there for a period of more than six weeks or so—at least we hope so. However, there will be rare cases, of the senile patient or the patient who dements, and the mental hospital in question will apply to send that patient off to his distant domicile, wherever it may be. All we ask is that, before any such removal is contemplated, not only should the Secretary of State make sure that arrangements at the receiving end are adequate, as he already does under this clause, but he should also assure himself that it is not against the patient's interests to make this removal. I hope that, having given way on the two previous Amendments, the Government may feel that they can accept this Amendment, or at least look at it to see whether, in a slightly altered form, it may be acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 28, after ("there") insert ("and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him,")—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a borderline case. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is not asked more often to bat for Scotland. The Government are convinced by what the noble Lord has said, and I would ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
LORD TAYLOR: I thank the noble Lord very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 118 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Transitional Provisions]:
LORD CRAIGTON: Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move the first one.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 14, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("and section fifty-one").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 18, leave out ("that section") and insert ("the said section thirty-nine").(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on Amendments having been made in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 51, after second ("of") insert ("section eighty-nine of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857,").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
LORD CRAIGTON: With your Lordships' approval, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 together. This Bill introduces the one concept of mental disorder as covering all forms of mental illness and mental deficiency. So it is essential to replace the obsolete and less acceptable forms of description contained in existing Statutes. Your Lordships will be as glad as I am to see the last of "lunatics", "idiots" and "fatuous or furious" persons. Many of these have already been disposed of in the Fourth Schedule. The task of tracing references in so many Acts could not be completed by the time the Bill left another place. This series of Amendments, and a few to follow in a few minutes, add, in their correct chronological order, what I hope are the remainder of the Acts to be amended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 9, at end insert—
("The Land Tax Redemption Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3. c. 116)
In section fourteen, as it applies to Scotland, for the words lunatics or of idiots' and `lunatics, idiots', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
The Admiralty (Signal Stations) Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3. c. 128)
In section three, as it applies to Scotland, for the words lunatics, idiots' there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. 1960'.
The Defence Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 94)
In sections ten and eighteen, as they apply to Scotland, for the words 'lunatics, idiots' there shall be substituted the words 'persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. 1960'.
The Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 17)
In section eighty-two, for the words 'be a lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person, such lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, and is incapable by reason of his mental disorder of managing and administering his property and affairs, he'.
The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 19)
In section seven, for the words 'lunatics or idiots, fatuous or furious persons' and for the words 'lunatics, idiots, fatuous and furious persons', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
In section sixty-seven, for the words 'lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person' there shall be substituted the words 'person suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
In section sixty-nine, for the word 'lunacy' there shall be substituted the words 'incapacity by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
In section seventy, for the words 'idiotcy, lunacy' there shall be substituted the words 'incapacity by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Her Majesty's Government are very much to be congratulated upon the introduction of this series of Amendments. Of this matter I can speak with some personal knowledge, having been for over twenty years a director, and for the greater part of that time chairman, of one of the Scottish royal mental hospitals. We are now, thank Heaven! approaching the time when the public at large will realise that a mental illness should be treated mutatis mutandis in exactly the same way as physical illness, and that there is no reason why a person who suffers from some form of mental illness should not be restored to as complete health as, say, someone who has broken a leg. In the past this stigma of "lunacy" has been one of the greatest deterrents to the
146
recovery of patients. We are now trying more and more to get them to enter mental hospitals as voluntary patients, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said, fortunately the duration of their stay there is now one usually of weeks rather than of months, or even of years, as used to be the case. There is no doubt whatever that the abolition of this deplorable word "lunacy" will do a great deal to induce people to take this early treatment, which is often imperative if they are to be restored to complete mental health.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for voicing in such wise words the growing understanding of mental illness in the mind of the public today.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 37, at end insert—
("The Defence Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 112)
In section eleven, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'lunatics, idiots' there shall be substituted the words 'persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 43, at end insert—
("In section twenty-four, as it applies to Scotland, for the words lunatics, idiots, and furious and fatuous persons' there shall be substituted the words ` persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.").— (Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 6, at end insert—
("The Building Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42)
In section twenty-six, as it applies to Scotland, for the words becomes a lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
The Trade Union Act, Amendment Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 22)
In section four, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'becomes a lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I think that for the purposes of the statement I have to make, it will be as well to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

SOVIET NOTE ON SHOT DOWN AMERICAN AIRCRAFT
3.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lards, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked a Question in similar terms to the Question which is being asked by the Leader of the Opposition in another place. The terms of the Question, I would remind the House are:
"To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement about the Note received by Her Majesty's Government from the Soviet Government relating to the American aircraft shot down over the Barents Sea."
The Prime Minister is answering a similar Question, and I will give the Answer in the terms that he uses. They are as follows:
"Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow was handed a Note on the evening of the 11th of July stating that on the 1st of July an American RB-47 aircraft on an intelligence mission violated Soviet air space in the Barents Sea near the Kola Peninsula and was shot down over Soviet territorial wasters. The Note said that according to captured members of the crew the aircraft had left a British base on the 1st of July with orders to return there an the conclusion of their mission. The Note ended by protesting to Her Majesty's Government against the use of its territory on this occasion.
"The Note, which was of some length, was given to the Press by the Soviet Government yesterday evening. It is now being studied and a reply will of course be sent in due course. Meanwhile I would prefer to make no further statement to-day."
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for making that statement, but the position of the present
148
relationships between East and West seems to be so serious that, while we should in no sense get over-excited about statements made from Moscow and the like, it surely is becoming essential that the public, and especially Parliament, should know the facts, and know them from the Government.
I could understand in a way what the Prime Minister has said about having time to study the Soviet Note, but I would point out to the noble Earl, first, that this plane was shot down on July 1, and to-day is July 12; and that the twelve days have included a prolonged search for the plane. It is true that Russia has taken the extraordinary step of not revealing the shooting down of the plane for several days, but there has been ample time to get the real facts of the situation and what the public want to know since July 1. Did we have any knowledge of U.2, for example? Did we have any consultation with the American authorities about the plane leaving the base in Britain for this flight on which it was shot down over the Barents Sea?
The Prime Minister says that the Government want to study the Note before they give an answer. But I must point out to the noble Earl, in case they are having another ministerial meeting to-day, that over the tape this morning I got this:
"The Moscow announcement came as a genuine surprise to British and United States authorities. The act was described in Defence Ministry circles as appalling'. Nothing was known of the whereabouts of the aircraft, and the 10-day search was a genuine one. The Ministry spokesman reiterated that the flight was a perfectly legal one for scientific purposes, and the route was known to the Ministry. It is in fact virtually impossible for any clandestine mission to be made by a foreign aircraft from a British base, since the flight plan must be made known and all necessary steps taken to ensure the aircraft's security."
If the Ministry of Defence can issue that in reply to Press questions, how is it that the Prime Minister cannot inform Parliament of the situation in more up-to-date terms than the Answer that has just been given to us?
Moreover, on the tape came over only an hour ago now the statement by Mr. Hagerty, the Press Secretary to the President of the United States, which is as follows:
"He accused Russia of a deliberate and reckless attempt to create an international incident by shooting down"

149
et cetera. He said:
"RB-47 was over international waters and at no time was over Soviet territorial waters, or Soviet air space."
If the United States are in close consultation with their principal partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is it not possible for the Prime Minister to inform Parliament with equal celerity and factuality? How is it that we are still to be delayed? Have the Government seen, not the leader in the Daily Herald this morning, which was quite moving, but the leader in the Daily Mail this morning, usually regarded as a strong Government paper, in which it evinces anxiety about the position of the public and what they are doing.
If I may come more up to date than that, as I understand it—I have not the actual terms—in reply to Questions on the U2 incident in another place to-day, after Question Time, the Prime Minister said that it had never been the practice to discuss such matters in the House and it would be contrary to the public interest to depart from precedent now. I suggest to your Lordships and to the noble Earl the Leader of the House that, in those circumstances, if there is something about the situation which cannot be discussed in public, if we could have a private session of Parliament we could get at the facts and avoid all unnecessary panic thinking in the country, which we all want to avoid. We are not accustomed to panic in this country. I think that the further delay in getting at the facts, either about the U2, or about this latest incident over the Barents Sea. is hardly to be justified.
3.50 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount has said, but I am not in complete harmony with him. After all, the statement which we should like to have from the Government is in answer to this allegation made by Russia only a few hours ago. I think it is only reasonable that the Government should be given time to digest this rather lengthy Russian document before they can refute it. On the other hand, the facts of the operation, which occurred some eleven or twelve days ago, must be known, and if the Ministry of Defence have thought fit to publish some statement on it, then I think the public would like something from the Government. I would support
150
the noble Viscount in suggesting that we might have some sort of private session in which this matter could be discussed further. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House knows that we have no desire to ask embarrassing or difficult questions. On the other hand, I am sure he also knows that we rely upon him, as we always have done, to inform the House as much as he can and as soon as he can.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I remember private sessions in another place quite often, and I am sure they never did anything to allay public anxiety; on the other hand, often they rather increased it. I think the noble Viscount is right. Of course, this is a serious situation in which we find ourselves to-day, and such matters as this aggravate the seriousness of it. What we are not anxious to do is to have information coming out in bits and pieces, a snippet here, in answer to a supplementary question, and another piece there. The intention is that the Russian Note should be answered, and our answer, of course, will be made available to the House after it has been delivered to the Russians.
I do not think that the noble Viscount's complaint of delay is really justifiable. The Russians behaved in a very peculiar way. They said that for the first few days they were helping to hunt for the plane, but in fact they knew all the time that they had shot it down. We have only very recently received this Note. All I can say is that we will answer the Soviet Note; that, having ascertained all the facts and mobilised them, they will be available to Parliament. I think that that will be the time to give it the consideration which the noble Viscount wishes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, it seems to me to be a rather extraordinary position. Exactly what arrangements, in this period of world tension, the Government make to prevent mistakes being made, I do not quite know. Have they been warned at the Ministry of Defence not to hand out some pieces of partial information as were handed out this morning, which was to be denied apparently in the Prime Minister's reply to Parliament? Are precautions being taken in these matters at all? With

151
regard to the U.2 incident, we have had nothing but stonewalling from the Prime Minister on the basis of the answer again given this afternoon—that because it is a matter of intelligence it cannot be discussed in Parliament. What the public want to know is whether we were ever consulted on this matter, and they want to know on this occasion officially, and not merely by a haphazard "handout" to the Press by the Minister of Defence.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am not fully acquainted with the procedure in the Ministry of Defence, but I notice that what was put out on the tape at 10.12 was cancelled at 10.29, so perhaps the House would do well not to pay too much attention to what was said by somebody on that occasion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLS-BOROUGH: It seems rather a pity that it was cancelled without any effect, because here it is in the second edition —not the first—of the Evening News. If you come to the Evening Standard, apparently all kinds of information has gone from the Ministry of Defence. It describes, which I think it is perfectly proper to describe, the R.B.47 as a ten-year-old obsolete plane, but with extraordinary camera equipment, capable of taking coastal photographs of up to 150 miles. They excuse that from the point of view that it could do so without harm to themselves, so long as they were not attacked by aggressive fighters. How you are going to prove whether they were nearer to territorial waters than that, I do not know. But is it not extraordinary that the conversations between our Government and the United States have been so unsatisfactory since the failure of the Summit; that these assays by aircraft might have been cut right out until there was a more solid basis on which we could take up further negotiations?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should have thought that the complaints which the noble Viscount made about partial information coming out rather reinforces my point that, before we come to any definite conclusion, we ought to get all the facts and the whole story placed into the Note to the Soviet Government, which Parliament will have at its disposal. On the second matter, we
152
have had working arrangements (as the noble Viscount knows, we have had them for many years, ever since the Attlee-Truman agreement with regard to the use of bases in this country) with the Americans, and whether they can be improved or modified in any respect is a matter which no doubt the Prime Minister takes up from time to time with the Americans. But, of course, this working with the Americans has been going on for many years.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, what has happened to-day suggests a lack of control at the Defence Ministry, which is generally in close touch with the Prime Minister, at least in my experience. If statements are made, and then apparently have to be revoked, it rather suggests lack of co-operation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is not just this country or this Parliament which is interested? The whole world is looking on. We may be silent, but other people will not be silent. First of all, our Allies in America have several Departments giving several statements—none of which many people believe—on these subjects. Then we have the Russians. They have this plane. It is very peculiar that, if it was not in a territorial area, it fell into a territorial area. That is the first thing. It is very queer. The second thing is that they have the evidence of the crew, and the evidence of the U.2 and Captain Powers. The world will not wait to hear what is the final reply of the Government. They will put all these things together and make their judgment. And the issue of peace and war now depends upon the judgment of the world. I think myself that the situation is as terrifying as the one that I remember in August, 1914.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble Viscount opposite is apparently prepared to take the Russian report as accurate in all respects.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Not at all.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: If the noble Viscount is not, does that not reinforce the view of my noble friend the Leader of the House, that we should find out exactly what has happened before the Government attempt to provide any further information to Parliament or the public?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Before that point is answered, I think I am within the recollection of your Lordships in all parts of the House that when this plane was first missing it emerged, I think, in The Times that in fact the plane crew had been instructed not to send any messages. It seems to me to cast at least some doubt on some of the assumptions that are being made at the present time as to the mission of the plane. I do not say they are wrong—that has yet to be proved. But may I ask the Leader of the House and the Government that there will be no further partial statement by any Government Department until we get the authoritative statement from the Prime Minister? This statement, which was put over this morning after 10 o'clock and cancelled before 10.30, is in the Press to-night. That will go on being so. May we have a guarantee that if Parliament is to be denied information, there will be no issue of partial statements through Government Departments? I think that as a matter of control that is fundamentally important.
THE EARL OF HOME: I quite agree with the noble Viscount. Indeed, it is what I am trying to achieve—that we should wait until we get a final authoritative statement from the Government on the matter of this particular flight. I think perhaps the noble Viscount over-emphasised the importance of what he calls a statement from the Ministry of Defence. I think that what happened was that one of the newspaper correspondents rang up on the telephone and got an answer, which was then cancelled. But I gather that it was not a statement, in that sense, put out by the Ministry. I do not think we can properly pursue that matter, because I am not completely informed as to what took place.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In one of his remarks the noble Earl suggested that there was a working arrangement for years past allowing this sort of thing. It is important for the reputation of our country that the public and the world
154
should know whether we have been giving our assent to these flights by the loan of our air bases.
THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount is on a slightly different point. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was on the point of what happened inside the Ministry of Defence—on the working arrangements. I was talking about arrangements which we have with the Americans on the use of our bases.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I know that. That is exactly the point that I raised. Did the noble Earl mean that there has existed for some time a working arrangement by which American aircraft can use our bases with or without our having knowledge of these flights?
THE EARL OF HOME: I am not prepared to go into any details to-day. The only thing I have said is that there are working arrangements which we have had with the Americans. If they can be improved or modified, they will be.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But that leaves us under the cloud of being suspected of being a party to this business.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I think I may just say this, in conclusion—it is very important, in view of what my noble and gallant friend has just said. Certainly during my ministerial connections with the Fighting Services, in the war and in peace time, we were never responsible for reconnaissance flights over foreign territory in peace time. I hope that, before this is over, the Government will be able to say the same thing.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not want to continue this discussion, because it leads us into the kind of difficulties I have described. The noble Viscount must not assume these things. Aeroplanes of all countries fly about their legitimate business over international waters. They may drift off course, either because of bad weather or for other reasons—there may be 101 explanations. It is the explanation of the facts that we want to get and to make plain to the House in due course.

MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.6 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
LORD CRAIGTON: Your Lordships will observe that, apart from the first two lines, this Amendment substitutes for existing terminology the description of mental disorder as in the last series of Amendments. With your Lordships' permission I should like to discuss the first two lines together with all the Amendments from No. 23 to the last one, No. 28. The effect of this Amendment is to repeal in various Acts provisions for a special procedure for the reception into mental hospitals of Service personnel discharged as of unsound mind. A process begun by the Mental Health Act, 1959, is thus completed for the whole of the United Kingdom. After this, Service personnel discharged because of mental disorder and detained in hospital will be dealt with under the appropriate legislation of the country concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 47 and insert ("Section three shall cease to have effect.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60)
In section fifty-five, in subsection (1), as it applies to Scotland, for the word 'lunacy' there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
The Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 25)
In section thirty-four, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'becomes lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to discuss this Amendment with No. 21. The latter part of No. 21 is again an alteration in the nomenclature. The rest of these Amendments gives patients in Northern Ireland who are receiving treatment for mental disorder the same protection from recall to the colours as will be afforded elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 8, at end insert ("or in a hospital or institution within the meaning of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland), 1948,").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 10, at end add ("or, as the case may be, of the Northern Ireland Hospitals Authority.
The Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949
(12 & 13 Geo. 6. c. 63)
In section nineteen, in subsection three, for the word 'insanity' there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
In the Fifth Schedule, for the word 'insanity', wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960; in paragraph 4, for the words 'upon an order or warrant being granted for the detention of a solicitor as a lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'where in pursuance of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, a solicitor is, by reason of mental disorder, admitted to a hospital and becomes liable to be detained therein or becomes subject to guardianship,', for the words 'any such order or warrant remains in force' there shall be substituted the words 'he continues to be so liable or so subject', and in the proviso to the said paragraph, for the words 'the order or warrant ceases to be in force' there shall be substituted the words 'he ceases to be liable to be detained or subject to guardianship'.").— (Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 35, leave out ("and (3)") and insert (",(3) and (4)").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 6, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—
("The Army Act, 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 18)
Section sixteen shall cease to have effect.
The Air Force Act, 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 19)
Section sixteen shall cease to have effect."). —(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 18, at end insert—

("47 & 48 Viet. c. 46.

The Naval Enlist merit Act, 1884.

Section three.")

—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 10, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert ("Section sixteen".).—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 16, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert ("Section sixteen").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 21, at end insert—

("3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c.20

The Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1955.

In the Second Schedule, paragraph 2 (entry relating to the Naval Enlistment Act, 1884); sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 14; sub-paragraph 18." —(Lord Craigton.)

—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 54, column 3, leave out from ("II") to the end of line 58 and insert ("the amendments to the Naval Enlistment Act, 1884, the Army Act, 1955, the Air Force Act. 1955, and the Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1955")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL
4.8 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Punishment without prosecution of offences in connection with lights, reflectors, obstruction, &c.
Enforcement and Administration of traffic Laws
I.—(1) This section shall apply to any offence created by or under an enactment and punishable on summary conviction, being an offence committed in respect of a vehicle—

(a) by its being left or parked on a road without the lights or reflectors required by law; or

(b) by its obstructing a road, or waiting, or being left or parked, or being loaded or unloaded, in a road; or

Provided that this section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and he may by order exclude the application of this section to any offence.
(2) Where a constable finds a person on any occasion and has reason to believe that on that occasion he is committing or has committed an offence to which this section applies, he may give him the prescribed notice in writing offering the option of payment of a fixed penalty under this section without prosecution for that offence; and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the date on which proceedings are begun.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "road" to insert:
"during the hours of darkness (as defined by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment which stands in my name is one that I undertook to move at Committee stage, having accepted the principle of an Amendment moved at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The principle was quite acceptable. It was a question of being certain that the words of the Amendment were sufficiently precise for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after "road" insert the said words.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for inserting the words he has, because he has done precisely what I wanted. As

159
he might have told your Lordships, the hours of darkness as defined by the Road Transport Lighting Act are a regulated time, after sunset and before sunrise. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think the Amendment has cleared up a slight anomaly, and I am happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
"(b) by its waiting in a road or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded in a road, contrary to directions given by a traffic sign or by carriageway markings; or".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of substance. I cannot help regretting that, although the noble Lord opposite has met me in many Amendments—I think I can say almost all of them—that I withdrew for his consideration, he could not go so far as to meet me on this one. This is a matter of great principle, and I want to explain to your Lordships what the principle is. I shall be as brief as I can. I think the best way I can do it is by reading to your Lordships precisely what the noble Lord said on Second Reading of this Bill and also upon the first day of the Committee stage. These are the noble Lord's own words [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 224 (No. 91), col. 408]:
"Under Clause 1 it is proposed to introduce a standard penalty for certain minor offences in which there is no doubt of guilt."
In saying that, the noble Lord only repeated in precise language what all the Government spokesmen had said during the passage of the Bill through another place. Obviously, there was no intention to apply the ticket system of punishment to any offence which was in any way disputable.
He went on to say to me across the Table—I quote his words from Col. 983 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of July 4:
"I am quite prepared to give him an undertaking that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, when he makes the first Order applying the ticket system to London, will exclude from it, under the powers he has in the proviso to Clause 1 (1), the offence of obstruction."
That is why in this Amendment, standing in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Silkin, I have taken out the
160
word "obstruction". I will explain why I have done that. First of all, in having a car waiting or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded in a road, there arises a question of fact. That is self-evident. But obstruction can never be a question of fact. Your Lordships will see that among the ordinary grounds for prosecution for obstruction as set out in Regulation 89 of the Construction and Use Regulations 1955, No. 1482, it says this:
"No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit a motor vehicle or trailer to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction thereon."
"Unnecessary" is a matter of opinion and not a question of fact.
Then, if your Lordships would look at Section 16 of the 1960 Act, you will see that it says:
"If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn thereby to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months."
That is the top and the bottom of the law of obstruction. It can be a minor offence, or it may be a really serious one for which a sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted.
The noble Lord has met me on one point in a subsequent Amendment, when he has said that a traffic warden cannot issue a ticket for obstruction; so that clears that away. But I maintain that to leave obstruction in the ticket system is going against what the noble Lord said when he referred to there being "no doubt of guilt". And it is not a minor offence; it can be a most serious offence. He is not really putting into effect what he undertook when saying that
"the Home Secretary, when he makes the first Order applying the ticket system to London, will exclude from it, under the powers he has in the proviso to Clause 1 (1) the offence of obstruction."
This question of obstruction is a serious one. I suppose that no prosecution for obstruction is brought that is not resented in the vast majority of cases by the vehicle owner. It is the cause of all the bad blood—what bad blood there

161
is—between the motorist and the police. I say, quite frankly, that not only is the Bill as it stands not carrying out the expressed intention of the Government to remove obstruction from the ticket system, but that obstruction should not be dealt with by means of a penalty of £2, because in some cases obstruction can be a most serious matter. That is my ease for removing obstruction from this Bill.
I have left in the words that I had in my Amendment on the Committee stage, namely:
"by its waiting in a road, or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded in A road, contrary to directions given by a traffic sign or by carriageway markings."
The basis of that is that we must try to snake the traffic laws of this country understandable to the ordinary individual. They are not now. An offence of waiting, parking, loading or unloading, or the words that are in this Amendment and are in the original clause, can only be self evident; there can be no doubt of guilt, only if it happens within a clearly defined area which is quite open for observation by the public. In point of fact, the law upon which the Government rely is contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. If your Lordships have in your possession a copy of that Act you will see that Section 14 says—I should like to read it because it is important:
"Where a police constable is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, or where a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type, or of another character authorised by the appropriate Minister under the provisions in that behalf of this Act, has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who

(a) neglects… to stop… when directed… by the police constable… or

(b) fails to comply with the indication given by the sign,"

and the provision goes on to say, later:
"and where the indication mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection is of the general nature only of the prohibition, restriction or requirement to which the sign relates a person shall not be convicted of failure to comply with the indication unless he has failed to comply with the said prohibition, restriction or requirement."
So the law as it stands to-day is that a person cannot be convicted in respect of a vehicle waiting, being left parked, or loaded or unloaded on any road where
162
there is not a clearly defined sign. That is my interpretation of Section 14 of this Road Traffic Act. Is it not right then, when we are dealing with a new system of issuing tickets for these offences, that we should, in all common sense, put in
"contrary to directions given by a traffic sign or by carriageway markings"?
If I went on to talk for twice the length of time I do not think I could make that any clearer. I believe it is the sense of the House that we do not mind traffic wardens giving tickets in properly prescribed areas, but not in any area. But I believe I am voicing the opinion of the majority in the House in saying that we object to a ticket being given for obstruction by either a policeman or a traffic warden, because where action is taken on obstruction it should be taken by a policeman in the proper process of prosecution. I hope, therefore, that I have explained the reason for my Amendment and that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.23 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am really very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, although he may be a little surprised that I am. The Amendment he has now put down has clarified a situation which I believe was badly in need of clarification. Although his previous Amendment, in effect, only moved obstruction out of the Bill by rendering any powers powerless, so to speak, his Amendment to-day makes it quite clear that he now wants to move obstruction out of the Bill. I am sorry that in our consultations we did not get further. I am going to claim that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has recognised, I have gone a considerable way to meet the wishes of your Lordships on this. I say the issue needed clarification because when we discussed this point in Committee last Monday, the matter became inextricably confused between whether offences of obstruction should be "ticketable" (if I may use such a horrid word) and whether traffic wardens should issue tickets for such offences. I believe a careful study of Hansard will prove my point that confusion arose.

163
The main point of difference between the noble Lord and myself in our discussion was a difference of assessment of the feelings of the Committee in this matter. The noble Lord, as he has stated, took the view that your Lordships were worried about obstruction being a ticket-able offence. I took the view, which I still hold, that the Committee were worried about traffic wardens giving tickets for the offence of obstruction; and that is the basis upon which I have rested my view. Certainly the majority of noble Lords who spoke voiced opinions on the traffic warden aspect, and expressed misgivings and concern upon that.
We believe that we shall be able to recruit wardens of good character and ability. At the same time, I can understand that your Lordships would probably prefer to see what kind of men we get before accepting that the power to issue tickets for offences of obstruction should be granted to them; and that we should first see how they get on in the use of the ticket system for the simpler type of parking offences. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, specifically asked for this to be done. He was supported by my noble friends, Lord Hawke and Lord Waleran. Therefore, when we come to Clause 2, I am proposing to move an Amendment which will state quite specifically that the first Order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 2 (3)—that is, the Order which will be subject only to Negative Resolution procedure—cannot prescribe for wardens the duty of issuing tickets for obstruction.
Under paragraph (b) of that subsection, when the Secretary of State decides (if he comes to that conclusion) that the time is ripe to make an Order permitting wardens to operate the ticket system, that Order becomes subject to the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. That is exactly what was asked for. Your Lordships will therefore have ample opportunity to discuss the question properly before that provision comes into effect. Traffic wardens, therefore, are out of the consideration that we are now giving to this matter and I do not propose to mention them again. Until a later stage, when the House gives approval by Affirmative Resolution, they are not to operate the ticket system for offences of obstruction. We can, if necessary, discuss the Amendment further when we
164
reach it, but I make that point now so that your Lordships may be perfectly clear on the position.
We are left with the straight issue of whether or not the regular police are to use the ticket system for offences of obstruction. In fact, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, as he has said, goes rather further than that. Its effect is to omit obstruction altogether from offences which are ticketable. In addition, as he has explained, it provides that the ticket system can be used for offences under specific regulations restricting parking only if the nature of those offences is stated in traffic signs or carriageway markings. If necessary, I will state later my objections to this aspect of his Amendment; but for the moment I want to deal entirely with the question of exclusion of obstruction from the list of ticketable offences.
I believe we should think for a moment about the functions of the Bill. One of its primary or major functions—in this part at any rate—is to get the streets cleared for smooth and safe circulation of traffic by means of effective and speeded-up enforcement of the existing laws about parking, waiting and so on. There is a secondary result which arises from all this: by the ticket system we lighten considerably the load on the police. Not only is it lightened by wardens, which is another matter, but there will be a considerable reduction in the administrative work of the police if they use tickets; and it is most important to bear that point in mind.
I want to assess what is the size of the problem. In the Metropolitan Police district obstruction accounts for over 50 per cent. of all the parking offences—the static offences, one might call them—which are dealt with by prosecution or by caution. I do not want to produce a lot of figures, but in 1958 there were, in round terms, 27.000 summonses issued for obstruction, as against 17.000 for all other parking and waiting offences put together. In 1959 it had gone up to 37,000 for obstruction, and parking and waiting offences had gone up to 20,000. So those figures, I think, prove what I say about the seriousness of the problem.
I appreciate that obstruction is distinguishable from the other offences, because it is not in the same sense self-evident. I agree there, and that is one

165
reason why I am going on to talk about the delayed start, and I shall be returning to what the noble Lord said about my earlier words. But, despite the question of bad blood and resentment, and so on, caused by obstruction, it is a fact, as I said before in Committee, that 90 per cent. of those charged with obstruction plead guilty by post and do not contest the matter in court. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Committee stage, said that the fact that this was so did not mean at all that they were confessing guilt but merely that they did not wish to hang about the court, or they wanted to take a cheap way out, or some reason like that. I myself thought that he was being over cynical, but he may possibly be to a certain extent right. It does not matter in this case whether he is right or whether he is not, because the offender remains in exactly the same position with the ticket system as he did before. What we are doing is speeding up the process of clearing the streets of obstruction and, as I said, reducing the load on the police, which is very desirable, as your Lordships have said on many occasions.
The noble Lord and critics of the clause as it stands have argued that a motorist ought not to be prosecuted for a parking offence unless it is made clear to him where he may park and where he may not; and since, also, there may be room for argument as to whether he has caused an obstruction or not, that the ticket system should not be used for it. This is, I think, in substance, a criticism more of the existing law relating to obstruction than of Clause 1. I know perfectly well that it is convenient and desirable for a motorist to know where he may park and where he must not; and we shall certainly try to make additional specific regulations wherever possible so that there is not room for doubt. But there is a practical limit to the extent to which specific regulations can be used.
It is perfectly easy and all right to make regulations in some circumstances—and, let us face it, it is widely done to-day. They are applicable certainly to main roads and to areas which are constantly liable to become congested, such as shopping centres and so on, but outside those areas one does not want to impose on the lighter-used streets and residential areas a lot of restrictions which will be quite unnecessary for a lot
166
of the time. In some areas and sonic streets parking may cause obstruction on only, maybe, Saturday afternoons, or, as my noble friend Lord Teviot pointed out, only at certain times of day—in the rush hour or something like that. Wherever we draw the perimeter of an area covered by specific regulations, there will always be another area beyond it in which obstruction may occur, and, if so, it can be serious and must be checked.
We want to introduce the ticket system for obstruction because we believe that it is necessary if there is going to be adequate enforcement. In the light of the figures for the prosecutions over the last two years, which I have just mentioned, and of what I said on the limits and extent to which we can physically make use of specific no-parking regulations, we shall have to continue to rely on enforcement of the law relating to obstruction to maintain the free flow of traffic, which is what everybody wants. I believe that we really need to retain the provision for the regular police to use the ticket system for obstruction when this system has proved its worth for the simpler types of parking offence.
I spoke on Second Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has drawn attention to what I said. I talked about self-evident offences and the desirability of using tickets only for them. I have to-day laid stress on the necessity for tickets for obstruction; but, at the same time, I recognise that, to begin with, it is better to keep to the self-evident offences. Later, when there is more experience of how the ticket system is 'working, offences of obstruction—tickets to be served, of course, by constables only—can be brought in. I do not think that there is anything very inconsistent between what I am suggesting now and what I said on Second Reading about introducing the system solely for the other offences and bringing obstruction in later on.
I should like to repeat to your Lordships the undertaking that I gave on the Committee stage, and I would, perhaps, even venture to remind your Lordships that undertakings of Ministers are not just lightly given; nor do they merit being lightly brushed aside. The undertaking I gave, and which I repeat, was that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, when he makes the first

167
Order extending Clause 1 to the metropolitan stipendiary courts area (which, in short, is London), will exclude the application of the clause to obstruction. This will mean that, at the beginning of the ticket system, neither constables nor wardens will be able to use it for obstruction. It will be possible, when we have experience of how the ticket system works, to empower constables to use it for obstruction, by an Order of the Secretary of State, which will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. But my right honourable friend has no intention of doing so until the system has been given a thorough trial; and, in any event, the Order would be subject to annulment by either House.
May I finally summarise the joint effect of the Government Amendment to Clause 2 and the undertaking which I have given as to Clause 1? The position when the Bill came into force would be this: the ticket system would be available in the metropolitan stipendiary courts area—that is what we generally know as London—in respect of the offences mentioned in Clause 1, subsection (1), other than obstruction. Neither wardens nor constables would be able to issue tickets for obstruction, and drivers who committed the offence of obstruction would be dealt with as they are at present. If the ticket system is found, as we believe it will be found, to work well, my right honourable friend, by an Order subject to Negative Resolution procedure, could make it available, for use by constables only, for obstruction—and, as I have said, either House could pray against it.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the Amendment to Clause 2 which I have put down, together with the undertaking I have just repeated as clearly as I can, go a very considerable way to meet the points of view expressed on both sides of the House on Committee stage. If this compromise proves, as I hope it will prove, generally acceptable, I will invite the noble Lord not to press the Amendment which we are now considering. I have no desire to lengthen this debate any more, but if he did press it I should have to ask for permission to speak again in order to deal with the practical difficulties which this Amendment would create in respect of the offences other
168
than obstruction—that is, the "No waiting" and similar regulations. I think that what I have suggested is entirely reasonable and in accordance with the feeling of the House, and I believe that your Lordships will agree with my views on this Amendment.
4.43 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords. I rise to support my noble friend Lord Chesham on this occasion, because I am on record as having disapproved very strongly of extending the powers of traffic wardens to deal with obstruction, and I want to make my position quite clear. I have objected to that; I do object to that, and I have little doubt that in the future, after this scheme has been tried out, I shall still object to traffic wardens dealing with cases of Obstruction. But what the Minister is asking in the case of police constables is, I believe, reasonable.
First, permission will not be given for the ticket system to be used by a constable for obstruction offences until the ticket system has been tried out. That, I think, is important. Secondly, it is quite obvious that, not only where obstruction is a very serious offence but even where it is a moderately serious offence, we who break the law, if we do it in that way, will not get a ticket. I should hope that, if I caused a serious case of obstruction, I would get a ticket, but I am afraid that I should be prosecuted. In the case of what we might almost call a technical obstruction, I think it will save the time of the police and of the motorist if tickets are given; and, if one has an objection to a ticket, one can do what I did on the only occasion on which I was "run in" for obstruction. I was annoyed because I thought that the charge was unreasonable, so I went to court; and got off. But if I had not thought it very unreasonable, I should willingly have accepted a ticket and, speaking for myself, should have been glad that I was not prosecuted.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with whom I agree on most of these matters, is putting the case a bit too high. I think this power should be given to the Minister. I do not believe that it will be unfair to the motorist. It will not only ease the burden of the police, but may

169
well ease the burden of the motorist. If I were summoned for obstruction today, I Should be a little doubtful whether I was wise not to go to court, whereas if I was given a ticket I should know I need not do so; and, if I had committed an offence of obstruction, I would prefer a ticket. I suggest, my Lords, that we ought to support the noble Lord, Lord Chestham, in this matter.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am very glad to be able on this occasion to support my noble friend. I sometimes am afraid that he must wonder whether I am not becoming a persistent renegade. I hesitate to question the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with his tremendous road experience, but he must remember two things. First of all, a constable is not forced to give a ticket. Subsection (2), as he will see, merely says that he "may give him the prescribed notice". Therefore, if he finds a very severe case which he considers worthy of a much higher fine, he need not give a ticket. Secondly, of course, there is the fact, as my noble friend Lord Chesham said, that this really is not doing anything at all to alter the law except to save a lot of paper work for the police, for which I am sure they, and we, should be most grateful.
As the law stands at present, a constable can always use his own judgment as to whether or not a car is causing obstruction. He has to do so, of course; and whether he decides to issue a ticket or whether he decides to prosecute does not seem to me to make much difference. So far as the ticket is concerned, it will be accepted, of course, only by those who, as my noble friend Lord Derwent has just said, are quite convinced that they are guilty. It will be very easy for them just to pay the standard fine. If they are convinced that they are innocent, then under the ticket system they will still be perfectly free to go to court and contest their case. So I cannot honestly see that this is going to do very much harm, and. I personally support the argument nut forward by my noble friend Lord Chesham.
LORD GRENFELL: I also should like to support my noble friend. The first point we have to keep well in mind is that this Bill is not only to keep the traffic moving but also to keep the police moving, if I may put it in that way—to
170
keep them on the beat, rather than standing around, having to watch carefully every car that stops, wherever it may be. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that some of these cases of obstruction may be so serious that they might even warrant imprisonment. In that case, we must remember that the regular police, if I may so call them, are trained to decide in their own minds between what are serious cases and what are not serious cases. Of course, in a serious case they would not give a ticket but would prosecute in the normal way. I feel convinced that this system, when eventually it has proved itself, should be given to the regular police, just as much as I feel convinced that it should not be given to the wardens who, after all, will not be so carefully trained as the police. I support most strongly my noble friend Lord Chesham in this matter.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I feel sure that the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, ought to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. So far as I am concerned, it goes further than I should like to see it go. I greatly believe in and welcome the wardens, for I believe that, under any terms of pay or conditions of service, there is no chance that sufficient young men will be forthcoming to be recruited into the police for this particular job.
If there is going to be no ticketing by police or wardens, there seem to me to be only two alternatives. One is to cover every road in the country with signs as parking or non-parking areas. Incidentally, that would greatly reduce the parking areas, and would lead to great complication over occasional congestion and loading and unloading. The second is, as at present, to limit the number of prosecutions for obstruction according to the ability of the police to spare the time to appear in court to deal with them. The first of these alternatives seems most unwise and the second would completely hamstring the Bill. And I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wishes to hamstring this Bill. I would entrust to the wardens the leaving of tickets for obstruction, but I understand the reluctance to do so, and I think that it would be right to wait until there has been more experience of the system. But I believe that it is vital to give this power to the

171
policeman very soon, because the Bill is going to be useless until the police get it. I hope that there may be some loophole by which, if the traffic wardens appear satisfactory in every other respect, this power can be extended to them in due course.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said, and say that I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I deplore the fact that wardens will not be granted power to give tickets for obstruction, although I agree that they should be given that power only after it has been given to the police. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I regret that the police will not be empowered to give tickets for obstruction. I think that it has been proved in a number of countries over the last 30 years that the ticket system is indispensable in regulating parking and the flow of traffic. There is one aspect of the system which I should like to mention, because it may go a little way to please the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with regard to his Amendment concerning obstruction. I have a copy of an ordinance of a city in Kentucky which provides for the impounding of vehicles parked in violation of the law. Under this, the offence of obstruction can be committed only if a vehicle is unoccupied. This is Commercial Ordinance No. 25 of 1957, passed on May 25, 1957. It says:
"Any vehicle parked upon the streets of the city at a place, in a manner and for a length of time prohibited by this ordinance is, if unoccupied, declared to be an obstruction on such streets and a public nuisance."
If your Lordships do not wish to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, I wonder whether the Government would consider amending the Bill in such a manner that obstruction would take place only if a vehicle was unoccupied. In other words, a police officer could not give a ticket for obstruction if a vehicle was occupied. Perhaps the noble Lord would look into this point and deal with it at a later date.
4.55 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments on this Amendment, as I listened to a similar discussion on Committee stage. While not having anything like the
172
detailed knowledge of the Bill of the noble Lord in charge of it, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I am not at all sure that the suggestion now made by the Minister is not to some extent going to defeat the object of the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Lords. Lord Chesham and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, are using obstruction in a technical sense, as something that can be punished under a definition in another Act, not in this Bill. It is difficult to see how anybody who is loading or unloading a vehicle in a road, unless it is a cul-de-sac, can be guilty of anything but obstruction. If a man is unloading a 3-ton vehicle, he must be obstructing the road. As I understand it, that is a purely technical offence. I think that it is going to cause a great deal of difficulty to those who have to interpret this Statute. Could it not be made more clear? I leave this, for the moment, merely warning the Government that it is going to cause a lot of "headaches" to magistrates and others, if they have to interpret this without any interpretation in the Bill.
My second point is more important. The Government have produced this Bill in order to keep the traffic flowing, and are introducing the system of tickets and wardens for this purpose. If a warden feels that a more serious offence than mere waiting is being committed, then there is an element of obstruction in it. Why cannot he give a ticket? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is right on this point. We are going to have the extraordinary position that a person who waits in a road for a short space of time and who does not technically commit an obstruction will immediately have a ticket presented to him by a warden and will be fined automatically, whereas a man who commits a serious obstruction—unless a policeman happens to come along (and there are many areas where it takes a long time for a policeman to come along, particularly when you want him), sees the obstruction and makes a case—is going to get away with it altogether. There will be no case because the warden cannot give the man a ticket for obstruction. The warden will either have to wait until a policeman happens to come along or he will have to give the motorist a ticket for something that is not technically obstruction.

173
Would it not be better to deal with this matter in a reasonable way? We have set up this system of wardens. Let them act and give tickets for any of the offences that are mentioned in the Bill. If a person who has been given a ticket thinks it should not have been presented to him, he has his right under the Bill to take the case before the court and have it tried there. What do we risk? If we accept the Government's proposal, we hamstring the Bill. These wardens will be so frightened that it may be a question of obstruction that in borderline cases they will be afraid to give a ticket at all; or, if they give a ticket in cases where it is really obstruction, the man will be getting away with a minor offence when he ought to be charged with a more serious one.
What do we risk if we allow the wardens to do as they should do under the Bill? All we shall risk is that someone who is not going to bother to take the proceedings open to him under the Bill may be charged with obstruction—and he may have committed obstruction—merely on the ticket of the warden and not of a police officer. I feel, in those circumstances, that if we want to keep the streets free and to keep the traffic flowing we should take the bull by the horns and give the power to the wardens straight away, and not wait for an undisclosed period. That will avoid chaos; it will avoid unfairness and it will enable the Bill straight away to be brought into effect, as I believe it ought to be.
LORD SPENS: My Lords, I have listened to all the discussions on this Bill on all its stages, and had I still been in another place as the representative for South Kensington I should undoubtedly have taken a very active part. I cannot let the Bill pass, and particularly this Amendment, without saying a word or two on it, particularly in regard to that part of the Metropolitan Area. The Bill creates no new offences whatsoever. The situation at present is that anybody who obstructs a road—and there are hundreds, if not thousands, who do so every day in Kensington—can be dealt with only by a police constable, who has either to give him a warning there and then or to summon him. Obstruction is a matter of opinion, but in many cases it is a quite obvious and patent offence. In a number of cases it is an offence
174
which the accused very often denies, and he thinks fit to go to court. But as the situation is at present, if the police want to take action in respect of a patent offence they have to go through all the procedure of issuing a summons to a person. I have not been guilty of the offence of obstruction; and on the two occasions when I have been summoned, the summons only reached me weeks after the offence was committed. My convenience was not consulted, of course, as to the day on which the case should be heard, and I was one of the many people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred on the Committee stage who preferred to send a letter and accept the fine (which was I think £2 on each occasion) rather than go to court.
It seems to me that the object of the Bill is to get rid of obstruction on the highways so as to keep the traffic flowing. I can only tell your Lordships that although after the Cromwell Road was broadened and opened the traffic flowed, and still flows, well, one still finds constantly that there is obstruction where there are bottlenecks—obstruction which does most serious damage and is a patent offence. I cannot believe that it is not highly desirable that the police should be given as soon as possible the right to give tickets in cases which are obvious cases of obstruction. While I absolutely support everything the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, my only hope is that the present system will come to an end fairly soon; that the police will be allowed to apply the ticket system, which I am sure they will only do in obvious cases—I think that will make an enormous difference to the flow of traffic—and that in due course trained wardens may be given the same powers. Only in that way, I believe, will the object of the Bill be achieved.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, like a good many other members of the Committee I have been impressed by the reasonableness of the case put by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill; and like everybody else, I suppose I am a motorist who has some concern for the position of the other motorists who may be charged with an offence. While the discussion has been going on I have been exercising my mind as to where the balance of advantage lies in securing that

175
the motorist will not be improperly fined, or even imprisoned, for an offence which he is alleged to have committed. I think, in the first instance, there can be no argument at this stage, at all events, against the warden system as a system. First of all, it is in operation in quite a number of countries. I have seen it in operation in New Zealand where, upon an inquiry, I was quite satisfied that the system operated fairly. It is not at this stage a matter of argument as to whether the system ought or ought not to be introduced in this country. The real point of argument is: what are the offences for which this system can be used?—and that is the point in front of us now.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, feels strongly that obstruction should be kept out, and, in passing, I think we must all be impressed by his vigilance and his desire to see that the dice is not loaded against the motorist or that offences are committed in ignorance of what the regulations or the law may provide. The Minister has said in substance, that for a time obstruction will be eliminated from the offences on which prosecution can take place. That is what I understood him to say—I hope that I am right.
LORD DERWENT: In the case of the giving of tickets.
LORD CITRINE: I am referring, of course, to the ticket system. Obstruction remains an offence under the law and the offender can be proceeded against, as at present, by prosecution; that is quite clear. I was really addressing my remarks entirely to the option of issuing a ticket to the alleged offender in a case of obstruction. At the present time the motorist has no alternative at all; he has to go to court whether he likes it or not—or, at any rate, he has to go to court unless he likes to send a letter and plead guilty, which is not usually the best course for a man who feels that he is not guilty of the offence to adopt.
The reason why so much emphasis has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on this point, as I understand it, is that obstruction is one of the arguable cases. A constable may allege that obstruction has been created, and
176
the motorist may feel strongly that it has not, and may prefer to go to court. I cannot see that that position is altered very much. If the ticket system is in operation, the constable, if he feels so disposed, can offer a ticket to the alleged offender; and if the offender feels that he is not guilty he will do the obvious thing and say: No fear! I will go to `court and argue this thing through." There, so far as I see it, is the first safeguard. Surely we all recognise that, on the balance of what I would call administrative convenience, there should be an alternative given to the motorist, apart altogether from the question of the administrative burden on the police. It is the fact, too, that probably in the realm of motoring offences more bad blood is created between the police and the public; and that factor, also, would be abated, in my opinion, by the incorporation of this ticket system.
But there still remains the point as to whether it should be exercised for the offence of obstruction. If there is a period allowed by which first the working of the ticket system is permitted, with the temporary exclusion of obstruction as one of the offences, we shall get a chance to see how the whole thing is going.
If it is thought that obstruction should be introduced into the ticket system, then, as I understand it, regulations will come before this House. That is right, is it not—a regulation will be brought to this House if it is proposed to introduce obstruction into the ticket system? Surely that is what the noble Lord has said.
LORD CHESHAM: That Order would be subject to Negative Resolution.
LORD CITRINE: That is to say, we say "No" to it. But it comes before us, and we can argue the merits of it. Surely that is right?
LORD CHESHAM: We pray against it.
LORD CITRINE: I am not sure of the degree of piety which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has, but I feel sure that he would be one of those to make a Prayer if he thought that the introduction was wrong.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether this is new procedure; because in the past the Labour Party have never prayed in this way, so far as I am aware.
LORD CITRINE: I do not know whether one prays or not. That is a matter for individual conscience. I do not suppose there is any Party discipline imposed.
LORD OGMORE: But there is, and there always has been. I am asking whether the noble Lord is telling the House that the Labour Party are going to have a new procedure.
LORD CITRINE: What the noble Lord is telling the House is that he will speak freely on those matters where he thinks the merits of the case justify it. I think the safeguards are reasonable, and I see no personal objection to the view which has been put forward by the Minister regarding those safeguards.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if you will not think I am being disrespectful, may I say that I think that this debate has taken one of the most amusing turns that I have ever experienced in your Lordships' House. I will tell your Lordships why. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his most lucid explanation. If he will not think me impertinent, I congratulate him, because it is the first time I have really understood what the Government view was. But in that explanation, and telling us what the Minister or the Home Secretary intend to do in future, there is not one word of what is set out in this Bill. This is the amusing part. If the noble Lord's right honourable friends bring regulations to this House in the form I anticipate, you will find me taking the 'advice of my noble friend and praying against them, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that it is just—if I can use a vulgarism which I hope your Lordships will not mind—kicking the "guts" out of this Bill.
I have been labouring under a great difficulty. I must say this with respect. If Government spokesmen in another place had not been bending over backwards to assure everybody that they were not really going to do anything very terrible, and that this was only for very minor offences—and even the noble
178
Lord himself used language like that—I should not have taken all the trouble I have, because all I want to do is to try to interpret what the Government want to do. I do not want to cut down punishment for obstruction by the smallest extent. Obstruction is one of the biggest curses we have on the roads of this country. But, as I have tried to point out, obstruction is an arguable thing. I have always been taught that one of the basic principles of British justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. It has been blown out of the window by the ticket system. The noble Lord can contradict me when I am finished. If I leave my car for five minutes while I go into a shop, I can get a ticket for obstruction. It is the only ticket I can have outside a signed area. If I leave my car in a dangerous position which might put the life and limb of a pedestrian in danger, I can get a ticket for £2. The noble Lord himself said that a policeman can give me a ticket, and that one of the objects of this Bill is to save the policeman's time and paper work. The policeman can give me a ticket, and that is supposed to save a lot of time. I should think that that would be the natural inclination of the police.
It will be, if they take the views noble Lords have expressed, because this is where I 'have been able to understand what the noble Lord has been driving at. Would he tell me whether I am right, because I think this is in essence what he said? I will use my own words. The interpretation of "waiting, parking, being left, loading and unloading" is embodied in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. No motorist can be convicted of any of those crimes (I will call them) if he commits them outside a signed area. So the only alternative the police have is to bring a prosecution for obstruction for any one of those offences outside a signed area. The noble Lord said that, in effect, and I understand it, and I do not know that I disagree with it. Because you cannot or will not designate where a man cannot park his car to the satisfaction of the Act, it is necessary to have obstruction under the ticket system

179
in this Bill. Put like that, I do not know that I disagree.
But do not let us delude ourselves that in agreeing to this Bill we are carrying out what the noble Lord and his ministerial colleagues have said. Some of these offences need not be trivial offences. I maintain that we are making such a departure from recognised practice of having standard fines to fit any type of road offence—parking, waiting, obstruction and anything else—that experience will teach us that we are making a mistake. I am not going to labour this matter any longer. I am rather amused by the lack of support I have had on this stage of the proceedings, when I was overwhelmed with support on the other stage. And the Amendment is precisely the same. But noble Lords opposite have a habit of changing their minds—I do not blame them for it; they are at perfect liberty to do so—
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? What impressed me was this question of traffic wardens being taken out by a later Amendment. It certainly altered my view.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I just do not agree with the noble Lord. Many noble Lords argued the case against obstruction being a ticketable offence. One of the difficulties in which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and the Minister of Transport find themselves is that although you have hundreds and thousands of "No waiting", "No parking", "No loading or unloading" signs you have never yet seen a sign "No obstruction". That is the basic difficulty, and that is why I agree, after listening attentively to the noble Lord, that you must have the power of ticketing for obstruction, because if you did not you would be so hamstrung that you would not be able to do a thing outside a signed area. My intrepretation is correct is it not? If that had been said first of all, it would have saved us a lot of time. At the start of the scheme all that is going away, so what the wardens will do with their tickets and what the police will do with their tickets remains to be seen.
180
However, it has been most interesting. I think that for the first time since I have been in this House the traffic law of this country as it affects these offences of parking has, if I may be allowed to say so, been intelligently discussed, and it is far clearer now to everybody what is the law and what is not the law. I shall now reserve any fire that I have left on this matter for the regulations when the noble Lord brings them forward. I want him to consider one thing, if he will. The London regulations will be by the Negative Resolution procedure. If the regulations are extended outside London they would have to be by the Affirmative Resolution procedure, and even relating to London after October 1 they have also to be by the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not completely following the noble Lord. Is he talking about obstruction now as a ticketable offence, or wardens; because they are different?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am talking about both. The Minister does not have to make an Order, now that obstruction will be taken out of this Bill for a temporary time; he simply does not make an Order to bring it in. He can do that in both ways, for any area and any type of offence. He can make that Order in any area in London and for any one of these offences. The proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 1 says:
"Provided that this section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and he may by order exclude the application of this section to any offence."
Subsection (11) says:
"The power of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
That is the Negative Resolution procedure. I am quite agreeable to the original idea that up to October 1 he should have powers to proceed in the Negative Resolution way. But if the Minister can vastly extend what these Orders can contain, I think the noble Lord should give consideration to that point between now and the next stage.

181
The Minister by Order can really rule out the whole operation of this Bill as regards Clause 1. I rather thought that the list of things which the Minister is not going to do had that effect. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps when I read in Hansard what the noble Lord said, I shall find it is different. The noble Lord might give consideration to that point, as to whether it does not alter the outlook as regards the Negative Resolution procedure. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have been patient enough and willing enough to take part in this discussion, and with those remarks I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.26 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "offering" and to insert instead:
"the opportunity of the discharge of any liability to conviction of that offence by payment of a fixed penalty under this section; and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the expiration of the twenty-one clays following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified therein or before the date on which proceedings are begun, whichever event last occurs."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is a rather lengthy re-draft, which I move because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, expressed himself at the Committee stage as not being particularly satisfied with the wording of the Bill at that particular point with regard to the question of the option which is referred to as being offered to a motorist if he receives a ticket. No doubt, I should think that in the overwhelming majority of cases, if the fixed penalty is not paid proceedings will be taken; and for practical purposes, therefore, I suppose one could say that the choice before the driver is to pay or be prosecuted. But the Bill does not commit the police to prosecute regardless of the circumstances, and there may be exceptional cases in which, after they have inquired into them, they will decide not to prosecute. Therefore, a more accurate description of the choice offered to the driver is that he might pay and so avoid any possibility of prosecution and conviction or he might do nothing and
182
run the risk of proceedings being taken against him if the police think fit.
In the clause as drafted "option" was the word used in order to make it quite clear that the person liable was not bound to pay the fixed penalty unless he wished. It is arguable—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, made the point in Committee—that the word "option" is not entirely appropriate here. More precisely what is offered is the opportunity to compound, or perhaps in more explicit words to discharge, the liability to be convicted of the offence by payment of a fixed penalty, and this is what the Amendment does. It is a more precise statement of what the effect is than what was in the previous draft. The liability to conviction which would have been discharged by payment remains if there is no payment. But it is a liability and not a certainty. I hope that this makes it clear to the satisfaction of noble Lords who wanted it in this way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("offering") to end of line 13, and insert the said new words. —(Lord Chesham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Once again, I express my thanks to the noble Lord for meeting the point I made. He has put in "offering" because I objected to "option". That, I think, is much better and it sets the point out concisely. I think it is a better Amendment than the next one, which is in my name, and I would accept it and advise the House to accept it; and when we come to the next Amendment I shall not move it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the next four Amendments in my name, Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, are all drafting Amendments made necessary in consequence of the acceptance of Amendment No. 4. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("may") to end of line 19 and insert ("have been specified therein").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("of the option given by the notice") and insert ("during which, by virtue of subsection (3) of this section, proceedings will not be taken for the offence").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, at end, insert—
("(b) In subsection (2) the words 'before the expiration of the twenty-one days following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified therein or' and the words whichever event last occurs' shall be omitted.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("and for the words 'have been' there shall be substituted the word be'.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Traffic Wardens]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "control and regulation of road traffic or with the enforcement of the law relating to road traffic" and insert:
"enforcement of parking regulations other than the enforcement of regulations relating to obstruction of the highway".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise only to say that I do not intend to move this Amendment, because I prefer the wording of Amendment No. 11 which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I think he will say that he has drafted that Amendment and put it down to meet the point I made. So, with your Lordships' permission, I will not move this Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (3) (a), after "sixty" to insert:
", not being an order authorising the employment of a traffic warden for the purposes of section one of this Act in so far as it relates to a vehicle's obstructing a road,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is the one to which
184
I referred and which I undertook to put down in view of what appeared to me to be the desire of the House, whereby traffic wardens will not be able to operate the ticket system until such time as approval is given for them to do so by Affirmative Resolution in both Houses. Probably I need not go into this matter at any length. I think we have said quite a bit about it. I think it will come sooner; other noble Lords think it will come later; but we will deal with that when we come to it.
There is just one point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Derwent privately with me—namely, that as Orders are sometimes laid in batches, so to speak, it would be rather difficult to give one Order proper consideration. There would be no desire to throw it out—assuming noble Lords felt like doing that—if it was mixed up with a number of others that they wished to keep. My noble friend asked whether it would be possible for my right honourable friend to give an undertaking that such an Order would be laid singly. It is well known, I think, that no Government can bind its successors, but I am happy to give the undertaking on behalf of the present Government that such an Order will be moved singly. I do not think there is much more I need say. The noble Lord opposite has kindly said that he approves the wording of the Amendment, which I think does what your Lordships desired. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, after ("sixty") insert the said words.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for the undertaking that has been given on behalf of the present Government. Now that it is on the record I think it may well last for future Governments. I am grateful that this has been taken into the Affirmative Resolution procedure. There is always a little difficulty when one cannot turn out part of an Order and keep the rest. For the undertaking that has been given, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question before we part with this Amendment? I am probably being stupid, but I understood him to say, when dealing with the previous

185
Amendment, that the power to extend to wardens the ticket system for obstruction had been dropped out of the Bill in some way; yet here he is moving this Amendment, in which he seemed to refer to an Affirmative Resolution system in regard to that matter. Can he make quite clear, whether or not under this Bill it will be possible later to extend the power of wardens to give tickets for obstruction?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords; it definitely will. I think I must have chosen my words badly if I gave my noble friend the wrong impression. What I intended to convey was that the use by wardens of tickets for obstruction was removed from our consideration of the offence of obstruction this afternoon. I did not say the power had been removed from the Bill, because indeed it has not. The power is there all right, subject to Affirmative Resolution.
LORD HAWKE: I am grateful to my noble friend, who has allayed my fear.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I add my word of appreciation to the Minister for having met this point, upon which I am afraid I was rather outspoken the other day. I still should have preferred not to have obstruction included in the Bill at all; but one recognises that the Government have their difficulties in getting legislation through, and I personally feel that the assurances which we have received as to the limits within which this power may be introduced are adequate protection. I personally think that it never will be introduced; but we shall live to see that result.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment of s. 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960
12, In subsection (4) of section twenty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the words "if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours" shall cease lo have effect.
5.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to leave out Clause 12. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I owe an apology to the House, in that I did not resist this new clause, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth on the Com-
186
mittee stage. Through no fault of my own, I was not able to be in the Chamber. Had I been here at that moment, I should not, however, have resisted it, because I am in sympathy with the aims behind it. But I think it goes a lot further than the noble Lord anticipated. I did not realise at the time the implications of what has happened, and I must say that, reading my OFFICIAL REPORT I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth was extremely surprised himself that it was accepted in that form straight away by Her Majesty's Government.
Clause 12 purports to alter a section of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. That Act was a Consolidation Act. I would ask your Lordships to throw your minds back to the Act which brought in the subject with which this section deals, which was the Road Traffic Act, 1956. Those of your Lordships who took part in it will remember that in the debate on that Bill in both Houses, two points came very much to the front—I am stating the points broadly. One was that reasonable access should be given to all premises. That point was much debated, and was agreed to by Parliament. There was the other side; that where a local authority produced regulations and an order for limiting loading and unloading, parking, or whatever it might be, in relation to the question of access there should not be unreasonable objection to the order of the local authority and/or the Minister. It was a question of adjusting the two sides so as to get a reasonable compromise; and in the London area, of course, the Minister has very much wider powers than the local authorities have in other areas.
As a method of compromise, in that Act—and it was repeated in Section 26 (4) of the Road Traffic Act. 1960 (the Consolidation Act)—two things were decided by this particular subsection (4). The subsection is in two parts. The first part says that:
"Subject to the next following subsection… no order shall be made under this section with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing such access as may be reasonably required for vehicles of any class…"
Parliament insisted on that: there was much debate, and it was decided that there must be reasonable access. Dealing with the other side of the question, the

187
second part of the subsection, which was quite distinct, said:
"but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods"—
and it deals only with that aspect—
"shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours."
The second part of this subsection (4):
"if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading"
is part of the second part of this subsection, because the words:
"for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated …"
mean nothing apart from the proviso.
I think I know why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and Her Majesty's Government wished to cut out those words:
"if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all"
and so on; and I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Chesham and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that that provision has not worked satisfactorily. In London, where the Minister has powers, it will be found that the most successful of his regulations regarding loading and unloading have been those forbidding loading and unloading within very short distances in particular streets—perhaps a distance of 25 yards at the corner of a street leading into, say, Oxford Street or something of that kind. Nearly all the regulations imposed by the Minister have been on a length basis. Under the Acts of 1956 and 1960 a local authority outside the London area cannot do that. They can work only on the time basis. Although he did not say so, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, probably had that in mind; and I am certain that local authorities ought to have those powers.
As amended by this new Clause 12, the original section does not make sense. It reads:
"Subject to the next following subsection no order shall be made under this section with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing such access as may be reasonably required for vehicles of any class "—
188
that is clear; and it goes on:
"but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required ".
What, in fact, that now means, if it means anything at all, is that when a local authority come to make orders as to loading and unloading they need not take access into account at all. That is not what the basic Act said or meant. One has only to read the debates to see that. Clearly, in my view, Her Majesty's Government ought to put into the Bill an amendment giving local authorities the powers they want those authorities to have, but preserving the right of access, which is reasonable, and which is taken away by this new Clause 12.
When this point was originally debated in both Houses, in 1956, it was often stated that it could happen, and in certain matters does happen, that regulations and orders are made by a local authority (not by most local authorities but by some, occasionally) which are based not on the public interest but on local politics. It has always been argued, and it may be argued by my noble friend Lord Chesham this afternoon: "Ah! but should that happen?" There is first the public inquiry, which in this case is held under the orders of the local authority and by the local authority. The public inquiry is held, and the local authority are the jury and the judge. They would almost certainly maintain their original order, and this would go into force.
I am sure my noble friend will say, because it has been said by every Minister: "But there is power of appeal to the Minister if the local authority have acted unreasonably." I am not a lawyer, but I am advised that if this Clause 12 is included in its present form the Minister will not have the power of review. There will be power of appeal to the Minister but he will be legally bound by the Statute which says:
"for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required."
That is not what the original Act says, because there is the proviso. But if the

189
new clause goes in, the Minister will not have the power because the Statute says he must not take loading and unloading into account; and therefore the appeal to the Minister in practice is, or may be, of no effect.
I am not going to press this Amendment or divide the House on it to-day, for it was only on the Committee stage that the Government accepted this clause; but I feel that it should be looked at again, for it makes nonsense. What is more—and this is more important than anything—I am advised that if a local authority are unreasonable and play local polities, and the appeal to the Minister is on a ground of loading or unloading, the Minister, in fact, will have no legal power to alter the decision of the local authority. I may be put right about that, but that is what my legal advisers now advise me.
I would therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to do one of two things. First, I would ask them to have a look at this Clause again before Third Reading, to see if they can think of a form of words to be put in as an Amendment on the next stage, giving local authorities the power they want them to have but covering also reasonable right of access; because at the moment that is not covered in either the 1960 or the 1957 Acts. If Her Majesty's Government cannot find the words to do so—if that is too complicated—then I suggest that Clause 12 should be taken out by the Government, as I am not pressing this, and that on Third Reading an entirely new clause should be drafted to be tacked on to a Road Safety Bill—for it is part of road safety—which we understand the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport is to introduce in the autumn. But I should much prefer to see a proper Amendment put down by Her Majesty's Government on the Order Paper for the Third Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 12.—(Lord Derwent.)
5.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that all these considerations were in my mind when I moved that Amendment. My advice is some-
190
what different from the noble Lord's. I have been advised by draftsmen that it is not nonsense; it is only a way to make sense. I think that the noble Lord is worried about two things: first of all, that local authorities who have this power may play politics. The only politics, in my experience, that local authorities have played in this context is in the direct opposite way to that which the noble Lord fears.
We have spent a long time this afternoon talking about the congestion on the roads of this country. The Minister himself said in a speech, not more than a week or so ago, that from a survey that had been made by the Ministry they realised for the first time what a grave contribution to the congestion of our roads was made by this indiscriminate allowance for loading and unloading of goods-carrying vehicles. I should not mind if it were only the loading and unloading; but, although the loading and unloading takes about five minutes, the vehicle is left standing on the highway all day. That is what happens. There is no greater factor in road congestion than these vehicles which are left standing. I think I cited in 1956 the case that The High, Oxford, is an eight-carriageway road in some parts; in others, it is a four-carriageway; and, in effect, it is never more than a two-carriageway because of the vehicles that are lining both sides.
There is another factor that weighs with me. Let us sometimes, instead of looking at vested interests, look at the pedestrian and the common citizen. Thirty per cent. of the casualties to pedestrians that happen to-day in the towns of our country are caused because when they cross the road their vision is obscured by parked vehicles and waiting motor cars. Let us look at that. As I have said when I moved the Amendment, if we are going to cure the congestion on the roads of this country, everybody must give something—the shopkeeper, and even the vested interests of the Road Haulage Association and people like that. We must all give something. If everyone is going to fight to protect his narrow vested interests we shall never cure this problem.
I am quite satisfied that experience since 1956 has proved conclusively—and

191
the noble Lord admitted it—that the present provision of six hours is a farce. The strange thing about it is that no voice has ever been raised against the Minister's having dictatorial powers over the entire London Traffic Area, without consulting anybody if he does not want to. He does not use them. I never envisaged a situation in which a local authority would ban all this—as I saw in a statement given to the Press by one of the haulage associations—and set up a dictatorship by a local authority. The Minister has been "dictator" for years and years on this matter, but has used his powers, I should say, with wisdom. He may have to be far more stern in the future.
The Minister has now overriding power. I can go hack to the arguments we had on this question in 1956, and my recollection—I may be wrong—is that there can be an appeal by any local authority; there can be a public inquiry, if necessary, and there can be an appeal to the Minister. If the noble Lord tells me that the Minister has not an overriding authority, then I should like to see him have one; because, perhaps, while the noble Lord and I share a dislike of, or lack of love and affection for, local authorities, they are a part of the system of this country, and while we have them I suppose they will have to be made use of. The Minister has said that one of the purposes of this Bill is to put all these responsibilities on the local authority.
I ask the Government not to accept this Amendment: I ask them not to delete this clause from the Bill. I ask them not to accept any suggestion of waiting for a Road Safety Bill. This is not a road safety measure; this is a traffic organisation measure: the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill. It will have a marked effect on road safety. But I would beg the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who I always think presents his case with great fairness, to let us look at the whole picture of what has got to happen. Noble Lords on that side say, "We must clear the streets of these waiting vehicles. We must get rid of obstruction". Here is a glorious chance of doing it in a proper and orderly manner, and I hope that the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment.
LORD SPENS: My Lords, I have been asked, on behalf of the large dairy organisations, to express their anxiety as to the effect of this clause as now amended on their right to deliver large supplies of milk. I am all in favour of getting rid of the six-hours arrangement under the existing clause; it does not work and I think it is absolutely hopeless. But, at the same time, I am very puzzled by the fact that the words struck out of Section 26 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, are the words:
"…if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of 24 hours";
and there are left in the words immediately before, which are:
"…but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required".
I should have thought that if the clause had been amended by striking out everything in the second part of the clause, beginning with the phrase, "but for the purposes of this prohibition…", then everyone would be entitled to such reasonable access as a local authority thought fit to give them. I suggest that the whole of the second part of the section should go as well as the words struck out as the clause now stands.
LORD CHESHAM: I find myself in a slightly odd position on this subject. I think one must look at this matter as one faces it in the light of a situation which is considerably different from the situation five years ago, when, in fact, these provisions were considered. I do not think it is necessary or desirable for me to go carefully again through the argument of con, produced by my noble friend Lord Derwent, or the pro (perhaps I have them the wrong way round, but it does not matter) produced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. They have both been very carefully adduced and I do not think there is any need for me to say much about either argument. For reasons which will be obvious, I agree with, and accept, the majority of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Committee stage. The Government are certainly not anxious to oppose any extension of local authorities' powers in this particular field, where they show

193
every promise of being extremely useful in contributing to successful traffic schemes.
Equally, however, my Lords, we are anxious to safeguard the legitimate interest of commercial vehicle operators. Therefore, I think I should look at it in this way. I do not think I can do either of the things that my noble friend Lord Derwent has asked me to do. I think that, however long we look, it will be virtually impossible to find a form of words which will do what he asks. Nor do I feel particularly keen about excluding the clause and considering the matter later. I think the best way to approach it is perhaps through the powers of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was not specifically correct in saying that there was an appeal to the Minister, because in fact there is not one on this matter; but, if I may tackle it from that angle and say a word about the existing position, it might solve the difficulty.
Under Section 27, subsection (3), of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the Minister has powers, after giving notice to the local authority and holding, if he thinks fit, a public inquiry, to amend, or revoke any order made by a local authority. The snag about that is that the Minister is not in a position to prevent the local authority from making a particular order. If a mischief, so to speak, is created by such an order, he can undo it only after it has been done, and it must necessarily be some time before he knows what has happened and can give the necessary notice and make the amending order. But under Section 29 of the Road Traffic Act, the Minister has power to make regulations which prescribe the procedure to be followed by local authorities when they make traffic regulation orders under Section 26. The regulations which the Minister made in 1957 already say that a local authority shall cause a public inquiry to be held in any case where an order contains a provision for a loading ban, and where there is an unresolved objection. That is the position as at present. The noble Lord said that the local authority was judge and jury in its own case. It does not, I think, work like that.
LORD DERWENT: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend unnecessarily, but he says that at the moment the
194
Minister has not got power to review; but in fact he has, after a public inquiry. That, surely, is correct. I thought that was what my noble friend had just said. There may be a time lag before the order is enforced, I quite understand, but he can overrule it, surely.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, at present he can do it. He can overrule it after giving notice to the local authority and after holding a public inquiry, if he thinks fit. He can then do it. But I went on to describe his power under the procedure regulations, intending to convey that because the local authority must hold a public inquiry in all cases where there is to be a loading ban and where there is an unresolved objection, the Minister is therefore likely to get to hear about it a good deal more quickly.
What I think I could do is this. I could consider whether the Minister could amend his procedure regulations to provide that, where there is an unresolved objection to any local authority order which provides for a loading ban to operate on any particular part of a street for more than six hours in twenty-four, the local authority must send a copy of the inspector's report on the inquiry (which they have already had by virtue of the regulations) to the Minister at least one month before they make the order. This would make pretty sure that the Minister was aware of the possibility of trouble, if there was to be trouble, in advance. He might be able to talk things over, and get a local authority not to make the order, if he thought it unreasonable. If they persisted, where he found it was unreasonable he would be in a position to tackle the matter with the minimum of delay. I should have thought that my advice to your Lordships should be to leave things as they are, and not to accept my noble friend's Amendment at this stage; and, if he is agreeable to that, I will consider the matter with a view to saying more about it at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DERWENT: I am very grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will go into it again. I hope he will at the same time go into the question as to whether, in fact, by this clause as it stands—I am not asking, for an answer now; it is a highly technical and legal question—the Minister is not debarring

195
himself, by Statute, from interfering. It is beyond my legal knowledge to argue the point, but I am advised that that is so. My noble friend will, I know, look into that, and he will look into this other question as to what can be done by regulation. I know that, generally speaking, the traders would prefer the Minister to have as much power of interference, where he thinks it right, as is possible, under regulation or by other
196
methods. However, in view of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 17, leave out ("subsection (9)") and insert ("(9) and (10)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.