Sitting of 2 March 1960

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

    Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. D. Priceasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on his Department's future policy for the development of nuclear marine propulsion.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): My noble Friend's Explanatory Statement indicated that we are putting a substantial effort into research and development on propulsion machinery for nuclear submarines; and the shore-based prototype test reactor at Dounreay will provide essential facilities for the development of British submarine reactor equipments. Studies are also being made of possible applications of nuclear power to surface warships. The Admiralty continues to take an interest in the studies of nuclear propulsion systems for merchant ships which are now being made under the sponsorship of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. Price: Would not my hon. Friend agree that nuclear propulsion will eventually replace steam as inevitably as steam replaced sail? Will he ensure that research into these possibilities has the very highest priority in the Admiralty?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said and draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to his remarks.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I have an assurance that all this knowledge which is to be developed by the Admiralty will be widely spread all over the country and not concentrated in one area?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is no desire within the Admiralty to have a closed shop on nuclear knowledge. The more widely it is spread, the more competition will exist, and I think that that will be better for the industry and for the Admiralty as well.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty is in consultation with the Chamber of Shipping? As he is well aware, ship-owners are concerned about the possibility of adapting nuclear propulsion to merchant ships.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, Sir. We are in touch with the Ministry of Transport, and I have no doubt that the Minister of Transport is in touch with the Chamber of Shipping.

    Orders
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the principle on which he acts in allocating shipbuilding and ship-repairing and other orders by his Department to Scottish and English shipyards respectively; what regard he has to the state of unemployment in these yards; and how many such orders, together with the value in money and tonnage, have been allocated to Scottish and English shipyards respectively during each of the last ten years.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Contracts for building and repairing warships are placed with the shipyards best able to give timely and economical completion. The employment position and economy are among the factors considered.
    Full details of shipbuilding and ship-repairing orders as between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not available. For shipbuilding, the total United Kingdom orders during the last ten years have been 417 ships, totalling 325,000 tons valued at £444 million. Of these, orders for 27 per cent. of the ships, 34 per cent. of the tonnage and 32 per cent. of the value went to Scottish yards.
    Mr. Hughes: As a matter of principle, is not it unwise, in these days of possible bomb warfare, to concentrate these orders in the south of England and the south of Scotland, as is being done? Is not that a very good reason for sending some of these orders to Aberdeen—
    Mr. Strachey: And Dundee.
    Mr. Hughes: —and Dundee and the Moray Firth, but particularly to Aberdeen, which is a good port whose workers, who are unemployed, have a good technique and fine traditions in shipbuilding? Will the Minister consider the points that I have put to him with a view to ameliorating the unemployment situation in Aberdeen?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that 33 per cent. is a bad share of the amount of orders which are going, which is what Scotland has enjoyed. If one refers to Aberdeen alone, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did, one notices that, of the two shipbuilding and ship-repairing firms concerned, employment in Alexander Hall's of Aberdeen, as compared with June, 1951, is exactly the same in January, 1960, while employment at Hall Russell's of Aberdeen is exactly double what it was in June, 1951. So I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has suffered as a result of our administration.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the hon. Gentleman consider Dundee fully on a level with Aberdeen?

  ROYAL NAVY

    Surplus Ships (Disposal)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if, when disposing of surplus ships, he will give priority to dismantling firms operating or intending to operate in areas of unemployment listed under the Local Employment Bill, such as Cairnryan, near Stranraer.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: No, Sir. The current policy is for Government ships to be disposed of for scrapping through the British Iron and Steel Corporation (Salvage) Ltd. These arrangements are, however, at present being reviewed.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department could make a very considerable contribution here to curing local unemployment? Will he try to bring his policy into line with other Government Departments?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am well aware of the point which my hon. Friend has made, but I think that we have to look after the taxpayers' interest at the same time. It is a combination of factors.

    Stornoway Airfield (N.A.T.O. Infrastructure Programme)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement about the proposed establishment of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation base in the Isle of Lewis.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It has been proposed to make a substantial development of Stornoway airfield as a charge to the N.A.T.O. infrastructure programme, so that in the event of war it could be used by N.A.T.O. aircraft. No decision has yet been reached.
    We are aware of objections from local residents and, for this and other reasons, we are anxious to be sure that the choice of Stornoway is essential before we embark on any development.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from my personal views on this, the main anxieties are about the very large influx of personnel, possibly including Spaniards and West Germans nowadays—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—into this area, and the threat to the whole character and way of life of a small community of the islands, and secondly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—the proximity of the base to the only concentration of population in that part of the north Highlands, and finally, the inability of the Minister of Defence to say that there will not be stockpiling of nuclear weapons in that area? Those are the main objections and anxieties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Will the hon. Gentleman keep them in mind?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will bear in mind the points the hon. Member has made, but I think it right to say that the construction of such a base, if it should be possible to go ahead with it, would not be done by people from overseas but by British people, and that it would give valuable employment.

    H.M.S. "Vanguard" (Break-up Value)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the estimated breakup value of H.M.S. "Vanguard".
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I cannot give a precise statement because we are considering disposal of the ship following

    1193
    competitive tendering. Any opinion of her value expressed publicly at this stage might prejudice the tenders.
    Mr. Shinwell: While I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has made and agree with what he said, may I ask whether we can be assured that when the time comes when the tenders are considered and the contract is fixed the House will be informed of what the Admiralty have received as a result of the break-up of this vessel?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend has no desire to keep these matters secret—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why should he?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: —but the nearest measure we have of what sum may be realised is what is being realised for the King George V, the last battleship to be broken up.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: How much?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Although it is not exactly comparable because the prices of scrap steel have changed enormously during the period, she realised about £500,000.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: And was of more value as scrap.

    Marine W. Groves
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the continued absence of 18198 Marine W. Groves from home is causing anxiety to his parents at Great Russell Street, Birmingham; and, in view of the fact that application for compassionate discharge was made over five months ago and that medical evidence in support of the application was submitted nearly three months ago, if he will now consider discharging the man without further delay.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: An officer or rating is given immediate compassionate release when release is the only remedy for serious hardship at home. Marine Groves' parents have four other grown-up children. Marine Groves' application was therefore rejected as it did not match up to the criterion.
    My noble Friend is considering whether the home circumstances have changed so as to warrant discharge.
    Mr. Yates: I appreciate that, but I have been communicating with the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend for over five months. The man said he had not made another application. He has been to his commandant, and I have a letter from him, which I will pass on to the hon. Gentleman, in which he believes that it is only his presence at home which can save his mother. Both his mother and his father are very seriously affected by their health. [Laughter.] I do not know how this is a laughing matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] These parents are seriously ill with blood pressure, both of them.
    Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman resume his supplementary question, because this is the time for Questions?
    Mr. Yates: My question to the Civil Lord is, will he consider the doctor's evidence on this, and the fact that there are no children at home who can take care of the father and mother, and that the boy himself believes, to use his own words, that it is only his presence which can save their health, especially his mother's health?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend is looking at this again, but I would prefer always the application or re-application to come from the Service man rather than from his parents or Members of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have to be certain that on balance the young boy also wants to leave a career where he is doing extremely well. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. Perhaps I could have that letter which he has received, to give to my noble Friend.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Boots
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many of the 1,250,000 pairs of surplus Army boots were allowed to be sold to the public in this country; what was the average price per pair obtained for them; and how this compares with the average price per pair sold for export;
    (2) how much has been realised by the sale of 1,250,000 pairs of surplus Army boots; and how this compares with the cost of the boots to his Department.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The whole of this surplus, amounting to 1,043,000 pairs has now been disposed of. They fetched £576,000, an average of 11s. a pair. There was a fairly wide range of prices, according to condition, between 6s. and 15s. The original cost of the boots was about £1·6 million.
    About 5,000 damaged pairs were permitted to be sold in this country and another 43,000 were sold here without permission. The average price of all these was 10s. a pair.
    I must add that I have disclosed these prices because of the interest which has been focused on this particular case. The disclosure should not be taken to prejudice the well-established custom whereby prices obtained in the sale of Government surplus stores are not normally made public.
    Mr. Dodds: But why does the Secretary of State for War say it is £1·6 million when in reply to Question after Question for months it has been given as £2 million? Is not a scandalous state of affairs revealed by the Public Accounts Committee, that most of the boots should never have been ordered? Does it not reveal that more than £1 million—£1½ million—have been lost through blunders? I am now asking, who has been sacked or reprimanded for this terrible blunder, and a loss of an amount which is six or seven times the amount the Government are giving for World Refugee Year?
    Mr. Soames: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is not the full 1,250,000 which were surplus. Use has been found for a number of them. That accounts for the figure of £1·6 million. As to the second part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman has been told before that more than 1 million pairs became surplus not because of any over-ordering but because of a deliberate decision to reduce mobilisation stocks as the size of the Army was reduced.

    Boat Stores, Barry (Transfer)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his decision to move the Boat Stores from Barry to the Portsmouth area; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The reasons for the move, which have been given in detail to my hon. Friend, derive from the need to concentrate in one place the units of the Water Transport Group, R.A.S.C.
    Mr. Gower: Is not this decision somewhat at variance with the general trend of the Government's policy, which is to retain industry and employing agencies in areas where they are most needed? On that account will my right hon. Friend possibly give this some fresh attention?
    Mr. Soames: No, I fear I cannot, inasmuch as we feel that it is necessary for efficiency to concentrate this group together, and the only place where the group can be concentrated is at Portsmouth. As for the question of employment, about 80 people will be redundant, but posts have been found elsewhere for the great majority of those not due to retire, and I believe that only a very few indeed—I hope, not more than 10—will in fact have to be discharged.

    Soldiers (Funeral Expenses)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for War the amount paid by the Government towards the funeral expenses of soldiers who die in the course of their duties; when that sum was fixed; and what arrangements are made to review it.
    Mr. Soames: The Government pay the whole cost of military funerals conducted by the Services. If the family of a deceased soldier prefer to arrange for a private funeral they receive a grant of £10, or £5 if a coffin is provided by the Service authorities. Within the United Kingdom the Army also bears the cost of returning the body home. The grants were fixed in 1943. It is not intended to review them, but an additional grant of £25 has since become payable under the National Insurance Acts.
    Mr. Pavitt: In view of the fact that the cost of living has changed since 1943, will the Secretary of State please take steps to have a quick review of this? He knows of the case I recently referred to him of a constituent of mine, and that in that case the sum of £5 was given. Will the right hon. Gentleman please have another look at this question in view of the changed circumstances?
    Mr. Soames: No, because the National Insurance Act payment is, of course, made, as it is to civilians, and above that there is a payment from the Army.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the National Insurance death benefit is a benefit for which the contributor himself contracts and pays, and that it is not given by the State?
    Mr. Soames: What I am saying is that the soldier's family, over and above what a civilian gets, get a small extra payment if they choose to have a private funeral.

    Woolwich Arsenal
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for War when he will publish the report of the Hutchinson Committee on the future of Woolwich Arsenal; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Soames: I understand that the Woolwich Review Committee expects to present its report to me very soon. I shall be glad to give what information I can as soon as the Committee's recommendations have been considered. I do not expect to publish the report itself.
    Mr. Mayhew: What procedure does the Minister envisage, when the report comes out, for consultation with all concerned?
    Mr. Soames: I should like to see the report first and think about it. I have not seen the report yet, but we have a precedent to follow in the Perrott Report which came out in 1953.

    Camp, Hampshire (Incident)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the reopening of the sergeants mess at midnight, and the consequent drunkenness there, at the camp in Hampshire, referred to in a case which was tried in the Winchester Assizes last July; what inquiry has been held in respect of the position; and what steps have been taken to avoid a recurrence of such incidents.
    Mr. Soames: An inquiry was held by the commanding officer last August. As a result, two sergeants were posted away
    1198
    from the unit; one of them was reduced in rank.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many parents are very deeply disturbed about this incident, among others—an incident in which there was a drunken orgy and a girl aged 16 was badly beaten up? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that this kind of thing shall not occur anywhere else? Is he aware that it is extremely serious from the point of view of young people going into National Service?
    Mr. Soames: I do not want to underestimate what happened here. It was a breach of discipline, and disciplinary action has been taken. At the same time, I should not like to exaggerate it. The total takings in the sergeants' mess that night were £3 10s., so I do not think it was a drunken orgy.

    Rocket Range, Uist
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for War if he was satisfied with the success of all the 1959 Corporal missile firing exercises at the Uist rocket range; what firing programme is planned for 1960; what other operational use is to be made of the range area apart from this disposal of stocks of obsolete missiles; and if he will state the total sum spent to date on the construction and development of the range and on the associated works and activities.
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. Last year's training programme was successful and another will take place this year. The Corporal missile is not obsolete. The sum spent on the range over the years has been £1½ million.
    Mr. MacMillan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Corporal firing in which he took part was a damp squib? Apart from that, is he aware that the civilian compensation by way of employment and development, which was promised very definitely by the Minister of Defence at the time when the project was started, has not materialised and that the employment is next to nothing at all? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a costly scheme which is producing no result? Surely that is generally acknowledged?
    Mr. Soames: I have not in mind any promise made, but if the hon. Member makes the information available to me, I will certainly have a look at it.

    Territorial Centre, S.W/
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War how long the Territorial Centre in King's Avenue, S.W.4, has been vacant; and when it will be reoccupied.
    Mr. Soames: The centre has been vacant for four years. It is to be reoccupied this year.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not this a deplorable example of Government waste and bungling? Is the Minister aware that, according to a letter which I have had from the War Office, the centre might not be needed for another year or two? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these premises could have been leased or let for some quite useful purpose, instead of their being allowed to stand idle for such a long time?
    Mr. Soames: It is a question of the size of the Territorial Army, which has been built up over the years. We did not need the centre some years back but we knew that it would be needed. We could not tell the exact year, but this is the year in which it will be occupied.

    Dartmoor National Park (Yes Tor)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for War the length of the military road to the top of Yes Tor in the Dartmoor National Park; how many tons of stone, broken concrete and gravel were used in its construction; and the cost of the operation.
    Mr. Soames: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer of 27th January. The track is about 1,500 yards long. Between 40 and 50 tons of broken stone from local quarries were used in its repair, at a cost of about £50. The work was done by War Department staff.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that in two previous Answers given in the House recently it was said that the road was not metalled but now he admits that it is? Has he seen the photograph in the Western Morning News of 21st December, 1959, which shows a motor car
    1200
    at the top of the road and near to the top of the Tor which is the highest hill in the south of England and the West Country? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?
    Mr. Soames: I am afraid that I have not had the advantage enjoyed by the hon. Member of seeing the photograph on 21st December, 1959. I am informed that if the road had been metalled, not 50 tons but 750 tons of stone would have been necessary. What has happened to the track is that the sides have been shored up and the holes filled in to make it traversable by a Land Rover.
    Mr. Hayman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that this is in the middle of a National Park and that the road scars the hill-side?
    Mr. Soames: This track has always been in existence. We have improved it so that we can get the Land Rover up it, and the object is to lower the flag at the top of the Tor as soon as possible after firing has ceased.

  POST OFFICE

    Aberdeen (Facilities)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inadequate postal facilities in the Northfield, Mastrick and Cairncry districts of Aberdeen, that these districts are extensive, hilly and thickly populated, and that these conditions make difficult, especially in winter, business and social life for the residents there, especially the aged; if he has yet completed his inquiries into these conditions; and if he will now have them remedied before winter advances further.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I have carefully considered all the points mentioned by the hon. and learned Member; but I still believe that, with the opening of a new sub-office on 4th January on the south west border of the Mastrick area, postal facilities in the districts in question are adequate.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Lady aware that this matter has been hanging fire for a long time and that when I put a similar Question some time ago it was suggested that the urgent need then, which is still an urgent need now, could

    1201
    be met by the provision of a mobile post office? Will the hon. Lady consider that now as a temporary alleviation?
    Miss Pike: We are considering all these questions at the present time.

    Brentford
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that letters posted to and from the Brentford area frequently take longer than twenty-four hours in transmission; and if he will inquire into the cause of such delays.
    Miss Pike: From time to time complaints have been received of delay to letters posted to and from the Brentford area. It has not always been possible to find out precisely the reason for the delay but there have been cases of missending to a wrong office. My inquiries do not suggest that the service generally in the Brentford area is inferior to that given elsewhere. I am looking into the specific examples which I received from my hon. Friend this morning.
    Mr. Smith: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask her to consult the representatives of Brentford Chamber of Commerce, who have taken up this matter over a period of months, and may I also ask her whether there is any possibility of an improvement in the service as a whole?
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Postmaster-General when he will be in a position to open the new Brentford post office; and if he proposes to use it as a major sorting office for that area of Middlesex.
    Miss Pike: The new office should be open by November at the latest. It will be used to handle correspondence and parcels for delivery in the Brentford area, but not for other areas.
    Mr. Smith: May I ask my hon. Friend if she will reconsider this matter, because we feel that it is linked up very much with the question of the alleged delays in mails in the Brentford area?
    Miss Pike: Correspondence for delivery in Brentford is received at Brentford in direct mails. On the other hand, correspondence posted in Brentford is taken to Hounslow for sorting and dispatch. This arrangement causes no
    1202
    delay in forwarding and I can assure my hon. Friend that it gives the greatest and the most efficient service at the present time.

    Sir J. M. Barrie
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he will issue a special postage stamp in celebration of the centenary of Sir J. M. Barrie.
    Miss Pike: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Lady realise that if Barrie had been a American, a German or a Russian there would have been a special postage stamp? How long is the British Post Office to remain the most reactionary and retrogressive in the world in refusing to adopt a stamp policy which would give an opportunity to stamp collectors and bring additional revenue to the Post Office?
    Miss Pike: I think the hon. Gentleman knows what is our stamp policy. He probably agrees with Barrie, if I may quote from his rectorial address on courage to the students of St. Andrews, that you should never ascribe to your opponent motives meaner than your own. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a jovial Wednesday, but we really must have a little more quiet. Mr. Emrys Hughes.

    Tercentenary (Celebrations)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Postmaster-General how he proposes to celebrate the tercentenary of the establishment of post offices in Great Britain and the appointment of a Postmaster-General.
    Miss Pike: We propose to celebrate the tercentenary of the Charles II Act of 1660 establishing the "General Letter Office" by the issue in the summer of special 3d. and 1s. 3d. stamps and by the display of a series of posters showing how the mail was delivered at various times during the 300 years. These scenes will be painted by famous artists and the theme will be the need for a correct address in order that mail can be delivered quickly.
    In addition, we have a stand at the Ideal Home Exhibition featuring the historical development of the postal services over the past 300 years.

    1203
    The celebrations are not intended to mark the appointment of a Postmaster-General.
    Mr. Hughes: But is the Minister aware that I listened with great patience to her very long Answer in the hope of hearing at the end that the Post Office would issue a stamp of Robert Burns? Does this mean that we are likely to have a postage stamp of the Postmaster-General, and if so, will she let the Postmaster-General have it for England and give us Burns for Scotland?
    Mr. Janner: May I ask the hon. Lady to realise that the old-age pensioners at Mowmacre Hill, Leicester, will not participate in any celebrations about the tercentenary of the establishment of a post office until they have a post office of their own?
    Miss Pike: One of our difficulties is that the Post Office services to the community are always developing. Three hundred years ago the Post Office was not paying pensions and allowances to people in the country as a whole. At the present time we are doing everything we can to meet the growing demands of the community.

    North-East Scotland (Emergency Transport)
    Mr. Hendryasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider, in conjunction with the appropriate Defence Minister, the institution of emergency helicopter services to ensure essential postal services for towns and villages cut off by snowstorms in north-east Scotland.
    Miss Pike: Arrangements already exist for all emergency transport provided in such circumstances to be used where appropriate for conveyance of mails, but emergency helicopter services could not be justified solely for mail purposes.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tremendous efforts of her staff in those very difficult circumstances are much appreciated, and will she give an assurance that she will use every possible scientific device to help them in their work?
    Miss Pike: Yes, Sir. We do our best, but we believe that in severe conditions helicopters may be required for matters
    1204
    of life and death, and it would be wrong as well as expensive to try to use them to overcome relatively short delays to mail traffic.

    Islington (Deliveries)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in some parts of Islington the morning post is not delivered until after 9 o'clock; and if he will arrange for postal deliveries to be made earlier than this.
    Miss Pike: I am sorry that some of the deliveries in Islington have been running late. I am looking into this and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister think it might be a convenient part of the celebrations of the tercentenary of the Post Office to make arrangements in the Metropolis for all letters to be delivered at a reasonable hour in the morning?
    Miss Pike: It is our general aim to deliver all letters by 9 o'clock. While in general this is achieved, I realise that there are places in Islington where we are not doing that. As I have said, we are looking into the matter and we hope we shall do better.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Satellite Stations
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Postmaster-General if he will expedite his plans for installing low-power satellite transmitters in areas remote from main transmitters in order to improve television reception.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): The B.B.C. is pressing on as fast as it can with the fourteen television satellite stations announced on 24th June, 1959. It is also preparing its plans for the next stage of its scheme.
    The I.T.A. is still busy completing its main network stations which include stations to serve South West England. The I.T.A. tells me that it is not yet in a position to propose plans for smaller stations in areas not adequately served at present.
    Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we pay exactly

    1205
    the same price for our television licences as do those in other parts of the country but that reception in our area is extremely bad? Is he aware that, to say the least, it is extremely frustrating particularly when one wants to watch such a show as the "Television Toppers"? Would my right hon. Friend please try to expedite the provision of this satellite station?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, but so far I have not had proposals from the B.B.C. affecting that area. I realise that reception is bad.
    Mr. Watkins: Can the Postmaster-General say how many stations which were mentioned last June are already in operation?
    Mr. Bevins: To the best of my knowledge, I do not think that any have been completed. They take 12 to 18 months to put up.
    Mr. Watkins: May I ask the Postmaster-General again—
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Speaker: These exclamations of enthusiasm do not assist progress with Questions.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) is in the middle of asking a question.
    Mr. Watkins: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am not one of those who are too enthusiastic in that sense, but is it not right that I should be allowed to ask a question of the Postmaster-General and inquire whether my constituents can see the right hon. Gentleman in the House some time?
    Mr. Speaker: I wish that the hon. Member would get on with the question.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. It is extremely difficult to ask supplementary questions because of the bad behaviour of hon. Members on the third bench opposite.
    Mr. Speaker: Do not let us have competition in bad behaviour. Let us progress.
    Mr. Watkins: Could not the Postmaster-General get the B.B.C. to expedite the provision of some of these stations about which an announcement was made last June? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a satellite station in my constituency was mentioned then but no work has been started on it?
    Mr. Bevins: The announcement was made by my predecessor in the middle of 1959, but the B.B.C. is getting on with this as quickly as it can.

    Programmes
    Mr. Benceasked the Postmaster-General what direction he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation under Article 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from broadcasting programmes which project, by television and sound radio, the taking of alcoholic drinks in plays, films and variety shows, in view of the increasing tendency to include such matter in there entertainments.
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the increasing frequency of scenes of drinking and constant invitations to drink, in the programmes broadcast by both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority; and, in view of this emphasis, which is detrimental to the moral fibre of the younger generation, if he will use his powers under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement and Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, to require the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority to refrain from broadcasting programmes including such matters.
    Mr. Bevins: Programme content is a matter for the broadcasting organizations. No directions on the subject raised by the hon. Members have been issued by me and I see no reason to intervene.
    Mr. Bence: Notwithstanding the fact that it is well known that the liquor used at the B.B.C. is nothing more harmless than cold tea, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is bad continually to project into every

    1207
    home the practice of inviting a guest or a visitor to have a drink, sometimes before they leave to drive a car?
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. This is a matter for the B.B.C. and for the I.T.A. Both organisations assure me that they watch the alcoholic content, such as it is, of their programmes very carefully.
    Mr. Craddock: Why will not the Minister use the powers he has under the 1954 Act to protect the public and the younger generation against these continuing unfortunate scenes? Furthermore, may I ask if he will act in this case, because I have received fifty-four complaints from all parts of the country against the recurrent drinking scenes shown by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.?
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I do not seriously believe that the moral fibre of the younger generation is in any way weakened when they see an actor on television taking a drink of cold tea or coloured water.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Postmaster-General if he will give a direction under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, requiring the authority to refrain from broadcasting programmes which create enmity towards other nations with which the United Kingdom is trying to secure peace, such as "The Invisible Man" series.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that the I.T.A. has now admitted that six of the films in this series have some kind of cold war theme? Is it right that under the guise of entertainment this vicious propaganda, which is produced and slanted with an eye to the sale of films to American T.V. corporations, should be transmitted week after week to millions of unsuspecting homes?
    Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman's Question suggests that "The Invisible Man" series creates enmity towards other nations. I have myself asked a considerable number of people if this series has that effect on them and they have all looked at me in bewilderment. The fact is that this is a series of spy
    1208
    stories. They are pure fiction, and how anyone who sees a series featuring an invisible man can regard it as other than fiction, I do not pretend to know.

    Broadcasting (Future)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Postmaster-General the terms of reference and membership of the proposed commission of inquiry into the future of broadcasting.
    Mr. Bevins: If and when the Government decide upon such a course, the House would, of course, be informed. No such decision has been made.
    Mr. Mayhew: But will not the Minister agree that it is essential to have a committee of inquiry before the new licences for television broadcasting are issued?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, that is one of possibilities which are being looked at.

    Colour Television
    Mr. Jannerasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that it is now estimated that there are 500,000 colour television sets in use in the United States of America; and what are the factors still stopping the supply of adequate colour television service in Great Britain.
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, but there are more than 50 million monochrome receivers in the United States. Our main problem—and it is a universal problem—is the production of a colour receiver at an economic price. We also have to determine the colour system and the definition standards to be used.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we are not as far advanced in these matters as America? Is he not prepared to do something about expeditition in this direction?
    Mr. Bevins: Indeed, yes, but I was pointing out that only about 1 per cent. of the households in the United States have colour television. The whole matter of line definition and colour is currently being examined by the Television Advisory Committee, whose report I expect to receive quite soon and which will be placed in the Library.

    New Transmitter, West Cornwall
    Mr. Haymanasked the Postmaster-General when the British Broadcasting Corporation expects to be able to provide the new television and very high frequency transmitter for west Cornwall.
    Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. has chosen a site and hopes to start work shortly. It estimates that it will then take about eighteen months to complete the station.
    Mr. Hayman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I inquire whether he will ask the B.B.C. to do all it can to expedite the provision of this transmitter, because reception in places in west Cornwall is very bad.
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    General Practitioners (Calls to Hospitals)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Postmaster-General if he will exempt the local telephone calls of general practitioners to hospitals from the revision of rates, which proposes that such calls will be on a timed basis for charging purposes.
    Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member no doubt has in mind the subscriber trunk dialling tariff under which all calls will be charged for in units of 2d., the amount of time so bought depending on the distance. With this system, many local calls will be charged 2d. instead of 3d. I am afraid it is technically impossible to exempt, from timing, local calls from or to particular installations.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the technical difficulties involved, in view of the fact that already we have established a precedent in that other emergency calls, under 999, are exempt from payment altogether? Does he realise the terrific burden this will place on general practitioners in trying to place people urgently in local hospitals? It is impossible for a general practitioner to ask a hospital to ring back, and he often needs to ring three or four hospitals. Until he has his first answer it is impossible to carry the inquiry further. Will the right hon. Gentleman please see
    1210
    if he can overcome the technical difficulties, which I am quite sure can be adjusted on the accounting system even if these calls are originally timed?
    Mr. Bevins: I appreciate the peculiar position of doctors under this new system, but I am advised that the technical difficulties of making this differentiation are insuperable. I am, however, willing to have a look at this again, if the hon. Member will leave it with me.
    Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that doctors are not the only people who use their telephones for purposes of social services calls? If he is to look at this matter again, will he also consider it from the point of view of other people, such as M.P.s, trade union officials and others who have to use the telephone for social services?
    Mr. Bevins: The case of doctors is a very special one in so far as they often have to wait for connections with wards in hospitals.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Vulcan and Victor Aircraft
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects the deliveries of the Vulcan Mark II and Victor Mark II to be completed.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I cannot at present add to the information on Vulcan II and Victor II deliveries contained in my Estimates Memorandum.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the importance of these aircraft in the structure of the Royal Air Force, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to speed up their delivery?
    Mr. Ward: That is very largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, with whom I am in close touch.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he speaks tomorrow in the Air Estimates debate, try to say something on this point, which is very important?
    Mr. Ward: I shall certainly deal with the V-bombers.

    Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Air what length of warning will be given by the Fylingdales Moor early warning station of intermediate range ballistic missiles launched at distances of respectively 750, 1,000 and 1,500 miles from Nottingham.
    Mr. Ward: Over a range of 1,500 miles the warning time would be about 11 minutes. Over shorter distances it could theoretically be anything from about 4 to about 15 minutes, according to the speed and trajectory of the missile.
    Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the heart of industrial England is only 900 miles from Soviet territory in former East Prussia? Will he now admit that the amount of warning of a missile attack that we would be likely to get would be entirely inadequate for this country to be able to do anything effective in defence of its people?
    Mr. Ward: I have already made it clear more than once that the primary task of this station is not to warn the public but to make our deterrent more effective.

    Automatic Gun Parts (Sale)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what is now the estimated value of the automatic gun parts sold at the Royal Air Force Station, Hartlebury, to Mr. Abraham Solomons; and how much money was received for them.
    Mr. Ward: The only value of which the Air Ministry is aware for these parts is their scrap value, estimated now at £50. Their corresponding value in 1957 was £26 and they were sold for this sum.
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that there is absolutely no truth in newspaper reports that these parts are worth many thousands of pounds, and that officers of his Department have visited this man to try and get him to sell them back
    Mr. Ward: I was, naturally, quoting the scrap value of these parts; they were sold, as the hon. Member knows, as
    1212
    scrap. I am not concerned with the real value but with the scrap value, which is what we sold them for. When we heard that the police were objecting to these goods being sold as firearms we recognised that it would have been better if we had mutilated them before selling them as scrap, which is what we do nowadays. Therefore, it seemed right to offer to take them back. It is quite wrong to suggest that we have any use for them.

  ROADS

    Major Road Improvements
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport when he will improve the procedure of his Department for advising county councils as to forthcoming grants for major road improvements on classified roads which, at present, makes it impossible for these councils to work to definite plans, and compels them to base their estimates of expenditure on guesswork; and if he will give special reconsideration to the difficulties of the Wiltshire County Council in this respect.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Grants are authorised within the total amounts voted annually by Parliament. But I fully realise the importance of advance planning and my Department gives highway authorities the best indication possible of the likely scale of grant for some years ahead. In 1958 all highway authorities were given such an indication up to 1961. I am now considering those lists of schemes covering the next five years submitted by highway authorities at my request.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the personal interest which he has taken in this matter, and for the letter which he wrote to me yesterday on this subject, may I ask whether he is aware that in Wiltshire, in particular, very many county councillors—most of whom are his supporters rather than ours—are very unhappy indeed about this matter? The chairman of the committee concerned says that this has been a constant headache for a long time and that it is high time that the Minister got down to the question and revised his methods. Will he look at this sympathetically with a view to satisfying these people?
    Mr. Marples: In view of their excellent political sagacity, I will do my best to satisfy them. But the basis of a highway programme must be what a local authority itself would like to do within its area. I will look at any case, if the hon. Member will send the details to me.

    Communications (South Wales and Midlands)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport if he will expedite the improvements in road communications between South Wales and the Midlands; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Work will start this spring on the first twenty-eight miles of the Bristol to Birmingham motorway, which will join the Ross Spur motorway now under construction and due for completion before the end of the year. Between Ross and Newport the existing trunk road will be provided throughout with dual carriageways and we hope to start the first schemes in this comprehensive improvement during the next financial year. Preparatory work on the Newport by-pass is now actively in hand. Construction started in January last on the first stage of the Heads of the Valleys road and this will be followed by other schemes to complete the improvement of the trunk route between Raglan and Neath.
    Mr. Gower: In view of the efforts now being made in South Wales ports to find other trades to take the place of the coal exports, will my hon. Friend appreciate the very great urgency of this question of improving road communications with the Midlands?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, we are well aware of this. This set of projects constitutes one of the five major projects which my right hon. Friend's predecessor announced as long ago as 1956.

    M.1 Road (Fencing)
    Mr. Mappasked the Minister of Transport the capital cost and maintenance cost per mile of highway fencing on the M.1 road; and whether, in formulating his proposals for financial
    1214
    assistance to the railways, which now bear the total cost of track fencing, he will consider making a comparable grant.
    Mr. Marples: The capital cost of fencing the M.1 road was £3,100 for each mile of highway, and the average annual maintenance cost will be about £40 a mile, but I do not think that this is very relevant to the present financial problem of the railways.
    Mr. Mapp: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that the British Transport Commission operates nearly 19,000 track miles? Can he assure us that this example, and other comparable forms of track costs and track signalling costs, of road and rail will be borne in mind in preparing the statement to the House on the B.T.C.'s finances?
    Mr. Marples: Every fact will be borne in mind before that statement is made.

    Road Junction, Derby (Fatal Accident)
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport whether he will call for a report about the fatal accident which occurred in Derby on 8th January, 1960, at the junction of Derby Road and Kenilworth Avenue; and whether he will consider the recommendations put forward by the jury at the inquest on the pedestrian who was killed.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I will write to the right hon. Member when our inquiries are complete.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Did not the jury say that this was a very dangerous place? Will the hon. Gentleman consider instructing the divisional road engineer to meet local representatives with a view to providing the pedestrian crossing for which the local authority has asked?
    Mr. Hay: The position is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the jury made such an observation. Our divisional road engineer visited the site recently and discussions are now proceeding locally. That is involved in the report for which I have called. As soon as we get that report, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about it.

  RAILWAYS

    Rogart Station (Passenger Traffic)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that Rogart railway station is to be kept open for goods traffic but closed to passenger traffic to the inconvenience of the local people, over 2,000 of whom travelled to and from Rogart last year, and that the four daily passenger trains need to stop for only one minute to put down and pick up passengers; and if he will refer the proposed closure of part of Rogart railway station to the appropriate Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
    Mr. Marples: This matter has already been fully considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland.
    Sir D. Robertson: Since when did it become more important for goods to have precedence over passengers? Surely passengers should have the prior right over goods? If services are kept open for goods, then why not for passengers also?
    Mr. Marples: This question has been fully considered, but I looked into it myself, knowing my hon. Friend's tenacity in supplementary questions. People make 2,000 journeys in a year—arrivals and departures—which works out at five or six passenger journeys per day on a total of seven trains per day. That means fewer than one passenger per train—to be exact, ·85 of a passenger per train—which makes it difficult to run it at a profit.

    British Transport Commission (Organisation)
    Mr. Cooperasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the future financial and administrative organisation of the British Transport Commission.
    Mr. Marples: I am not in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the very grave apprehensions throughout the country about the affairs of the British Transport Commission, can my right hon. Friend give any indication of when he will be able to make such a statement?
    Mr. Marples: It will be fairly quickly, but I prefer that the statement should be accurate and comprehensive rather than that it should be made too soon.
    Mr. Benn: Does not the fact that the Guillebaud Report will be out today or tomorrow necessitate an early statement, and is not a debate on the whole subject now becoming very urgent?
    Mr. Marples: I have already given an assurance that I will make a statement at the earliest possible moment. I realise that the Guillebaud Report will be out this week. A debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Nabarro: May I appeal to my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in the presence of the Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—is he aware—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to conduct Questions. I know what fun shouting is, but sometimes we have to refrain from indulging ourselves.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am very grateful for your protection, Sir. Is it not a fact that the finances of the British Transport Commission in their present condition have very grave implications in the context of the Budget? Cannot hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as hon. Members opposite, be assured that there will be a debate well before the Budget so that the advance in railwaymen's wages is not used as an excuse for failing to reduce taxation in the Budget?
    Mr. Marples: I am grateful for those preliminary views of my hon. Friend, but the question of a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Nabarro: Of course, but I have said it in his presence.
    Mr. Marples: No doubt he will attach to it the same weight which he always gives to observations from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not allow his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to bully him into any further inactivity?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think that I shall allow my hon. Friend to bully me, although at times his appearance is somewhat formidable.

    Victoria Line Tube
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the consideration given by his Department to the Report of the London Travel Committee on the proposed Victoria line.
    Mr. Marples: I have at present nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 3rd February.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: As it is more than a month since my right hon. Friend said that he hoped to make a statement soon, may we be told how soon is soon?
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend must remember that the whole of the railway system, both underground and over-ground, is now being examined and it is better to treat it altogether.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the patience of London's travelling public is beginning to wear a little thin? Will he bear in mind that he has promised to make so many early statements that we would like an assurance that he will place this at the head of the long queue of early statements which he has promised to make?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think that I have promised to make many early statements, but this will be made early. The travelling public would be very inconvenienced if we adopted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of not allowing motor cars in the centre of London.

  TRANSPORT

    Traffic Volumes
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to announce the revision of the basis for estimating future traffic volumes laid down in Circular 727 of 30th April, 1956.
    Mr. Marples: The revised basis for estimating future traffic volumes will be incorporated in a general circular to highway authorities about the design of roads in rural areas. I hope shortly to
    1218
    consult the associations of local authorities about this circular and I will issue it as soon as possible afterwards.

    Public Service and Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Transport if he will now ask representative organisations for their recommendations on increasing from 30 miles-an-hour to 40 miles-an-hour, outside built-up areas, the speed limits of public service and goods vehicles.
    Mr. Hay: A similar proposal was circulated in December, 1958, and I have the views which the representative organisations gave last year. We will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind if we decide to seek the views of these organisations again.
    Mr. Goodhew: Does not my hon. Friend realise that many of these vehicles already travel at 40 miles-an-hour. That being so, would it not be better if it were made legal?
    Mr. Hay: There was a good deal of lack of unanimity among the representative organisations on these matters when we considered them last year. I would not like to accept without qualification or challenge what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that men's livelihoods are affected by any decision about raising the speed limit from 30 miles-an-hour to 40 miles-an-hour. Will he assure the House that before such a decision is taken, the trade unions concerned will be consulted?
    Mr. Hay: I think that they were consulted—
    Mr. Mellish: Are they to be consulted now?
    Mr. Hay: They were consulted last year and would certainly be consulted again.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the imminence of international discussions on the problems of disarmament and world peace,

    1219
    and the desirability of reducing tension in order to create a favourable atmosphere for these discussions, he will instruct the Service Departments and the other authorities concerned to postpone the construction of a ballistic missile early warning station in the United Kingdom, at least until after these discussions have taken place.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): No, Sir.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Foreign Secretary was consulted about the timing of the announcement about Fylingdales? Was it not realised, quite apart from the merits or demerits of the project, that an announcement at this time would be likely to aggravate intransigence, obstinacy and boastfulness on both sides of the negotiation table?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was aware of this decision. Its effect was discussed in the debate on defence over the last two days. Undoubtedly it adds to the effectiveness of our deterrent. It does not measure badly against some of the statements which the Russians have recently made about their great increase in power of rockets and missiles and I do not think, therefore, that it will have the bad effects which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (SPAIN)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council about the lease of bases in Spain; and to what extent these decisions provided for occupation of such bases by German troops.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): None, Sir.
  Mr. Swingler: In view of the statements which have been made by the Foreign Secretary since this Question was put down, is the Foreign Office now aware of the widespread opposition to the location in Spain of any military bases for the West? Will the right hon.
  1220
  Gentleman now reconsider giving an assurance that the British delegate at N.A.T.O. will oppose any proposal that N.A.T.O. bases should be located in Spain?
  Mr. Profumo: I have nothing to add to the very clear statement which my right hon. and learned Friend made the other day, except, perhaps, to say that I understand that that subject is being discussed by the N.A.T.O. Council today and that it is possible that the Council will be issuing a communiqué after its meeting.
  Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister of State aware that the Foreign Secretary's statement on the subject was not clear, and that he refused to answer the question? Will he give an assurance that we will oppose the location in Spain of military bases for N.A.T.O.? May we have an answer to that supplementary question?
  Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answers which my right hon. and learned Friend gave on that occasion, he will find that his Question was adequately covered.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES (INSTALLATIONS)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what bases in the Falkland Islands Dependencies are still in the occupation of Argentina and Chile; and what negotations have taken place with these or other Governments concerning their claims.
  Mr. Profumo: Argentina at present occupies nine and Chile four bases in the Falkland Islands Dependencies. Both Governments have also erected navigational beacons and refuge huts in the area. Her Majesty's Government made formal protests when each installation was set up.
  The Antarctic Treaty signed in Washington on 1st December, 1959, on behalf of twelve nations, including the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile, provides for the maintenance of the legal status quo as regards territory. The Treaty, when ratified, will ensure that United Kingdom sovereignty in the Antarctic is fully safeguarded.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Gateshead
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of persons registered as unemployed, both male and female, together with the percentage rates of unemployment, both male and female, in the Gateshead and district area for the latest convenient date, together with figures for each twelve months preceding; and if he will give separate figures for Gateshead.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): As the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Randall: May I ask the Minister of Labour if the figures show that there has been heavy and persistent unemployment? If they do, what is he doing in the matter? Also, will he draw to the attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the fact that there is a very good reason why this

    NUMBER OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES IN THE GATESHEAD ARE AND THE PERCENTAGE RATES WHICH THESE REPRESENT OF THE ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE AREA

    —

    9th February, 1959

    15th February, 1960

    Males

    Females

    Total

    Males

    Females

    Total

    Blaydon

    …

    …

    …

    501

    66

    567

    455

    84

    539

    Felling

    …

    …

    …

    …

    375

    71

    446

    372

    61

    433

    Gateshead

    …

    …

    …

    1,518

    460

    1,978

    1,676

    336

    2,012

    Prudhoe

    …

    …

    …

    81

    19

    100

    90

    28

    118

    Total for Gateshead area

    …

    2,475

    616

    3,091

    2,593

    509

    3,102

    Percentage Rates

    …

    …

    4·6

    2·7

    4·0

    4·8

    2·2

    4·1

EARTHQUAKE, AGADIR (AID)
Mr. Edelman (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what aid the Government is giving to victims of the Moroccan earthquake disaster.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): Her Majesty's Government have heard with profound regret of the damage to life and property which has been suffered by the people of Agadir in this terrible earthquake disaster. To assist in relief we are offering the sum of £10,000.
area should be included in those areas listed under the Local Employment Bill?
Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has the fundamental figures which appear in this list which I am publishing for the information of the hon. Gentleman. As to the explanation of his action, my right hon. Friend answered a Question from the hon. Gentleman on 18th February.
Mr. Randall: That does not answer the first part of my supplementary question. Do the figures show that there has been substantial and heavy unemployment among men during the period covered by the Question?
Mr. Heath: The figures are those for which the hon. Gentleman asked, which are those for 9th February, 1959, and 15th February, 1960. There is a difference of 0·1 per cent. between those figures, but they are not the average over the whole year, because the hon. Gentleman did not ask for them.
Following is the table:
Parliament will be asked in due course to vote the money by means of a Supplementary Estimate to the Foreign Office Grants and Services Vote. In the meantime, an advance is being obtained from the Civil Contingencies Fund. It is for discussion with the Moroccan authorities whether this contribution shall be in cash or kind.
Units of the Royal Air Force are standing by in Gibraltar with relief supplies and will leave as soon as the Moroccan authorities are ready to receive them. A minesweeper, Her Majesty's ship "Darleston", will arrive in Agadir

1223
within the next 24 hours and will be followed as soon as possible by Her Majesty's ship "Tyne". This ship, of 11,000 tons, has extensive facilities for the treatment of the injured.
Last night, my right hon. and learned Friend sent the following message to the Moroccan Government:
"I am most distressed to hear of the disaster which has befallen the town of Agadir. I would like Your Excellency to know that I and my colleagues in Her Majesty's Government, and the people of the United Kingdom, feel the deepest sympathy for the Government and people of Morocco and share in your sorrow for the victims of this disaster."
I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with this message.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's prompt and active help will be welcomed by all those who have been shocked by this catastrophe and are anxious that sympathy should find practical assent?
Mr. Profumo indicated assent.

OFFICIAL REPORT (ALTERATION)
Mr. George Wigg: May I raise a point of order of which I have given you, Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence notice?
On reading HANSARD this morning, I became aware of a discrepancy in the report of the speech, as I recollected it, of the Minister of Defence last night. I therefore approached the Editor of HANSARD, who was kind enough to write to me in the following terms:
"The original typescript of the marked passage attached read as follows:
'It is clearly known and accepted in N.A.T.O. that our new Regular Forces have an efficiency, quality and fighting power which is worth two or three conscript soldiers even in the German Forces. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is denigrating now?"]'."
The Editor said that this was altered by the Minister's Department to read:
"It is clearly known and accepted in N.A.T.O. that our new Regular Forces have an efficiency, quality and fighting power not possessed by conscript soldiers even in the German Forces. [An HON. MEMBER: 'Who is denigrating now?']"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 1152.]
1224
The letter to me concludes by saying that the responsibility for allowing an alteration rests with the OFFICIAL REPORT; the Minister's Department may suggest alterations, but it is the Editor's responsibility either to allow them or not, and this one should not have been allowed.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me notice of this matter so that I could inform myself of the position. I am afraid that there is nothing I can do except apologise to the House for an error in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Such a change should not, of course, have been allowed.
I hope that I shall have the House with me if I say that, by and large, the OFFICIAL REPORT renders magnificent service to us all, and it is rare indeed that one finds that a mistake has been made.
I will give instructions that in the Bound Volume the words will be put back to what the Minister said.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I may have some responsibility in this, and, if so, I would certainly wish to tender my apologies to the House, Mr. Speaker.
What, I think, happened was that after my speech last night it was pointed out to me that something I said—I was not speaking from notes and in the heat of debate one says things—might be misunderstood outside the House. I fully accept responsibility for giving instructions that, in the normal editing of HANSARD, which, I think, the whole House understands, if this could be guarded against it should be.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was kind enough to let me know this morning what he proposed to do. I consulted HANSARD, and I agree with him that it would have been better to have left matters as they were. I told him, and I sent a message to the Editor—I do not know whether this was right or not—that I was only too anxious that the matter should be restored in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I do not know quite where the responsibility lies, but perhaps you would allow me to say, Sir, that I must accept some responsibility. I do not wish the blame to lie entirely on the OFFICIAL REPORT. I apologise for what happened.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.38 p.m.
  The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill carries out a pledge that we gave at the General Election. It has two main purposes. First, to ensure that all who provide public transport by air shall be required to maintain proper standards of safety. Secondly, to establish an independent authority to whom all airline operators can apply on an equal footing for licences to run regular air services.
  I will, if I may, deal first with the question of safety. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and most of the independent airlines, have established—and I am sure that the House will agree with this—a high reputation for reliability. There is, however, a growing feeling that the existing arrangements for individual safety in air transport need to be strengthened and extended. At present, no new scheduled service is approved by the Minister unless the Director of Aviation Safety at the Ministry of Aviation certifies that the operator's equipment and organisation are safe and satisfactory for the service proposed.
  On the other hand, and this is our difficulty, we have no power to insist that the same standards of safety are observed by operators of charter services, who do not have to go through the procedure of obtaining the Minister's approval. This is a matter of some importance since many thousands of passengers now travel by these services each year.
  The tragic crash of a charter plane at Southall, in 1958, in which seven people lost their lives, drew attention to the unsatisfactory state of the law. This led to a demand that all operators, without exception, should be made to comply with proper safety requirements. It is I think, in everybody's interest that the law should be tightened up. It is necessary for the protection of the passengers in the air and the public on the ground. It is necessary for the protection of conscientious operators against
  1226
  being undercut by less scrupulous rivals. It is also necessary to protect the good name of British aviation, which can so easily be damaged by the negligence of an irresponsible minority.
  The Bill consequently provides that, in future, all commercial operators, without exception, will have to obtain what is to be called an "air operator's certificate." The precise form of the certificate will be prescribed by an Order in Council, under Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. This Order will be made after the Bill becomes law. The certificate will be issued by the Director of Aviation Safety, of the Ministry of Aviation—the same authority that now certifies to the Advisory Council on these matters. This certificate will certify that from the standpoint of safety an operator's aircraft are of a suitable type and that his maintenance system, operational staff and organisation are up to the standard required for the service in question.
  Firms which are refused an air operator's certificate will have the right of appeal to an independent arbiter, who will be assisted, when necessary, by expert assessors. I considered whether the appeal should be to the Minister and not to an independent arbiter. But since it is a question of fact which has to be considered, and since the Director of Aviation Safety—whose decision is being questioned—is an official of the Minister, it seemed to me fairer that the issue should be settled by an entirely independent person.
  All operators will be asked to apply for operators' certificates as soon as the Bill becomes law. To give time for these applications to be dealt with there will be an interval of a few months before the provisions of Clause 1 (2, a) are brought into force.
  I come now to the other main purpose of the Bill, namely, to set up an independent authority to license air transport services. It might have been possible to create a licensing authority without any new Bill at all, since Parliament, in its wisdom, provided powers to do this by Order in Council under Section 13 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. However, in view of the wide interest which exists in this matter, we thought that the House would prefer us to deal with this by means of a Bill, which can be more

  1227
  fully debated and, if necessary, amended in Committee.
  Before explaining the provisions of the Bill, I should like to say a word about the present practice and the way in which it has developed since the war. The Civil Aviation Act, 1946, later consolidated in the Air Corporations Act, 1949, gave the airways corporations and their associates a statutory monopoly of all scheduled services. The independent companies were thus restricted to the somewhat limited field of charter work. But before very long it was seen that this arrangement was unfair and to some extent unworkable. Accordingly, in 1949, the then Government authorised the independents to operate a small number of scheduled services to supplement those provided by the corporations.
  In order to circumvent the statutory monopoly of the corporations, the independent companies concerned had to be appointed as associates of B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.—a most tortuous and cumbersome arrangement. In deciding what independent services should be authorised the then Minister of Civil Aviation, Lord Pakenham, turned for advice to the Air Transport Advisory Council. As a result, this body, which had originally been designed as nothing more than a normal consumers' council, gradually assumed the functions of a licensing authority.
  In 1952, after the change of Government, this informal arrangement was further extended. In all the circumstances, I believe that the Air Transport Advisory Council has discharged its difficult duties with fairness and efficiency, and on behalf of the Government I should like to express our warm appreciation of the services rendered by the members of the Council and, in particular, by its Chairman, Lord Terrington.
  But with the rapid growth of air transport, it would clearly not be right to rely indefinitely upon these somewhat makeshift arrangements. Moreover, the corporations naturally dislike the legal farce which obliges them to conclude associate agreements with the independent companies, which, in reality, are not associates, but rivals. The independents equally dislike the procedure under which they are precluded from applying for licences in their own right.
  1228
  The Bill will regularise this position in two ways. First, the monopoly of the corporations will be brought to an end by the repeal of Section 24 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. Secondly, a Board will be set up to whom all operators, both corporations and independents, will be able to apply for licences on equal terms. I have not yet reached any final conclusions about the composition of the Board. All I can say at present is that it is intended to appoint men of wisdom and experience. Since one of the main tasks of the Board will be to adjudicate between claims of rival operators it would be inappropriate for the Board to contain representatives of the interests concerned.
  Applications for licences will, in general, be advertised, so that any other parties which may be affected will have the opportunity to raise objections. The proceedings of the Board should normally be held in public—unlike the proceedings of the Advisory Council.
  Mr. John Rankin: Will the Press be there?
  Mr. Sandys: If the proceedings are held in public I do not suppose that the Press will fail to take advantage of those facilities. It may, however, be necessary to hold private sittings from time to time, for example if issues affecting international relations are being discussed.
  Clause 2 (2) sets out a list of considerations which the Board is required to take into account in deciding whether or not to grant a licence. These are intended to ensure that applicants will be given a fair opportunity to obtain licences for new services, while, at the same time, ensuring proper protection for existing operators.
  It is my intention that the Board shall be as independent as it is possible to make it, for that is one of the primary purposes of the Bill. I have, therefore, kept down the Minister's powers to the minimum. The only important power which is reserved to the Minister is that of deciding appeals from decisions of the Board.
  I think that it will be found that any other powers which are reserved to the Minister are very secondary in importance in comparison with the power to settle appeals. I considered most carefully the possibility of setting up some

  1229
  independent appeal machinery. But since, at times, issues of Government policy and of public policy are bound to be involved, I felt that hon. Members would not wish these matters to be settled by anyone except a Minister accountable here to the House of Commons.
  In addition, the Minister is given two further powers, but, as I have said, these are very secondary in comparison with the power to settle appeals. The first is the power to require the Board to reject an application for a licence, the grant of which would entail negotiations with a foreign Government for traffic rights. I think that it will be agreed that it would not be right for an outside body such as a licensing board to put the Government under an obligation to open negotiations with foreign Governments if they do not think it wise and opportune to do so.
  The other function reserved to the Minister is that of approving, as at present, the rates of international fares. In view of the existing procedure for the negotiation of these fares through the International Air Transport Association, I.A.T.A as it is called, or through direct bilateral agreement with other Governments, it would be not only inappropriate, but also not practicable, for the Government to delegate control of fares to any other authority.
  In this connection, it may be convenient if I say something about current negotiations on fares. On 15th December, I informed the House that in view of the breakdown of the conference of the International Air Transport Association, at Honolulu, I had decided to authorise B.O.A.C. to introduce economy fares on our colonial cabotage routes to the West Indies, Africa and the Far East. I explained that I should have to consult other Governments concerned about the precise rates to be charged and the timing of the start of these new fares. At the same time, I gave an assurance that I would see that the interests of the existing colonial coach services, which were being run by independent companies, would be properly safeguarded.
  Following my announcement of this decision, I.A.T.A. decided to make a further attempt to reach agreement. A meeting for this purpose is now taking place in Paris. I hope that it will be
  1230
  found possible to settle the outstanding issues. I cannot say much more today except that I will make a full statement to the House on this whole subject as soon as possible after the Paris meeting is over.
  When the new Act comes into force, the air transport operators will require quite a number of new licences in order to legalise the continuance of their existing services. To prevent the Board from being immediately choked by a flood of applications to cover the existing services, power is given to the Minister, under Clause 2 (6), to authorise the issue of the initial licences which will be needed to tide things over. I have discussed this matter with the corporations and with representatives of the independent organisations; and they are agreed that the fairest thing to do will be to allow the existing pattern of air services to continue unchanged for the time being.
  I therefore propose to authorise licences on this principle. These will be called transitional licences. I attach importance to the word "transitional". The object is to emphasise the fact that I am not prejudging the future decisions of the Board and that it is open to any operator to apply as soon as he likes for a new licence or for the amendment of a transitional licence issued to some other operator.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: How long will the transitional licences last? Is it envisaged that at some point in time they will cease to exist because of the application or non-application for permanent licences?
  Mr. Sandys: I am glad that the hon. Member asked that, because it needs clearing up.
  The transitional licence will last as long as it is not altered by the Board. In other words, it could be a permanent licence if nobody applies for any other licence which either encroaches upon it or requires some variation of it. It is a transitional licence in the sense that these licences will be issued by the Board without application from the operators, and without examination and discussion, merely to legalise the continuance of the existing position. It will be open to any operator, whether a corporation or an independent company, immediately after the Act comes into force, to apply for

  1231
  additional licences or for the variation of the licence given to some other operator on the grounds that the applicant wants a licence which would require an amendment to an existing licence.
  Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: Is the Minister prepared to say whether he will give any instructions to the Board about the issue of these new transitional licences? Will he give the Board any guidance?
  Mr. Sandys: Yes. The Board will not exercise any discretion in this matter. The transitional licences will be issued by the Board at the Minister's request, and in making that request to the Board it will be my intention to reproduce as nearly as possible the existing position. I shall have any necessary consultations with the corporations and the independent companies to make sure that as far as possible everybody agrees that the instructions which I give to the Board about transitional licences fairly reproduce the present position. There are one or two borderline points which will have to be clarified but, broadly speaking, there should be no difficulty about this.
  I hope that the House agrees that it is much better for me to reproduce the present position in the first place than to try to do the Board's job for it in advance, in a hurry and without proper discussion. The essence of this Board is that it will enable everybody to go before it and to argue out their case. I think that that is the right way to handle it I am grateful that both the corporations and the independent companies have accepted my suggestion that we should not attempt to make any changes in the first place.
  The future pattern of British aviation will emerge progressively from the decisions of the Board and from the results of appeals to the Minister. A kind of case law will gradually be built up. Since I have no intention of trying to settle this in advance, I cannot tell the House just how it will all work out. I can, however, give some indication of the general trends which I hope to see develop as a result of this Bill.
  In particular, I can tell the House what the Bill will not do, and is not intended to do. It is not intended to undermine the position of B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.
  1232
  Those two corporations are our main flag carriers on the air routes of the world. Large sums of public money have been invested in them and they have to face fierce competition from foreign rivals. They therefore desrve, and will get, our full support and encouragement.
  Another thing that the Bill will not do is to break up the partnership agreements the corporations have concluded with Commonwealth and foreign airlines. These pooling arrangements have proved valuable in eliminating wasteful duplication and promoting productive co-operation and harmonious international relations in the sphere of aviation. I shall certainly take care to see that nothing is done to upset these arrangements. In fact, I shall do all I can to encourage further international co-operation of this kind.
  The independent companies have also a most valuable and constructive part to play. By their initiative they have created new traffic. I am sure that, if they are given scope, they will continue to do so. As I have explained, the Bill withdraws from the corporations their statutory monopoly. This gives to the independents something for which they have long been asking—freedom to apply for licences in their own right on the same footing as the corporations. Whether or not any particular application is successful will, of course, depend upon a number of factors, including the ability of the applicant to convince the Board that his company possesses the resources needed to provide an effective and a reliable service. With this in mind, I have been encouraging the independent airlines to get together and to form stronger units and I am glad to say that good progress is beginning to be made. In particular, I welcome the amalgamation of Airwork Ltd. and Hunting-Clan, which was announced this morning.
  The introduction of some element of competition between the corporations and the independents and the continuing need for all operators to justify the retention of their existing services will, I am sure, provide an additional impetus for efficiency. I would, however, emphasise that neither the corporations nor the independents wish to see unrestricted cut-throat competition.

  1233
  The last thing any of them wants is a complete free-for-all. Nobody is prepared to put up the large sums of money required for the purchase of modern aircraft and the setting up of maintenance bases and sales organisations without some measure of security. They naturally wish to be assured that, having built up custom on a particular route, they will be given some reasonable protection against interlopers who seek to reap where others have sown.
  Moreover, it should not be assumed that the corporations and the independents will always be in conflict with one another. At least one independent company has for some time been running certain services on behalf of one of the corporations. There is no reason why genuine pooling agreements should not be made between them on certain routes. In fact, I think that this is quite a likely development. Whether they operate in competition or in partnership, the new system, I believe, will afford an opportunity for all in an expanding market, while at the same time giving reasonable security against unfair competition. I have every confidence that the new Licensing Board will hold the scales fairly between all parties.
  Over the next ten years there will certainly be a vast expansion in air transport. It will be more and more the normal method of travel for the mass of people in all countries. Parallel with this, aeroplanes will be used to an ever-increasing extent for the carriage of freight. For long past the British Mercantile Marine has carried a large part of the seaborne traffic of the world. In this age of flight, we must do the same in the air. With our support and encouragement—and I am sure that is assured from all sides of the House—I am confident that our British airlines, corporations and independents together, have it in their power to secure for Britain an increasing share of the expanding air traffic of the world.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Minister, as usual, has explained his Bill to the House concisely and lucidly and we are grateful to him for doing so.
  Perhaps before I start on any criticism of the Bill, I should say that, however one may disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in his ideas, no one could
  1234
  complain that he is either a slothful or weak Minister. He has been in office for only four months, and already he has forced the aircraft industry to carry out a policy which it did not want and which it had been pressed by a previous Minister to do for about two years.
  Further, the right hon. Gentleman has either forced, or, as a result of his pressure, brought about the amalgamation of two airline companies, as announced today. And now we are considering a Bill which will radically alter the relationship between the airways corporations and the airline companies. All that has been done in four months. Much as we may sometimes deplore the right hon. Gentleman's policies, we cannot help but admire the forceful and effective way in which he brings them into operation.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to fill a gap in the existing safety arrangements. We agree, of course, wholeheartedly with these proposals. I do not think that anybody questions that the existing situation is unsatisfactory and that it was ridiculous and contrary to the public interest that those operators responsible for non-scheduled or charter services should escape the safety provisions which applied to others. For some time we have asked that action should be taken to fill that gap. The Government have taken the opportunity presented by this Bill to do so. Without reservation we support his proposals in principle and believe that the procedure which the Minister described is right. We are glad that this change will now take place and we support it wholeheartedly.
  The main purpose of the Bill, however, is to bring about a fundamental alteration in the present pattern of civil aviation. It will change the existing rights and prospects of the two corporations and the independent airlines. There may well be a case for tidying up the present procedure. One can well argue—I would not dispute this—that the arrangements, as they worked out under the 1949 Act, whereby independent companies have to pretend to be associates or agents of the air corporations, proved to be ridiculous. I agree that there was a strong case for making some alteration in the procedure under which airline companies operate. It was

  1235
  not only a fiction that the companies were associates of the air corporations. It was a lie, as they were, in fact, not associates at all. They were deadly competitors. But they had to pretend to be associates.
  We do not quarrel with the proposal to make some alteration in the licensing arrangements or, indeed, with the idea of setting up a Board to consider applications. Our objection to the Bill is twofold. First, Parliament is asked to enact a Bill which is so vague and imprecise that no one knows what its consequences will be. Parliament should not be asked to pass such a Measure. Indeed, when explaining the Bill the Minister himself said that he did not know how it would work out. We say that is wrong, and contrary to the interests both of the corporations and the independent companies. Parliament should not do it. The Bill should be made much more precise about the conditions the Board will have to consider when carrying out its licensing functions.
  Our second objection to the Bill is that it is likely to have the effect—it certainly will have such effect, if those who sit on the back benches opposite have their way—of inflicting serious damage on the two corporations, which are a great national asset, and in which nearly £300 million of public money have been invested.
  The uncertainty created by the Bill affects the independent companies as much as the corporations. We have said in the past, but I will repeat it today in case anyone should suggest that we have any unreasonable prejudices against the independent airlines, that we appreciate the services that they have rendered. Many of them have shown commendable enterprise and carried out their business with praiseworthy efficiency. They have provided many popular services which lay outside the scope of the corporations. We wish them well, but we must say that they are not justified in complaining, as they frequently do, that they have been unduly restricted in the past.
  Today, private airlines represent, in terms of passenger miles, when trooping is included, one-third of the total of British air transport. Their activities are increasing rapidly every year, more rapidly than those of the corporations.
  1236
  They are entitled to know where they stand under this new legislation and what are the intentions of Parliament regarding their future.
  What does the Bill propose? That a Licensing Board should be set up consisting of six to ten people. I do not quarrel much with the numbers, but it seems to me that a board comprising six to ten people is too large to consider the sort of problems with which such a body is likely to be faced. But let that pass. What guidance is the Board to receive about the way it should conduct its business? It will have to bear in mind various considerations which it can reject or accept. These considerations appear in Clause 2 (2) in paragraphs (a) to (g) and they include everything that one could possibly think of. The right hon. Gentleman might have saved space by saying that the Board was to consider every relevant factor.
  There is no indication of the weight to be given by the Board to the various considerations set out in this Clause, any of which it is perfectly free to reject. Therefore, the Board is, in fact, absolutely free to come to its conclusion on any factors, on any ideas or prejudices, which its members may have in mind; and no one can know what its principles or policy are likely to be. The outcome of its deliberations is completely uncertain, and if Parliament passes the Bill in its present form the result will be unknown.
  The considerations which the Board should have in mind are set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of Clause 2 and then there is added paragraph (g):
  "any observations made to the Board by the Minister."
  The right hon. Gentleman modestly puts his own observations at the bottom of the list, but that does not mean that they are the least important. In fact, we know that they will be the most important of all, because the Minister also has the right to hear appeals against any decisions of the Board. If the Board rejects the observations which the Minister puts before it regarding an application, it knows that it is likely to have its decision reversed on appeal. Therefore, the most important consideration will be the observations put to the Board by the Minister.

  1237
  No one knows what those observations are likely to be. The right hon. Gentleman will not publish them. Parliament will not know them, no one will. It may be that the applicants and those opposing them will not know. We therefore have the absurd situation of a Board considering a matter of great public importance, which may be a matter of life or death to the independent companies and the corporations, on a set of considerations which it can reject if it wishes, and one of them a secret observation by the Minister.
  This appears to us to be ridiculous and indefensible. When the Bill is considered in Committee we hope that it will be altered in several respects. We hope that one alteration will be that any observations by the Minister must be made public. Secondly, and much more important, we hope that certain firm principles will be laid down which the Board must bear in mind and from which it will be unable to depart. We do not want a set of vague principles which the Board can discard if it wishes.
  It is not only some hon. Members who think that the outcome of the Bill is vague and uncertain; the same thing has been said by spokesmen for the independent companies. In an interview reported in Flight the other day the chairman of one of the independent companies, when asked what he thought would be the outcome of the Bill, said that he did not know, that it depended on what interpretation was put upon it. I suggest, again, that that is a ridiculous situation.
  It may be that the result of any individual application to the Board may not be known, but the broad principles on which the Board is to operate should be stated clearly and precisely. But nothing of the sort is happening. A series of considerations are set out which the Board can reject if it wishes.
  May I here digress from my main argument to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary about something which puzzles me. In Clause 2 (2, c) it is provided that the Board must consider what fares any applicant for a licence proposes to apply on a route. At the same time we are told in Clause 2 (5, b) that fares outside Great Britain have to be settled by the Minister. There appears to me to be a duplication. Sup-
  1238
  pose an independent company says that it could run a certain service with fares 10 per cent. below those being charged by B.O.A.C. Is the fare aspect of the application to be considered, discussed and settled by the Board, or is it exclusively the duty of the Minister?
  Will the Minister consider the application of that company to run the service at cheap fares in competition with B.O.A.C.? Will that be argued between the company and the Board before the Minister, as well as before the Board? If it is to be both, it is ridiculous. Which should come first? As the Bill stands at present, the situation is completely unclear. I hope that we shall have some explanation of it.
  The second reason why we oppose the Bill is that it will bring very grave danger to the two air corporations and put them in a position where they may not be able to function effectively against the competition of the world airlines. The 1949 Act gave them a virtual monopoly of British effort on scheduled routes, subject to working with associates and agents. The main purpose behind the 1949 Act, namely, the establishment of this monopoly, is still valid even if a case for reviewing the machinery for licensing independents can be made out. Everyone must agree that the corporations should be the instruments through which Britain should channel its resources and expertise to establish and maintain its position in world aviation.
  Moreover, it is recognised by everybody that if the corporations are to be enabled to carry out that purpose, in face of the strong international competition of foreign airlines, they must be protected from having their position weakened by attempts by other British airlines to divert traffic and resources away from them.
  That is the position which we maintain should continue to exist today. But the Bill removes from the corporations those necessary safeguards which protected them before, and it substitutes a set of vague considerations which may be interpreted in any way or discarded. That is very serious. Competition amongst world airlines is so strong that at the moment hardly any of them pay their way. Our own corporations have the greatest difficulty in doing so. To

  1239
  make them face further native competition as well as foreign competition will plainly weaken their position very substantially.
  It is interesting to note that, at the very moment when it appears that the corporations are to be subjected to a greater degree of competition from private airlines than ever before, the reverse is taking place in Europe. Air Union is considering arrangements whereby the national airlines of the various countries concerned are not to compete with each other. Its members are devising means whereby they can co-operate by dropping out from some routes certain national airlines in favour of others. The reverse of what is going to happen in this country is going on abroad, and, I think, wisely.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman is not on very firm ground here. What he has been describing has taken place on internal airlines, but not on external airlines. There has been quite a duplication of France's international airlines.
  Mr. Strauss: I believe that France is the only country where there is such a duplication.
  Mr. Burden: And America.
  Mr. Strauss: That was not the point I was making. My point is that those countries which comprise Air Union are now considering eliminating their own national airlines from competition with each other.
  Mr. William Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman is still arguing on weak ground, because Britain is doing exactly the same. We are entering into pooling arrangements with European countries to save duplication of our own services and our bilateral correspondence overseas. We are not out of this by any manner of means.
  Mr. Strauss: I do not think that we are. I did not say that. I was making the simple point that if the Bill does what we think it will do—namely, make our corporations face greater competition from rival British airlines—that will weaken them, particularly as other international operators are eliminating competition among themselves. That was
  1240
  the sole point I was making, and it is a valid one.
  Independents have some advantage which the corporations do not possess. One advantage is that they do not have to pay, and many of them do not pay, the same rates of wages and salaries as are paid by the corporations. That is a decided advantage, although I will not take up the time of the House by arguing whether it is an unfair advantage, and one of the things which should be considered by the Board when an application is before it from the corporations and an independent airline to run a certain service is whether they both pay the same wages and salaries. If not, the independent company has an obvious advantage.
  Independents have a further advantage. Because many of them are small concerns and operate limited routes, they have less overheads than the two corporations have to carry. That, again, gives them an advantage, although not an unfair advantage.
  Sir John Barlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that clearer? Would he give a complete monopoly to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in this country?
  Mr. Strauss: We know their situation at the moment. They have a monopoly, subject to certain rights. I shall come in a moment to what I propose as a reasonable way out of this dilemma. If the hon. Baronet will be patient for a few minutes, I will tell him what I think should happen.
  Hon. Members opposite believe in competition as a philosophy, and particularly competition against a national enterprise. They are always pressing their views to that effect. However, in practice, they accepted long ago that in certain national enterprises competition of any sort, whether from private sources or any other source, is wrong and contrary to the national interest. No one would suggest that competition should be permitted in the supply of electricity or gas, although it might well be possible in certain cases for someone to say to the Government, "I can supply these services rather cheaper to a built-up area, and this will benefit the consumers". Some of the airlines use that argument, but no one in his senses would

  1241
  accept it as a good argument for allowing such competition to take place.
  There is a monopoly in certain forms of transport. It would be perfectly easy to show that an independent bus company, as happened in the past, would be able to charge cheaper fares on some routes if it was allowed to compete with the monopoly of London Transport. No one in his senses would permit such a thing to happen, as, in the long term, it would be contrary to the national interest.
  This argument applies in exactly the same way, but with special force, in the realm of civil air transport, because there competition has to be faced not only from a new line which may be permitted to compete with the corporations, but from all the airlines run by Governments or companies in all parts of the world. Therefore, it is particularly important to see that no competition is permitted from this country which will underline or weaken in any way the strength of the air corporations to meet such competition.
  The Minister said that it is not his intention to undermine the position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I am certain that he is sincere in saying that. If he is sincere, why not draft the Bill in such a way as to carry out his intention? The Bill permits the standing of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to be undermined. The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that as long as he remains a Minister and is able to resist the pressures of his back benchers he will do all he can to prevent that happening.
  But we do not know what may happen. Ministers change. It may be that one of the back bench Members who have been pressing for greater liberty and opportunities for independents will one day become Minister of Aviation. Then where will we be? The wording of the Bill does not protect the corporations because the Board, if it is so minded and with the support of the Minister of the day, can well decide that competition shall be permitted on a large number of routes in such a way as to make the position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., if not untenable, very much weaker.
  There is a very simple way out of this. The right hon. Gentleman's intention
  1242
  should be incorporated in the Bill. It can be done like this. Instead of saying that the Board should take into consideration certain factors, it should be stated that there is one overriding factor which the Board must apply in every application made. Words should be inserted to the effect that it shall not license an operator to run a service which would divert existing traffic from the corporations or such future traffic as it may properly expect to attract. That would not prevent the independents from developing along their present lines.
  Of course, hon. Members opposite object to that because their purpose is, in fact, to divert traffic from the two corporations. That is not surprising. The philosophy which animates the Conservative Party, and which it carries out at every opportunity in practice, is to confine and restrict public enterprise in favour of private enterprise even when the national interest and finances suffer as a result.
  The consequences of the Bill which we say are likely to take place are not merely the views of my hon. Friends and myself. They are the views of the responsible Press whose members have read the Bill and of experts who study aviation matters. Let me quote two sentences, one from the Economist and the other from the Financial Times. In an article in the Economist of 20th February dealing with aviation matters in general, there is this particular reference to the new policy of the Minister of Aviation of paying some of the development costs of the air corporations:
  "The two nationalised corporations deserve the sop of a Government subsidy towards the cost of putting new aircraft into service, if only because they may take a severe buffeting when Mr. Sandys' new licensing bill comes into effect".
  That is what the Economist expects.
  What does the Financial Times expect to happen? After dealing with the provisions of the Bill, it states:
  "These are among the main points of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Bill, the text of which was published yesterday. The Bill heralds the long-awaited 'new deal' for the independent airlines, and it should enable them to obtain a much larger share of the growing air traffic both within and outside the U.K. than has been possible in the past."
  If they are to obtain a larger share, that plainly means that the Corporations will

  1243
  obtain a smaller share. The corporations, in the view of these newspapers, will have a smaller share in the new traffic than otherwise they would have a right to expect.
  We want to know, not so much the intention of the Minister, but whether he will embody the intentions about which he spoke in introducing the Bill into precise words in the Bill before it leaves this House. If he puts in words which will properly protect the legitimate interests of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., we shall be satisfied, but those words do not at present exist. Without them we share the unavoidable conclusion expressed by the Economist, the Financial Times and a large number of expert sources that the corporations will get a buffeting as a result of the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Paul Williams: May I revert to the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman made from the Financial Times? I should like to quote a passage from, I think, the same leading article, which states:
  "It must be made clear that this ending of the monopoly does not mean that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are going to have some of their existing scheduled services taken from them and given to the independents. No such carve-up is in prospect."
  It seems that the right hon. Gentleman is a bit off-centre.
  Mr. Strauss: I did not say that. I have no doubt that most of the existing services will continue. I do not question that. What the Financial Times was dealing with, and what is worrying us, is that, as this great industry develops and new traffic is thrown up, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be deprived of their proper share of that traffic, which will go to the independents. Consequently, the strength of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will suffer materially.
  It is also possible under the Bill for the very thing which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) mentioned to happen. It is possible for some of the existing services which the corporations now run to be taken away and given to the independents. All we are asking is that the Bill should make that impossible. We believe, as I have said, that it is the major intention of
  1244
  many people, at any rate those who support the Bill, to bring about such diversion. As it is at present worded, the Bill certainly permits it, and we think that it is the intention of those who support the Bill to restrict the expansion and prosperity of the national airlines for the benefit of private airlines, to whose pressures the Government have now surrendered.
  As this will clearly make it more difficult for the airways corporations to compete successfully with foreign airlines, many of whom are indirectly subsidised by their governments, we say that the Bill should be rejected by Parliament and replaced by one that will not do such grave damage to the national interest.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I am afraid that I became rather disappointed with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) as he went along. At the beginning of his speech, it seemed that at last he was able to resist the blandishments of the painted harlot of monopoly. As he progressed with his speech, it became clear that she still holds the same charm for him. By the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was virtually saying that, although hon. Members opposite would like to make a pretence of being liberal, they want to write a Bill which will give no chance to the independent operators. I am very disappointed, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill through this House hon. Members opposite will appreciate the purpose of the Bill and will adopt a more liberal attitude towards independent operators.
  First, I want to say a word or two about the alleged attitude of back bench members on this side of the House towards the corporations. On several occasions we were stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be seeking to damage the corporations. This is very untrue. We share the real pride of the whole House in the performances of the two corporations. They have done much to establish the prestige of British aviation, and we wish them well.
  I had to perform a very disagreeable duty a few weeks ago in this House when I had to complain about the quality and leadership of the B.O.A.C. board. That was not an act of sabotage. Had I been

  1245
  anxious to damage B.O.A.C., I would certainly have kept quiet, because obviously the poorer the board the less likely is B.O.A.C. to compete effectively. I made a statement which was difficult for me to make personally but which was vital to the well-being of the corporation. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all my hon. Friends are anxious to see the two corporations playing their proper part in British aviation.
  But we are not anxious to see the corporations playing a monopolistic part. I must try to get the right hon. Gentleman to conceive the possibility that competition can have some beneficial and stimulating effect. If we cannot get to this position, we shall never get anywhere. I believe that if, for example, some of the additional frequencies on routes now operated by B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. were given to independent operators, it might well have a decisive effect upon the efficiency of both corporations. It might set a new standard of service, efficiency and enterprise. I am not saying that it necessarily would; all I am saying is that there is a strong presumption that competition would bring to the public a better service.
  This can be done without endangering the financial security of the corporations. After all, they are in a pretty strong position, having got nearly all the major routes and having free access to Government financial resources, while these poor independents have to exist on the crumbs which drop from the groaning table of the corporations. It is improper to suggest that there is any possibility of hardship being imposed on the corporations in this process.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a number of detailed criticisms of the criteria, and in particular with respect to the responsibility of the Minister. I agree that it is a little unfortunate that we have paragraph (g) in Clause 2 (2), which enables the Minister to make certain comments, but I do not think we can exclude that paragraph. There might be international considerations which would have to be taken into account. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's point that the Minister ought to be compelled to publish his comments. I can conceive of a situation involving delicate international negotiations where it would be
  1246
  undesirable for the Minister's comments to be published. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press that point in Committee.
  On the question of criteria, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should lay down a precise basis on which licensing applications should be considered. He went even further and suggested that we should decide what weight should be attached to each one. Such a suggestion would be very impracticable. If I may say so with deference to hon. Members opposite, this shows how they fail to appreciate the nature of business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is so. I must insist upon this, and perhaps hon. Members opposite will agree if they listen to what I have to say. It may be that in respect of a given criterion the weight to be placed in 1960 is entirely different from the weight which ought to be placed in 1962. Business is constantly changing its pattern, and we cannot lay down to an independent authority in precise terms exactly all the considerations which should weigh with that operator and attach to each of these considerations a weight for all time. It is quite impossible to tackle the problem in that way. If we are to have an independent Board, we must accept some of the uncertainties that are attached to having such a body, and we must give to it the flexibility that is necessary for it to change its policy in the light of changing national and international situations.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is one detail which should be omitted, and that is the provision which requires that an applicant should establish the need for the service. I do not think an applicant ought to be required to prove that the need for the service is established. What he should prove to the Board is that the need for the service is capable of being generated—not that the need for the service exists. If we are to make the progress in this industry that is essential, we must certainly get new traffic generated, and I hope that this requirement for need to be established will be dispensed with so that there will be no question of the need for the service to be detailed in the criteria.
  The position of the corporations is abundantly safeguarded in the other

  1247
  criteria. If the right hon. Gentleman will read from paragraphs (a) to (g) in Clause 2 (2), he will see how many of those considerations safeguard the position of the corporations. But even if that were not so, I feel that we have now come to the stage in civil aviation where we must concentrate the whole of our effort on those customers who pay for their own tickets. Up to now a great deal of the traffic on the civil airlines of the world has consisted of people who do not pay for their own tickets. The number of such people is necessarily limited, and the future must depend upon those people who do pay for their tickets. In this connection, we must have a bold and adventurous policy. I believe—and I hope hon. Members opposite share this view—that in this bold and adventurous policy the independent operators are particularly well-suited to play a substantial part. They have led almost every development in recent years which has resulted in lower fares.
  I do not wish to detract from B.E.A., but this corporation makes a big splash on the subject of lower fares. After all, people who spend as much on advertising as B.E.A. do are entitled to make a splash. But there is this great fanfare about the introduction of low prices on the service to Paris—and what does it amount to. It is the same price which B.E.A. charged six or seven years ago to Paris—£9 10s. That is not really a low fare in terms of what is really practicable.
  I was recently looking at some figures which may be of interest to the House. This was a theoretical calculation which involved using the new American Super-Hercules aircraft—it could, of course, be applied to other types of aircraft as well—giving the passengers ordinary bus seating accommodation and working on the basis of a 60 per cent. load factor. It was considered that the route between London and Paris could be operated on a return fare of £2. That is an indication, if only theoretical at present, of what is practicable if we get down to really low fares. I agree that, on the whole, it would not be practicable to operate the London-Paris route in this way, but there are plenty of areas, such as Portugal, Greece, and islands like Malta and Cyprus, which could be
  1248
  opened up to a vast volume of new traffic if there were really low air fares.
  If we are to achieve this, the independents will have to play a big part, and they will have to surmount this terrible obstacle of I.A.T.A. which at the moment is clamping down on low fares. I hope that during the passage of this Bill my right hon. Friend will try to arrange matters so that air clubs are legally possible in this country. If we are to progress towards really low fares—fares one-quarter of what are charged today—the charter service on a club basis is essential as a forerunner. At the moment, firms which want to establish a club for the purpose of getting a high load factor on a charter service cannot do so because of legal difficulties. I hope my right hon. Friend will try to eliminate those difficulties so that we can pave the way to low fares and when I say "low" I do not mean £9 10s. return to Paris but something like three guineas.
  I for one welcome this Bill in no spirit of criticism of the corporations. I believe that the stimulus it will give to the corporations will make them even better servants of the community than they are now. I believe that the independent operators, who have engaged in a magnificent struggle in the last ten years against almost impossible odds, have earned what we now seek to give them—that is, a place in the sun in British civil aviation. I believe that both independent airlines and the corporations can work together to improve the share which we enjoy of world civil aviation.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his line of argument, because I want to deal mainly with the first part of the Bill, which deals with the question of air safety.
  A debate took place in the last Parliament, in which I took part, on the Report on the civil aircraft accident at Southall. This was a tragic accident in which the pilot and crew of a Viking aircraft and civilians lost their lives. The Report of Mr. Justice Phillimore indicted the airline operators of that aircraft, Independent Air Travel, and the

  1249
  Government promised during that debate a Measure to ensure high standards of safety.
  In the Queen's Speech last year, there was reference to the Bill which we are now discussing. It states:
  "A Bill will be laid before you for improving the arrangements for licensing air services and air line operators and to ensure the maintenance of high standards of safety."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 50.]
  For some while I and other hon. Members have pressed the Government to implement that promise.
  Civil air transport is now rapidly expanding, not only in this country but throughout the world, and it is of paramount importance that all safety measures are taken for the protection of the travelling public which is growing every year, the crews and those engaged in the airline services, and also the residential population below, which is of vital importance. Accidents can take place anywhere: in the countryside, in the cities, in the towns, in the air and at sea. The residents of my constituency who live around London Airport often feel that, with aircraft of all countries taking off and landing, there are special risks for those living around an international airport. I consider that my constituents should be given a high standard of safety. Thousands of people who live around London Airport run a higher risk than those who live in other towns and cities.
  There has been a number of emergency landings at London Airport. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), whose constituency adjoins mine and who, like myself, has been pressing the Government for safety measures, the Parliamentary Secretary on 15th February this year said:
  "The total number of full emergency and local standbys at London Airport during the period 1st June, 1958, to 30th April, 1959, is as follows:

  Full emergencies

  30

  Local standbys which are purely precautionary measures

  367"

  —

  [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 942.]
  There is some justification, therefore, for people living around London Airport feeling that they run a greater risk from air accidents than the rest of the population.
  1250
  My complaint against this Bill is that it does not go far enough in measures for air safety to safeguard the public. It establishes an Air Transport Licensing Board with power to withdraw the licence of an unsatisfactory operator. I trust also that it will prevent the issue of licences to companies like Independent Air Travel, or of doubtful or mushroom growth. Let an airline operator establish a reputation for efficiency and high standards of safety before a licence is issued.
  I want to refer to something which I consider should be included in the Bill, to which I hope the Minister will give his consideration, and that is the compulsory insurance of aircraft owners against third party risks. In reply to a Question by myself on 16th November, the Parliamentary Secretary stated:
  "There is no requirement for compulsory aircraft third-party insurance. Under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, aircraft owners are legally liable to pay compensation for material loss or damage caused by aircraft to persons and property on the surface. In view of this legal liability, operators normally insure against the risk."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 790.]
  I have had this matter raised by a number of my constituents on several occasions. I am sure that it must be of some concerned to local authorities which have considerable housing estates around London Airport; the same problem also arises around airports in other parts of the country.
  A motor car owner is compelled by law to insure against third-party risks. It seems illogical to me that an aircraft owner should not also be compelled to do so. It is a poor argument for the Government to say that these owners normally do so. I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter and perhaps bring forward an Amendment during the Committee stage to strengthen this Measure in the interests of the public.
  We all trust that accidents involving great loss of life or great loss of property will not happen, but should one take place when the airline operator is not insured and is uable to pay for damage, action will be demanded for compulsory insurance, so why not do it now? The Minister said today—and I agree with him—that civil air transport will grow. B.E.A. are flying 3 million passengers yearly from London Airport and B.O.A.C. are also flying many passengers.

  1251
  The independent airline operators are also flying passengers to all parts of the world.
  When we have civil air transport growing and people using the services for business, holidays and travel, and also goods being carried by aircraft, it seems to me that the Minister should take powers to ensure that all airline operators, especially the independent ones, insure against third party risks. After all, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are backed by the State, and I imagine that the independent operators would welcome it. All should be compelled to insure against third-party risks. Heaven forbid that it should ever happen, but what a disaster it would be if a serious accident should take place and the company were unable to pay for the damage done. I hope very much that the Minister will give close attention to this point and will bring forward in Committee an Amendment to provide for it.
  I do not agree with certain parts of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has already made certain criticisms of it. I am sure that most hon. Members are proud of the air corporations. They are the two main airline operators of this country. They fly for Britain, and we can be proud of their progress and efficiency. They pay great attention to air safety standards. I have visited their training school and I know well the high standard to which they train their pilots and the great attention they give to detail. I hope very much that it will be the wish of all Members of the House to join with the Minister when he wishes the air corporations well.
  I believe that air transport will expand rapidly in the future. Britain has a great reputation in the air. A splendid record of achievement. We brought forward the Britannia and the Comet, and we have made great strides across the seas and the continents. Britain has a high reputation for safety. Let us do all we can to ensure that Britain is a leading power in civil air transport and the leading air power in maintaining and ensuring high standards of safety for the travelling public, for the crews and for the populations on the ground.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), but I thought that he tried to paint a picture of this Bill as some short of bogy which will be regretted by all concerned. At one stage, he said that the independents do not like it. At another, he strongly implied that the corporations would not like it. Above all, he made it perfectly clear that he did not like it. The more I listened to his arguments, the more certain I became that I really do like it.
  Quite frankly, it seemed to me that most of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were based on far too narrow a conception of what air transport is. If the Opposition are thinking and speaking on the same basis as the right hon. Gentleman, I am very glad that we have as our Minister today a man who can hustle in the way spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman and, moreover, hustle in what I regard as the right and proper direction.
  The right hon. Gentleman criticised the terms under which licensing by the Board will take place, but, in my view, the points he made seemed to me almost entirely Committee points which can be raised later. I do not intend to deal with many details in the Bill, but before I proceed I wish to declare an interest. I am associated with a company the chairman of which was described recently in an article by Mr. Frank Beswick, who used to speak on civil aviation affairs for the Opposition, as "the most independent of independents". I am very glad to be associated with that company, although it was only recently that my association with it began.
  My stand on the whole subject of civil aviation, together with that of many of my hon. Friends, has been absolutely consistent over the years. We did, indeed, visualise the enormous growth in air transport which was bound to take place, and our concern was, very largely, that Britain was being left behind in reaching out for the new amount of traffic which was coming. I have always thought that if we, as a great trading nation, were to continue to thrive in the world, we must ensure that our civil aviation played a part as great as or even

  1253
  greater than that played by our Mercantile Marine in the past. The scope of international overseas transport, particularly in the widely separated British territories, creates and should continue to create for us an enormous incentive to go after the available world air traffic and to intensify and expand our current air network.
  In my view, that desirable pattern should have been clear a long time ago. However, Britain, wrongly I believe, preferred to build up this great new industry through a monopoly, through the present air corporations. I join with my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends in saying that the corporations have played a very great and honourable part in extending the influence of British aviation throughout the world, but I believe, also, that, had the enormous scope of our opportunity been recognised back in 1924, when the change-over in Imperial Airways took place, it should then have been realised that, in the long-term interests of our economy and of British civil aviation, a great multiplicity was desirable and should have been established.
  Unfortunately, those commercial facts were not understood by Governments and by our planners. Despite the trend in the United States and France to license several external licensed operators, in order not to bring in undesirable competition but to boost their carriage of passengers and freight, this country has gone forward on the basis of the monopolies.
  Now, of course, my right hon. Friend has very speedily come in to implement the pattern which many of my hon. Friends saw was necessary. In a very short time, he has been able to stand back and look at the picture and introduce this new trend for the future. Hon. Members opposite have often predicted doom for what this party intended to do. I believe that in three or four years, when what is now proposed has been implemented, they will have cause to eat any words of criticism they may make today and will have to admit that the corporations have neither been emasculated nor weakened, but that they and British aviation generally have been given vigour and stature as a result of this Bill.
  1254
  About 86 per cent. of the air traffic of the world is shared now between eight leading countries. The United Kingdom has had a falling share in the number of passengers carried. I believe that we must look ahead over the remaining forty years of the twentieth century. With the development of jets and the new supersonic aircraft, the possibilities of expansion in air traffic, both passenger and freight, are enormous.
  Today, under I.A.T.A., there are, I believe, 74 or 75 airlines belonging to 55 countries. Thirteen belong to the United States. The average is only 1·3 airlines per country. I ask hon. Members to consider those figures and compare them with the multiplicity of shipping interests which grew up over the years. If we look at the situation in perspective, it is clear that the number of the airlines today is a mere token of what they will be tomorrow. We must, therefore, consider as the first step the opportunities that will exist for this country in the next forty years.
  Britain has large sums of capital assets and trade potential tied up in its shipping. It will be necessary for us to compensate for the loss of our sea trade. As aircraft become bigger and faster, it is inevitable that more people will travel by air. I believe, also, that fares will become cheaper. The pressures from international airlines, even if they are resisted by this country, will become so great that the trend is inevitable. Our own tempo, too, must be increased if we are to retain and ever increase our existing carrying capacity. The foundations for this increase will be laid by enabling the introduction of new enterprises and the transfer of capital from sea to air without delay.
  The flexibility of policy changes will emerge much more freely as a result of the Bill than would have been possible under the old static arrangement. Hitherto it has always been the case that when any policy change has been suggested, practically every hon. Member opposite regarded it as leading to the denationalisation of the corporations. It has even been argued that since the competition from foreign airlines is so intense, it would be wrong for us to license further airlines to run parallel with B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. from this country.

  1255
  There is no question of denationalising the corporations, or of emasculating them in any way, or reducing their activities. The independents certainly have no desire for this. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are doing the independents a great injustice if they suggest that they wish to see the corporations eroded and they themselves set up in their place to operate on the same scale and in the same way as the corporations overnight. That is quite impossible. The independents do not want it overnight or at any period in the future.
  Mr. Loughlin: I know that the hon. Member would not attempt to be unfair. We are not suggesting that the independent airlines desire the denationalisation of the corporations. Would the hon. Member not agree, however, that there is an analogous situation to that which arose from the denationalisation of road transport, when the unprofitable railway services remained nationalised? That is precisely the situation which we see in the Bill.
  Mr. Burden: This is another bogy in which the future will prove the hon. Member to be quite wrong. There is no question of skimming off the cream. Since the hon. Member and his party are so concerned for the big corporations, I remind them that, very largely as a result of the legislation which they introduced, they forced the independents to live off crumbs for far too long, to the detriment of British civil aviation. It is about time that the independents also had an opportunity to get some of the decent business that accrues to civil aviation. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the independents, hon. Members on this side of the House and everybody interested in air transport generally wish to see the strength, dignity and the opportunities for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. maintained.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: The hon. Member has told us quite clearly what the independents do not want to happen. Will he now tell us what they do want to happen? For example, does he envisage that the independents will be running in parallel with the corporations on highly profitable routes?
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member is patient a little longer, I will try to state my views.
  I must, however, return again to what I regard as Britain's function in the air. We must all co-operate in trying to make our airways as important a carrier as our Mercantile Marine has been in the past. We had a bigger share of the world's sea trade than any other nation. In 1955, on the North Atlantic, Cunard carried 27 per cent. of all passengers and the United States Lines carried 10 per cent. In 1954, the last year for which figures are available, B.O.A.C. carried only 9 per cent. of the air passengers across the Atlantic whilst Pan American and T.W.A. carried 52 per cent.
  That is the kind of situation that worries me. That is the picture that we must get into perspective as a great trading nation. More and more people are turning to air travel and unless vastly more of them are carried by British airlines, there will be a considerable adverse effect upon our balance of payments. One must always remember the enormous amount of money that we have earned in the past and the difference which has been made in our standard of living by the foreign exchange earned by our shipping interests.
  At the present, as an air-carrying country, we are about on a par with Holland and France. We carry about one-third of the international air traffic carried by the United States. One moment's thought by those who fear that the Bill will cut into the corporations will make them realise that the future will demand no less effort on the part of the corporations. Not only does the future call for the infusion of new blood through the independents, but it means that the corporations will be asked to exert an even bigger effort than they have done in the past.
  Hon. Members opposite are concerned, for example, about the effect of the duplication of air traffic over the Atlantic if Britain were to introduce a new operator. Under the 1947 Bermuda Treaty between America and Britain, it was agreed that if Britain asked for it we should have parity of frequency. At the moment, the frequency of Pan American and T.W.A. is far greater than the British frequency. We should

  1257
  endeavour to take up the provision that was made in 1947 and ensure that under the treaty we fly a number of flights equal to those operated by America through Pan American and T.W.A., and now Seaborne and Western.
  There are still tremendous opportunities in Europe. The bulk of the traffic carried in the high density cross-Channel area is that of British nationals. I believe that there are new openings there and that we should take every opportunity to grasp them. In the competition for new routes and frequencies we must not allow Britain's opportunity to be lost. I hope that as a result of the general overall strengthening of British aviation, as a result of this Bill, the British case for higher frequencies and new routes on the international lines will be pressed much more strongly and more often than in the past.
  I believe that another feature arises in this matter; that we should look to shipping as an example of how to operate and increase the efficiency of a great many of our services in the air. The shipping companies, if we look at the overall picture, have always concentrated their activities on a limited number of routes. They have specialised, they have carried out intensive market research and they have set their efforts in certain areas. I believe that all that is highly desirable and should be much more the pattern of the future for civil aviation than it has been in the past. It may be that B.O.A.C. may have to grow much bigger, but it is certain that the overall total effort of British civil aviation must get very much bigger than it is today.
  We as a party, and I think the country generally, have accepted the need for decentralising, rationalising and pruning, in some directions, some of the nationalised industries, and I believe that had the party opposite been the Government today it would have found it necessary so to do. None of these nationalised industries is subjected to intensive foreign competition, but the air corporations are.
  The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said that the independents may pay lower wages and asked what the Minister intends to do about that. Neither the Minister nor anybody else can do anything about foreign companies, with
  1258
  which B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are in competition, if they pay lower wages and so reduce their costs. That is a matter that must be taken into consideration. Therefore, I suggest that if it is right to look at the position of the internal nationalised industries to try to increase their efficiency, to improve their costing, and to make them produce better goods at a cheaper price, then it is absolutely vital and essential that we should be prepared to look at the position of the nationalised air corporations in the same way.
  I do not believe that the corporations will suffer any ill whatsoever from this infusion of new opportunity for the independents. I believe, in fact, that it will be a stimulant and a challenge to them and that as a result of it the overall picture of air for this country will be vastly better tomorrow than it is today.
  What has arisen in other countries? France has had a nationalised air corporation in Air France, but she has now licensed private enterprise airlines, in addition to Air France, to operate on the international routes. The position of Air France has not been weakened thereby; indeed, it has been strengthened, because it is on the routes in which Air France is in competition or running parallel with the other French airlines that it is making a profit. It has not made for increased weakness for France. Why should it for us?
  What about Pan America? Consistently, the American subsidy for mail has been reduced, but no one is suggesting that there has been an economic deterioration in Pan American airways as a result. The results of the French and American multiple enterprise influence should abate the fears of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the Bill will do damage to the great corporations.
  There are, as I say, enormous possibilities, and I think that the following figures will sum up just what those opportunities are. In 1949, B.O.A.C. everywhere carried 155,557 passengers. In 1958–59, it carried 495,000 passengers. The overall picture of passengers carried on the international airways in 1958–59 was 69 million. B.E.A. carried quite a lot more. It carried 751,000 in 1949 and 2,828,750 in 1958–59. That is still only just over 3 million out of the 69 million

  1259
  carried by the international airways of the world.
  Hon. Members opposite say that this infusion of new blood is going to weaken the position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Every day, every week and every year more and more people are travelling by air. In 1954, B.O.A.C. carried 9 per cent. of the passengers who crossed the Atlantic. Pan America and T.W.A. carried 52 per cent.
  Let us look at the whole situation in broad outline. Let us look to tomorrow. Let us see the opportunities that will exist tomorrow and let us endeavour to make this country as great in the air as she has been on the sea. I believe that my right hon. Friend has taken the first step to chart the way for British airways in the future, which will help to bring this country greater economic security and abundance than it has at present.
  5.19 p.m.
  Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: I will not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), although I must say that his statistics are most interesting. He has certainly made out his case for a great extension in air activity part, of course, which he wishes to go to the independents.
  In my fifteen years in the House I have spoken many times, but never have I been on such thin ice as I am this afternoon. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who commented on sub-paragraph (g) of Clause 2 (2). It would appear from the Bill that we shall be subject to the caprice of a Minister. I say straight away that if that Minister were the present Minister I would not object.
  All of us in the aviation industry—operators, manufacturers and everyone else—know that although the decisions may not be in our favour they will be fair. I know, and I must say it, that the Minister made it perfectly clear outside the House that he would not see any deterioration in the position of the public corporations.
  This Bill does not deal just with independents, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It is a Bill that deals also with safety, and we would welcome it for that alone. It is long overdue, and we thank the Minister and the Government—although
  1260
  a Conservative Government—for wasting no time in bringing in a Bill to stop some of the very nasty holes that previously existed in the operation of aircraft and the carrying of passengers by private companies that were not fit to do it.
  I must confess that I find very little to quarrel with in the Bill. The powers taken by the Minister are sweeping and it would, therefore, be nice to know more about the Government's policy. We would then know the kind of decision the Minister would make and the pressure that the Minister would be likely to bring on the new authorities that he is setting up on certain interesting subjects.
  I think that we have to make up our minds, once and for all, about the position of the independents vis-à-vis the corporations. Looking back in HANSARD, I notice that quite a few years ago I advocated a clear-cut rôle for the corporations. I said that all passenger schedules, both here and abroad, should go to them—the lot. I advocated that all charter flying, holiday flying, tours, trooping and freight carrying should go to the independents.
  I thought that to be a sensible policy, without any ambiguity. We could have all planned ahead and gone ahead, with the corporations and the independents supporting each other. It was decided not to do that. It was decided, and by a Labour Government, to allow this overlapping. So it has gone on for many years, and it has caused a certain amount of chaos and some hard feeling in different directions. I do not know whether I have made it clear that I have an interest in this matter, but if I have not it is my duty now to tell the House of that interest.
  It is really not good enough for right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those on this side of the House—to say, "Yes, there is a place for the independents, but it must be constricted, kept down, and made secondary." That is not good enough. No independent wants to take the place of the corporations. All independents are just as proud of the work of the corporations as are those who are not in aviation. No independent ever assumes that he could undertake their work. He neither has nor expects to have the resources or the backing.

  1261
  What we have to settle today is whether we are to have independents at all. If we do not want them let us say so, and that is the end of it for them. But, if we do want them, it is not good enough to say that they must not do this or that. They, too, must be encouraged. They are British. Their aircraft are now becoming as British as those of the corporations. The pilots and crews are British. The whole thing is as British as the corporations. The independents have a part to play, and although I am speaking now as though I were on that side of the House in this matter, I hope that it will be recognised that I am speaking from my experience and the significance that I am on this side of the House will not be lost on hon. Members.
  It is necessary that we should give them every encouragement. It is not good enough to put them in a position in which they cannot plan ahead. If they cannot plan ahead, it is not fair on them or their staff, or those who have invested their money in these enterprises. They must not be given the crumbs, but something worth while; that is, if we are to have them at all. If we are not to have them, let all of us on this side say so now.
  I do not believe that any of my hon. and right hon. Friends will say that we do not want the independents. To be fair, I have never heard it said, but it has been said, or intimated, or hinted, "Let's have them, but do not let them affect the corporations?" Why not? Why should they not affect the corporations? I have never been one who wanted to see the corporations making millions of pounds of profit. They are doing a service—they are carrying the flag.
  They are opening and developing routes under the British flag, and I do not see why we should always look for a money dividend on that. In any case, we shall not get one for many years. Profits, therefore, must not be the first thing in our minds, and here I repeat only what I have said before on air development and State corporations. If they lose money, what does it matter? If they are developed correctly, run efficiently, as we all know they are, why worry if an independent company is operating a route that a corporation may wish to operate in five years' time?
  1262
  One hon. Member made some observations on the future of the new Board, and spoke of the difficulty there might be in the Board coming to decisions. I do not think that there has ever been an example of the present Board not being wise and perfectly fair in its decisions between the corporations and the independents. An exception to that might be the occasion when the Minister used his weight and influence with the Board at a certain time, and the decision was detrimental to the corporations, but the result was not anti-British. I am sure that we shall have the same high respect for the new Board as we have for the present one. Politics has not yet, to my knowledge, entered into the decisions and findings of the present Board.
  Having made the position as difficult as I possibly can for myself both inside and outside the House, I should like to put one further point to my hon. Friends. The independents do not comprise just the big three or four companies. Some of them are small, developing on their own individual lines, parochially, and I should like to see, as I think, the House would this type of development going on that is tied to cities, places, zones and areas.
  As I see the future—and I hope that the Minister will agree with me here—every city and town will have its airport, and its local independently-operating aviation company meeting the particular requirements of the town and area. Therefore, we must be very careful, when we consider this matter of the independents versus the corporations, that the term "independent" does not necessarily mean a company which is operating on the same route and the same line and skimming the traffic and cream away from the corporations.
  As I said, I find it difficult to criticise—even more difficult would I find it to vote against—this Bill. I believe that it is time we had a Bill of this type. There are things in it which are wrong—or rather, not wrong but loose, which want tidying up. They are not clear. The Minister, I am sure, will feel that himself. However, there is one thing that the Bill does do, and, if it is for that alone, it must go through and go through quickly: it gives greater safety to the travelling public. We can save lives with

  1263
  this Bill, and we can lose them if we fiddle about with it and stop it for some other reason.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Williams: The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) plays an extremely respected part in British civil aviation not only by his own example and by his own dynamism but in a very enterprising concern, and he has, if I may humbly say so to him, made a remarkably well-informed and helpful speech today. He has made what some of us on this side of the House, although we may be personally committed to the independents' side, have been talking about and trying to get from his side of the House for some time, and that is a dispassionate review of the relative merits of all British air operators. We must get away—I shall return to this matter a little later—from what he himself said is a fictitious battle between the corporations and the independents, because often their interests do not clash, and often their interests and routes and operations co-operate with and support one another.
  As the hon. and gallant Gentleman disclosed an interest in this industry, perhaps I should at this point again do the same thing myself, and more especially after the remarks of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who implied that if perchance the present Minister were to leave his office in the next few weeks the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North or I might try to make a take-over bid for his chair. There is certainly no attempt on our side, the side of the independents, to do anything of that nature.
  I should like also to re-echo the remarks he made about the A.T.A.C. and, by implication, the great work it and Lord Terrington have done for a long time, often unthanked and for very little reward.
  To take the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, it seemed to me that he exaggerated too much the consequences of this Bill, and inflated dangers which just do not exist. In fact, the changes being carried through in this Bill are relatively minor and relatively marginal. To suggest that this Bill is both imprecise and damaging to the
  1264
  corporations seems to me contradictory. Also, to say that the Bill is imprecise and to ask for an independent board appears to be contradictory. It seemed to me that there was much criticism of himself in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I should like to quote to the House the last sentence I used in the speech I made on 15th December when we last debated civil aviation. I said:
  "If my right hon. Friend will set his hand to the task of establishing a new licensing authority separated from political consideration, which bases its judgment on economic and operating efficiency, he will be doing what I suggested was his task, namely, establishing in this Parliament a new charter for British civil aviation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c. 1316.]
  On that note I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a new, perhaps limited, charter for British civil aviation, in that it opens up new possibilities and gets away from many of the old shibboleths.
  I support the Bill on four main counts—first because of the establishment of the independent Board; secondly, because of the introduction of the air operator's certificate; thirdly, because of the breaking of the monopoly of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, and, fourthly, because of the whole move towards the introduction of an air service licence.
  First, on the establishment of the independent Board. In those words of mine which I quoted a few moments ago I used the phrase, "separated from political consideration." I must admit that I have a hesitation about the Board as it is constituted at the moment and whether, the Bill gives it enough independence. I have a feeling that there is still much power in the hands of the Minister. Some of the ways in which this new licensing authority will operate will, of course, depend on the calibre of those who are appointed to the Board. That is quite obviously one of the most critical things in the Bill. It is obviously nothing which can be disclosed or even implied in too great degree at this stage, but I would urge my right hon. Friend to consider seriously the appointments to the Board, in enabling it to be as independent as is humanly possible.

  1265
  I recognise that much of the power which the Minister retains in his own hands by the Bill is inevitably retained. The matter of negotiation with foreign Governments must inevitably rest with the Government. Therefore, I conclude, on this question of the independence of the Board, that this is an experiment which is worth supporting, but which may well need to be reviewed at the end, perhaps, of five or ten years. In the interim, it seems to me that the independence of this Board will serve British aviation well.
  The second reason I have for supporting the Bill is the introduction of the air operator's certificate. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North both referred to this essential ingredient of the Bill, the safety Clause which is introduced. I think that this is, perhaps, one of the most vital ingredients, because it is aimed at stopping up the existing loopholes which all of us connected with civil aviation know to exist. A result of this change should be to induce a sound assurance among intending passengers that the companies which will fly them and the aircraft in which they will fly will provide a high degree of safety.
  Saying this, however, shows that the earlier regulations were lamentably inadequate. I think that this is another matter for welcome advice, but we in this House must receive the assurance that the safety standards demanded through the Bill will be sufficiently high to avoid repetition of the sort of thing to which the hon. Member for Feltham referred a few moments ago, the Southall accident. This is a charter of safety as well as a charter for aviation.
  Now for the breaking of the monopoly of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. Obviously, that is a Measure which in practical terms has been out of date for some considerable time. Parliament in its wisdom is now catching up with fact. I thank the Government for having so speedily introduced a degree of reality into civil aviation, a degree of reality which has been missing for some years. This introduction of reality should enable us to meet the requirement to which the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North referred, that we must now begin to think not of the independents versus the corporations but of all the
  1266
  operators. That is the new point, the key point, in this Bill. We must get away from this old, sterile argument in relation to competition, and the Bill, although it may not be very immediate and tremendous in its impact, will have influence on the scope and size of British aviation in the years to come.
  Finally, on the question of air service licensing, Clause 2 of the Bill, of course, is the crux. I would think that even the Minister would not be surprised if it were said that one or two Amendments are likely to be suggested to Clause 2. It is through that Clause, I feel, that some of the power which resides in the Minister's hands may appear to be rather great.
  Again there are perfectly natural and logical explanations of this, for example, in relation to the question of negotiations on international relations. I would have thought it wise that the Minister should have power to instruct the Board to refuse applications which he knows that, in turn, he will have to refuse if they are applied for and granted by the Board. If because of international arrangements. France, for example, said that frequencies over a certain period were not to be increased, the Minister would seem wise to instruct the Board to refuse applications, because to allow an applicant to go through the whole rigmarole, all the expense and the time and the tedium, would be wasting the efforts of the Board and of other genuine applicants.
  Although I have hesitation about the Minister's powers, I understand that in many cases they are felt to be in the interests of aviation itself. My conclusions about the Bill are fairly simple. It can be used to increase the safety of British civil air transport. It can become a charter of fairness between all operators. However, the hesitation which I have generally about the Bill is that it does not appear to do enough—perhaps that is not possible in a Parliamentary Bill—to stimulate greater British efforts and to meet the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) that Britain should be flying a greater proportion of world routes than she does today.
  I should be happy if at some suitable stage the Board could be given an overriding instruction that its main aim

  1267
  should be to promote an increase in British air transport and a greater share of world traffic. If this is the major undertaking which the Board shoulders, the Board will do well and the Minister will have done well by the nation.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I do not want to detain the House for very long. I want to confine my remarks almost entirely to that part of the Bill which deals with safety, though I should like to make one comment at the end of my speech on the other part. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) said, ever since the Southall disaster we have been waiting for the first part of this Measure which seemed to us very necessary to prevent any possibility that such a disaster should occur again, in so far as these things can be prevented by human action.
  I am sure that it will be appreciated that those who live and work near London Airport were deeply disturbed by that incident. A slight change in the flight path, or a slight variation in the speed of the machine, or of the wind, and the disaster could have happened elsewhere with possibly even greater loss of life. It seems from what the Minister has said, and from my hasty perusal of Clause 1, that the Bill will go a very long way towards allaying the fears that, in future, it will be possible far an aircraft to be in the air either without proper maintenance and servicing or with incompetent personnel. We can also take it that if the Air Transport Licensing Board does the job in the way that is envisaged, it will also be impossible for either the machine or the personnel to be overworked, which was obviously among the factors which accounted for the Southall disaster.
  We shall have to examine the Bill in more detail in Committee to see how the Clause is to be applied and how effective its sanctions are, but the safeguards seem to me to be considerable and very much better than anything we have had up to now. I am sure that my constituents, and people who live round London Airport and other airports, will be very grateful that the Measure has reached the Floor of the House.
  1268
  It will be appreciated, I hope, and particularly by hon. Members who are more interested in getting the machines in the air and flying them, that those of us who express concern about safety are not just seeking to add further burdens on those engaged in air transport, either the corporations or the private operators. But when one realises the considerable risk that must exist round airports, there is a responsibility upon those who represent constituents living in such areas to see that their fears and their needs are not forgotten in the House. I am sure that that will be appreciated by every hon. Member.
  Some figures were recently given in Flight relating to major disasters in Europe since the war up to 1958. Out of 570 major disasters, 380 had occurred either at take-off or at landing. Therefore, I am sure that the concern which we feel for residents and workers round the airports will be appreciated. We have only to think of examples at Munich and Belfast, and the incident involving the Vulcan at London Airport, to realise that these are places where trouble can more often be expected.
  In so far as the new measures in the Bill will see to it that all reasonable precautions are taken in relation to the servicing and maintenance of the aircraft, this is a great step forward. I hope that, at the same time, this action will be matched by the best possible public relations between the Ministry, and London Airport and other airports controlled by the Ministry, and those who live round the airports. On previous occasions I have mentioned to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation the arrangements at New York, where there is constant co-operation with the residents' associations. Details of the monitoring of noise are exchanged weekly, and also news about incidents, so that everyone knows exactly what is happening. People do not feel that they are being misled.
  I mention this because I think that some of the good will and the real security which the Bill will create will not have an impact upon the minds of people if the fullest information is not exchanged between the Ministry and residents. There must be confidence between the parties. It is right, on the point of safety, to refer to a recent

  1269
  example at London Airport. The South Harlington Residents' Association had asked for figures of emergency landings up to last year. For some reason, these were refused at the airport. I cannot think why, because I should have thought that people who live near the airport had a right to know how many emergency landings had occurred. When I put a Question to the Minister, the information given to me was, on the whole, reassuring when one considers the vast amount of traffic that goes in and out of London Airport.
  In twelve months up to last May there had been only 30 full emergency landings. Even though there is an emergency landing, that does not mean that an accident follows. It means that the airport is prepared for a possible accident. Against the background of the traffic handled at the airport, those figures were not unduly perturbing. I hope that in future it will be thought highly desirable that the figures should be known, even if they are bad, let alone when, as in this case, they were reasonable having regard to the volume of traffic. When a great deal has been done to tighten up regulations dealing with the aircraft themselves, it would be a great pity if people still felt that there is a greater risk than in fact there is.
  While I am dealing with safety, should like to mention that there has been a proposal for slewing the No. 2 runway by quite a small angle, which will mean that the take-off would be over open country instead of a considerable built-up area, as is the case at present at Cranford Cross. It is the built-up areas at new airports where trouble is more likely to happen than elsewhere. Unfortunately, at London Airport some of the nearest houses are only 2,400 feet from the end of the runway. Consequently, a slight slew of the take-off run would obviate a considerable danger. I am sure that I speak for a considerable number of my constituents when I say that we are grateful for this part of the Bill. I hope that every possible step will be taken to ensure that the provisions are adequate and effectively applied, as I think will be the case.
  I have no great enthusiasm for the other matters in the Bill. It is unfortunate that measures for safety have been mixed with measures giving
  1270
  greater freedom to private airlines. There may be a case for doing so, but it is a pity to put these provisions in the Bill, because many of us who will give full support to the safety precautions cannot give it to other measures which we think have considerable defects.
  I was glad to hear the Minister say that he did not want to do anything to weaken B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. We shall watch and try to ensure that this does not happen. However, the kind of developments which will be allowed to take place under this Bill will inevitably affect the financial fortunes of the two corporations. I could not understand the supporting speech made by one hon. Member, who seemed to suggest that any competition must of itself inevitably improve matters. I should have thought that the watchword or principle for air transport, in view of the vast capital investment in it, would be co-ordination, not competition. This has been true of all transport, and it is particularly true in the case of air transport.
  I could not help thinking, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was speaking very much on the same theme, of his part of the country when there was competition between the rival railways serving the South. I was thinking of the old London, Chatham and Dover Railway and the London and South Eastern Railway. One has only to read the correspondence columns of The Times of sixty years ago to realise the deterioration of the service when that fierce competition was at its height. Indeed, the Railway Commission said that what was wanted in south-east England was the co-ordination of resources and not rival systems which, of course, provided a good service where this was profitable but an appalling service where it was not.
  From what has been said this afternoon I find myself dissatisfied with that part of the Bill, and I only hope that it will not do as much harm to the air corporations as I fear it may.
  6.3 p.m.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I was provoked to do so by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who

  1271
  spoke first for the Opposition I have been interested in aviation for many years. My uncle made the first successful flight on Windermere, forty-nine years ago. It is now forty-three years since I first flew as a pilot, and as well as being a pilot I have been interested in recent years in commercial independent aviation in this country.
  If I understand aright, the Opposition are opposing the Bill because they fear that the corporations may be undermined, and that, as a result, British aviation may suffer. That fear is groundless, because we have in our State-owned lines two very fine corporations backed by immense sums of taxpayers' money, with the latest aircraft in the world and with some of the latest aircraft ordered for years ahead. Those corporations are operating some of the best and most profitable services in the world and there is not the slightest chance of them being undermined by the Bill.
  If we look at the future of aviation we can foresee a great expansion not only of passengers, but also of freight. If we also look at the flow of passengers and freight in the world, we must face the fact that British aviation is sliding behind. More and more goods and passengers are being carried by other countries in proportion to ourselves. As I see it, the Bill will give an opportunity to British aviation as a whole to get a greater proportion of that expanding trade.
  I believe that the corporations will continue to expand and will continue to carry more and more passengers and freight. Equally, I hope, because of the protection which will be given by the Bill, that the independents will have far greater opportunities than they have had in the past to participate in that expanding world trade. What will this mean? It will mean greater employment in this country for our skilled men in the maintenance and service of aircraft. It will also mean a greater number of British aircraft being needed, and, therefore, built in British factories. All this will mean more employment and activity in Britain.
  I suggest that by opposing the Bill hon. Gentleman opposite are really saying that they do not want so much air
  1272
  activity in this country, that they do not want so much employment in the aviation industry. I am sure they do not mean that, but, in effect, that is what they will mean by opposing the Bill. I am certain that it will give a new and fresh lease of life to our aviation industry, which is what we want.
  The right hon. Member for Vauxhall also criticised the Bill by saying that Parliament should not be asked to pass a Measure the wording of which is so vague and whose effects on the future are not known. I suggest that it would be wrong to have too tight, too specific and too rigid a Bill. Why? Because in the aviation industry, which is expanding so fast, it would be unwise to tie the new authority too closely and too tightly to the future. The new authority should be given the opportunity to use its intelligence and to use the provisions of the Bill to help British aviation to be even more successful than it has been in the past.
  It is, therefore, a good thing that the Bill is somewhat vague. After all, when hon. Gentlemen opposite passed their various Measures for nationalisation, they could not have foreseen the results. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite have said again and again that they were passing Bills for nationalising various industries and that they could not envisage the result of their actions. So I suggest that it is not a bad thing that the Bill should give flexibility to the authority.
  In common with other hon. Members, I greatly welcome the safety provisions of the Bill. It is essential that the travelling public should be fully assured that if they fly British they are flying in the safest possible way. It is horrifying to think that, until this Bill becomes law, anybody can put a four-engined aircraft into the air—which, if on a private charter flight, can carry 70 or 80 people or more—more easily than a London taxicab can be put on the streets. That is why I am sure that we all welcome the safety provisions.
  It is everybody's intention that fares, both for freight and for passengers, should be reduced as rapidly as possible. The freight structure is rather like a cone, with its apex at the top; every layer that can be cut out by lowering prices means a considerable expansion of freight carrying. I hope that every

  1273
  encouragement will be given to this licensing authority to assist in lowering fare and rate structures, not so that there will be a free-for-all, or a reduction in the ability to pay good wages, or that safety factors will be weakened or undermined, but so that there will be encouragement for more and more transportation of people and goods by air. What happens if a company, which does not, perhaps, belong to I.A.T.A., decides to reduce its fares? Is it allowed to do so? It would be helpful if this could be clarified by the Government.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing in the Bill, and earnestly hope that in the years to come it will result in stronger and more flourishing State corporations, side by side with a powerful, efficient, independent aviation industry for the benefit of employment, aircraft manufacturing and everything that goes to make up a successful industry.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I have listened today to some astonishing speeches from the benches opposite. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) wants lower fares and many of his colleagues joined in that demand. They want lower fares with greater safety and better aircraft, together with air terminals of the present high quality, and the comfort which is provided for passengers from all over the world who use our services. They want to increase all these things so that more people will use our flights, and at the same time they want to lower fares.
  I hope that the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, will tell us how these things are to be done under a capitalist system, of which we have heard so much today, and which we are told, almost in so many words, is going to put us back in the race in which we have been left behind. Perhaps he will tell us how this system, which we are told can do so much because of the great financial and manipulative geniuses who run it, will supply the answer, assuming that the Minister cannot give it, if it gets the chance. We have never had any notable proof that under capitalism we could reduce fares, increase the standard of living, or produce any of the benefits which, we have been told today, the
  1274
  national air services have failed to provide.
  Mr. P. Williams: The independents, wherever they have been allowed to do so, have consistently reduced fares.
  Mr. Rankin: That may be the case, but I have flown in aircraft operated by some of those services, and, even with the reduced fare, I would rather go by a nationalised corporation every time. I have flown in one of these independent aircraft where the individual who was serving breakfast to the passengers was doing a sweated job. I saw that myself.
  We have been told various other things. We have been told about the virile, expansive nature of private industry. I do not quarrel with that, because that virility and expansiveness are coming from the public money being pumped into it. One can scarcely mention a private project today which is not clamouring for public assistance in order to enable it to do the things that we have been told it can do of its own accord.
  We were given an example in Pan-American Airways by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). According to him, Pan American Airways are doing without any help things that we are failing to do—such as attracting customers—while at the same time the post office subsidy which they have been getting is being steadily reduced. But the hon. Member failed to tell us that another subsidy has come into the hands of Pan American. They are now getting 100 million dollars as a subsidy from the United States Government. We heard nothing of that.
  It is against that that B.O.A.C. has to compete. Pan American Airways get that 100 million dollars for clearing from the sea the flying failures that flop back into the ocean from Cape Canaveral from America's attempts to hit the moon. These missiles return to the sea and Pan American Airways clear away the debris. They get 100 million dollars to do it and thus they operate with less worry than B.O.A.C.
  We are told that B.O.A.C. only gets 9 per cent. of the trans-Atlantic business as compared with Pan American's 52 per cent. That was perfectly true, but at London Airport one sees that American passengers mostly travel by American planes, and as America has a population

  1275
  which far outnumbers our own, a gross national income greater than ours and individual incomes reaching a higher standard, obviously far more Americans will cross the Atlantic by plane than will British people. That accounts for this discrepancy in the percentage results which appear to be so much to our detriment.
  I do not want to spend too much time dealing with what was said by hon. Members opposite, because I have several comments of my own. However, I want to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham who chided us with being responsible for the loss of air traffic. I wonder what the Tories were doing. They have been in Government since 1951 and they have had the power to issue directives. Why did they not do so? They have been doing nothing helpful since they came to power in 1951, and yet responsibility for the problem is now placed on our shoulders.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we failed because we concentrated on building up a monopoly. That that charge should come from the party of monopolies, amalgamations and mergers, with all its agglomeration of capital and interests, is fantastic. Then I discovered that the hon. Gentleman was going back to 1924 and saying that if things had been done properly at that time we would not have difficulty today. But 1924 was a year when a Tory Government came to power and a time when we had hardly known a Labour Government—a minority Labour Government had preceded it in office by consent of the Liberals. Save for two years, from 1924 to 1939 the Tory Party was in office and if the Tories had wanted to do anything politically to help the development of British aviation, they had undiluted power to do so. On the evidence which they themselves have supplied, the Tories have done absolutely nothing. Now they blame the Labour Party for the result.
  With other hon. Members, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. It has been said that he has shown his usual rugged determination in bringing it in and that he will show that continued rugged determination in putting it through. We are all familiar with it, because he
  1276
  showed the same rugged determination when putting through the 1957 White Paper on Defence, which has created the trouble now facing him as Minister of Aviation. He must now show that rugged determination in helping to clear up the difficulties which his rugged determination caused in 1957. That is a tough job, yet I hope that he will be successful.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) about the need for the independent Board and for the air operator's certificate as a safety measure. I wish that when considering the need for the certificate the right hon. Gentleman had remembered to extend his safety measures. He will recollect that a few months ago we discussed the need for unified control when aircraft were landing or taking off. That, too, is a safety measure. I would have welcomed the introduction of two Bills. One could have gone through with the complete approval of the whole House and would have dealt with safety in all its aspects; while the other would have dealt with the licensing system which will be subjected to much criticism.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South welcomed an independent authority to license services. At that stage I recollected that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to diminish his own authority. He emphasised that this was an independent body, with the emphasis on "independent". But almost every page of the Bill testifies to the fact that it may be far more dependent on, than independent of, the Minister. In Clause 1 we find the phrase:
  "… the Minister may by instrument in writing"
  do this. In another Clause we find:
  "The Minister may by Order"
  do that. In yet another example we find:
  "Except with the consent of the Minister … the Board shall not grant"
  something else.
  That phraseology runs through the Bill. It may be, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the powers are not very great, but they are nevertheless vested in him. It is true that he may not choose to invoke them, but he is given great power. I do not

  1277
  quarrel with that, because it means that everything which is now done by the independents will be within the scrutiny of the House. That is a new pattern. It would have been interesting if we had had it many years ago. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this new pattern.
  The right hon. Gentleman has two very important powers. One is power over international fares, contained in Clause 2 (5, b). Domestic fares are to be under the control of the Board, but international and cabotage fares are to be under the control of the Minister, so that the Board will be deprived of another power which it might have had to influence the rate-making functions of the international fares organisation.
  The right hon. Gentleman explained that. He said that international air agreements would not be under the control of the Board. So long as the Board does not have any policy-making powers about international agreements and fares, it is obvious that, whatever its members may think, the person in control will be the Minister. I do not know that I shall seriously object to that because, as I have said, it will bring Parliament more closely into association with this work.
  Clause 2 (2) deals with those things which the Board "shall consider in particular". It is remarkable that there is no reference to the public interest. One would have thought that the Board would have considered the public interest. Despite all that we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Board is not bound to consider in particular the expansion and promotion of British air transport. Again I would have thought that that should be regarded as a chief function of the Board.
  We are told that the Board will regulate services. To us, regulating means getting a bigger bite out of the business at present done by the corporations. Unless we presuppose what hon. Gentlemen opposite presupposed, some unprecedented increase in traffic, which we all hope for, any benefits to the independents must come from a bigger bite of the existing business. Where will the increase come from? Last year the total loss on world air traffic was £57
  1278
  million. That loss was not borne by us alone. It was carried by some of the countries which were applauded by hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight. Out of that £57 million loss we are to promote and expand British air traffic and prevent the corporations being affected by the Bill. I want to hear what the Minister will say in reply to this.
  Under the Bill no definite purpose is assigned to the Board. There is no Clause which says that the Board has any particular purpose. I can suggest one purpose that it should have, and I hope that the Minister will agree. It should collect statistics from all the air companies that will be affected by the Bill. It should collect statistics of finance, traffic, profits and losses so that we will know exactly how the airlines which have so far kept their accounts private are getting on, and we can then see whether they will show the nationalised corporations how things should be done.
  I intervened earlier to ask the Minister whether the Board would meet in public. He said it would. We welcome that. He said that the Press would be present, and we welcome that also, because it does not always follow that because a meeting is held in public the Press are present. We regard the presence of the Press at meetings of the Board as a desirable form of public accountability.
  What has the Minister in mind? He has a most interesting mind, but it is extremely difficult to probe into it. It does not matter what kind of Question one puts at Question Time, his Answers are short, terse and never to the point. He is a master of evasion.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Unlike my hon. Friend, the Minister is short and terse in his replies.
  Mr. Rankin: I understand that we have until 10 o'clock to debate the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) is on the wrong side of the House for me to deal with him on this question.
  I have asked the Minister many Questions, but he has always managed to evade the issue. I wonder why he has introduced the Bill. Perhaps I know the answer, because I think he has indicated his purpose. He looked at the productive side and saw that there were too many companies trying to make a living

  1279
  out of an industry which everyone says is not big enough to provide a living for them all. He therefore said to himself, "Now come on, curl up and combine into smaller groups." The Society of British Aircraft Constructors is no longer known by that name. It is now called the "Society of Both Aircraft Constructors."
  The Minister has turned his attention to the operational side. He saw how successful his pattern was on the productive side. He looked at these 33 independents and found that some of them were still flying the D.H. Rapide, an aircraft that ought not to be flying across the sea if safety is to be considered. That is still happening among some of the independents. The right hon. Gentleman wisely took the view that just as there were too many people making aircraft there were too many people flying them. To what number does he propose to reduce these 33 companies? One, or two? I do not want to disturb him. I do not know whether he is reading the answer that he proposes to give later, but the House is entitled to know what is in his mind. He knows that he cannot bring 33 independent companies into the umbrella created by the Bill.
  I do not know the number to which these companies will be reduced, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is out to create one great merger of independents on the operational side to compete with the internal-State corporation. That is how he will get his competition.
  Mr. Richard Collard: Did the hon. Gentleman say that it was dangerous to use a D.H. Rapide for sea crossings?
  Mr. Rankin: No, I did not say anything of the kind.
  Mr. Collard: I understood him to say that. If he did not, there is no need for me to correct him.
  Mr. Rankin: I said that the D.H. Rapide is still being used for sea journeys. At a function I attended I spoke to one of the chiefs of one of these companies which was still flying D.H. Rapides across the sea. It is too long a distance for a machine of that kind.
  Sir W. Wakefield: I have flown across the sea in a Rapide, and I felt very safe in it. I felt far safer in it than in modern aircraft, which are sometimes not properly tried out before going into service.
  Mr. Rankin: On that line of argument the hon. Member would feel even safer in Noah's Ark. He should try that. That would take him even further back.
  Mr. Collard rose—
  Mr. Rankin: Let me finish with one before I start on another. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone does not mean what he says.
  Sir W. Wakefield: I do.
  Mr. Rankin: Then are we to go back to the days of the D.H. Rapide? No. Now I will deal with the next one.
  Mr. Collard: It is very serious to cast this sort of aspersion upon an aircraft which, although old, is giving good service. I believe I am right in saying that B.E.A. operates Rapides to the Scilly Isles.
  Mr. Rankin: Let me make it quite clear that I am casting no reflections upon the D.H. Rapide. I have flown in it perhaps more often than any other hon. Member, and I have a great regard for it. I am merely saying something which is recognised and accepted by B.E.A., which has now got a replacement for the D.H. Rapide. The D.H. Rapide has been a useful machine, but it is now out of date. Any company with sufficient financial backing would scrap it and get something more modern, but many of these independent companies are not in a sufficiently good financial state to do so. That is what is causing so much of the difficulty in the industry. They just do not have the money. They are, therefore, trying to get it from the public purse. [Interruption.] I do not know where the money which is being put into the mergers is coming from if it is not coming from the Exchequer, and I do not know where the backing provided by this Bill will come from if it does not come from the Exchequer.
  I suggest that the Minister is thinking not of 33 independents but of one. That one is to be a competitor with the nationalised service. There will probably be another competitor with

  1281
  B.O.A.C., so we shall really have four corporations. That will damage either the nationalised corporations or the independents.
  Mr. Sandys: I would ask the hon. Member to stop pretending to read my thoughts. He is wasting the time of the House, and he is hopelessly wrong.
  Mr. Rankin: At least I have drawn that answer from the right hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to read his thoughts, but he is merely emphasising what I said.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham referred to France and said that she was creating two other lines despite the fact that she had a State airline. He should know that the reasons for that are political.
  Mr. Burden: But they have been in operation for years.
  Mr. Rankin: The reasons are political. In French eyes it is not advisable to fly what would look like a State airline to certain parts of Africa, at the moment.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Member is hopelessly wrong. These airlines have been in operation for years. They have nothing to do with the present situation.
  Mr. Rankin: Then the hon. Member is not thinking of the two airlines I am thinking of. In that respect he is as far out of date as he was when he talked about 1924. He is still there. I hope that he will soon join us, in 1960.
  I have tried to suggest the purpose of the merger. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that I am wrong, and that there will be no attempt to coalesce the independents. But that is the present pattern, and not a new pattern which he said was to be created. If the present pattern is to continue, what a hopeless mess operational flying will get into, with all these small independent airlines seeking to cash in on the business of B.E.A., and perhaps B.O.A.C. Some day the right hon Gentleman may change his view, assuming that he stays in his present office longer than he stayed in his previous ones.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Farey-Jones: I do not propose to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), because during the whole of his
  1282
  speech he appeared to have both feet firmly planted in mid-air while travelling upside down. As the House knows, I have spent many years with aeroplanes, and, having listened to all the speeches of hon. Members opposite, except one, I find it impossible to understand the Opposition's attitude in referring to the present position as a fight between the independents and B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It is rather as if we were trying to tether an old cart horse down and clip off his wings.
  We have hardly begun to develop air transport. In Cleopatra's day there was a saying:
  "He who impedes the wheels of Pharaoh, let him be ground into the dust."
  I can tell hon. Members opposite that if B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. carry out the responsibilities facing them in the next fifteen years they will have far more than enough to do. As for the independents, throughout the world the challenge of the air today is greater than it has been in the whole of my life, or even since Icarus flew too near the sun. We have not even begun to think about it properly yet.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for bringing up the subject of London Airport and the safety measures which are necessary. Many hon. Members are gravely worried about this question, as I am. We must carry out a complete rethinking of the future of air transport. We must think not of London Airport, but of airstrips all round the coast, as near to the sea as is Prestwick, with hovercraft services from them to the cities. We cannot go on constructing giant airports such as London Airport or La Guardia Airport. The challenge of the air is similar to the challenge of the roads. Our internal transport system is steadily becoming constipated, as is air transport in Europe. It is also becoming highly dangerous. We must consider how best to solve this problem.
  The Minister's introduction of the Bill is something to be glad and proud about, but I should like him to know that the Bill is not wide enough or high enough. Nevertheless, it is beginning to provide help for air transport. I should like to see it extended to cover the situation that must develop in the next ten years.

  1283
  Instead of arguing whether the independents will take business from the corporations, we should be thinking of what the real truth will be. The truth is that in the next ten or fifteen years we will have reached the age of the hovercraft.
  Already, there are in existence "chopper" aircraft capable of lifting and putting down weights of up to 50 tons. Within three years at the most that figure will have been increased to 150 tons. All our main London railway stations should have flat roofs, so that hovercraft flying to and from the coast, or between cities, can deliver cargoes straight to their destination. We should envisage the appearance of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow in twenty years' time, instead of indulging in petty arguments about whether a few passengers will be taken from B.O.A.C.
  Do hon. Members realise that every year for the last seven years traffics on the Atlantic routes have gone up by at least 30 per cent.? Today, we have aircraft capable of carrying 250 passengers, and if, as I think will happen, the Minister succeeds in getting his supersonic airliners, they will be crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific in six hours, carrying 500 or 600 people at 750 miles an hour.
  Is it wise to indulge in this foolish argument about whether the independent airlines should be kept out or in? I am grateful that there is at least one hon. Member opposite honest enough to say that we must put the question clearly, "Do you want the independent airlines or not?" We have to be open and truthful about that. We must have air strips near the coast. I believe that fast flying inter-continental aircraft will have to start their approach run from the sea at least 250 miles away. There must be helicopters capable of carrying 50, 60 or 70 passengers to ferry people from these air strips to their destinations.
  This Bill gives us a chance to do some rethinking. I hope that the Minister will not mind if I say that the type of personnel on the proposed Licensing Board is of paramount importance. Unless they are people with some knowledge of the past and imagination with which to face the future, heaven help us all.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: I share the belief of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) that there is a great future for the helicopter or "chopper" aircraft, but I think the major contribution in that direction will be made by the State airlines. This has been an interesting debate because of the feeling of apprehension which has divided hon. Members on each side of the House. Hon. Members on this side of the House believe that this Bill is a device which will be operated against the State corporations for the benefit of independent airlines. Mention has been made by hon. Members opposite of the safety provisions contained in the Bill. I think we should be honest about this. No hon. Member would suggest for a moment that safety in the air is other than of the utmost importance. Hon. Members on this side of the House are as anxious as hon. Members opposite to ensure that safety regulations shall be as stringent as possible.
  But this is not a Measure concerned solely with air safety. The prime purpose of the Bill is not to implement safety measures in aviation. At the most, those safety provisions were included as something which might be conveniently slotted into the same exercise. At the worst, one might wonder whether that was done to provide a camouflage to conceal the bigger issue—whether the other part of this Bill is designed to operate against the State corporations, to provide greater financial rewards for the independent companies at the expense of the State corporations and, therefore, at the expense of this country.
  I have not been a Member of this House for very long, and I find it interesting to listen to hon. Members who make a speech on this subject and to speculate about their background. What fascinates me is that not one hon. Member has supported this Bill who has not a financial interest in a private airline. I think I am right in saying that, although there may be one exception. Each hon. Member has declared his interest and, with his hand on his heart, has said that he desired to help and assist the great corporations. Then, by the most ingenious and tortuous reasoning, he has endeavoured

  1285
  to prove that if the competition which the State airlines have to face is increased, in some peculiar way the State airlines will be assisted. Hon. Members have endeavoured to prove that their interest is completely detached and objective. That may be so, but some of us remain unconvinced that this—as was said by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—is consistent with the attitude adopted towards independent airlines ever since the State corporations were set up.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I said that I had recently become a director of an airline, but ever since I have been a Member of this House I have consistently held the view which I still hold.
  Mr. Marsh: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am saying that the view which he has held consistently has been held by the independent airlines since the State airlines were set up.
  Group Captain Wilcock: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has made the serious statement that no one who has taken part in this debate supports the idea that the independent companies should exist unless they have some financial interest in the companies. I think my hon. Friend should be corrected. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part in the debate because they are interested in the subject and have been concerned with aviation practically all their lives. There are other considerations besides finance, and I think my hon. Friend should realise that.
  Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the hon. Member for Gillingham. I agree that his prime reason for speaking in this debate is that the hon. Member knows something about the industry. But in 1952, when he spoke in a similar debate, my hon. and gallant Friend—on whose pronouncements I place considerable weight because of his interest in the industry—said that under a Labour Government it was made clear that the scheduled services would be operated only by the public corporations and that that policy had his full support. Today my hon. and gallant Friend appears to have changed his tune.
  Group Captain Wilcock: My hon. Friend cannot have heard the speech I made in which I said the same thing as I said on the previous occasion, that it did have my support. I also think the independent companies should have a share.
  Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for that explanation from my hon. and gallant Friend. It has assisted me in my efforts to feel my way on this subject, but my hon. and gallant Friend also said in the debate in 1952:
  "The situation today is that the Government, pledged as they are—and this fact is well known—to support the independent operators, intend to grant them further opportunities of operating scheduled services. That is being done under the quite erroneous impression that the Government are thereby helping the independent operators. In other words, the Government intend to help the independent operator even if they ruin him in the process. That is what will happen to any but the largest combines in private enterprise.
  He went on to say:
  "If the Minister intends to help the independent operator then he must allocate routes to him which fall under the category of profitable routes. If he does that he is deliberately retarding the development of public corporations. He cannot have it both ways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 2274.]
  I think my hon. and gallant Friend should take advice from his own speech on this point.
  Group Captain Wilcock: My hon. Friend is quoting me to such an extent that I am sure he will give way again. This is eight years after the speech he is quoting. He is talking of a debate in 1952 when circumstances were very different from what they are today. There was very little development in the air in 1952. The corporations were losing millions at that time and the independents were having an extremely hard time. Now, when we are approaching a time when we want to look ahead, we should look at our legislation of the past to see whether it can be improved. When I spoke today I repeated almost the very remarks which my hon. Friend has quoted. I said that I thought there was a place both for the corporations and for the independents. I am sorry to have to make a second speech, but I wanted to point that out. Neither I nor anyone on this side of the House has spoken against the corporations. I hope my hon. Friend will remember that.
  Mr. Marsh: I am sure the interests of everyone in this House are in the same direction so far as the corporations are concerned. All I am trying to work out is whether the measures the Government wish to introduce will benefit the corporations or not.
  I come back to the point which has been made by hon. Members. In the past it has been suggested by people with a very intimate knowledge of the industry that competition against the corporations cannot assist the corporations. This is a point on which there can be honest disagreement on both sides, but one cannot maintain that this Bill is a sort of charter for the corporations and that there is not a very great risk, at the least, that a Bill such as this might cause the corporations considerable difficulties.
  In opening the debate, the Minister went to great trouble to say that in fact this was not the intention of the Bill. He made the point that the independents were not the associates of the corporations but were, in fact, their rivals. Do not let us be naïve about this; if the independents can take trade from the corporations, they will do so. They are not in business for the benefit of their health, but to get as much as they possibly can—[An HON. MEMBER: "And it applies the other way round."]—and it applies the other way round. The only difference between us is that the corporations are devoted to the benefit of the community whereas the independents are devoted to the interests of a small group.
  Mr. P. Williams: The hon. Member is arguing from a completely false assumption, that air transport is not going to expand. If he made that one concession to fact he might get nearer to truth.
  Mr. Marsh: I am sorry to be causing this disagreement because I had set out to put some of the points which seemed to be fairly obvious. I have no doubt that air transport is going to expand. I do not think any hon. Member would deny that any corporation or section of the industry that cannot expand with it will go under. One of the biggest problems, and one of the worries of us on this side of the House, and I should think of hon. Members opposite, is that in this great. State industry, unless they can
  1288
  claim an increasing share of business, the corporations will proceed to lose that degree of success which they discovered after tremendous effort in the past few years.
  Who are the best judges as to the effect of this Bill and the effect of com petition upon the corporations? Obviously, they are the people who know best, the people in the industry. We have heard the view of the independents, but, of course, the view of the corporations is very different. The right hon. Gentleman knows that neither of the corporations views these proposals with anything but the greatest apprehension. Both have made the point in their last annual reports. I think that B.E.A. summed it up well when it said:
  "B.E.A. is not afraid of competition and we do not adopt a 'dog in the manger' approach to the expansion of the independent airlines. But we must oppose developments which would adversely affect our traffic and necessary future expansion."
  The same sort of line is taken by B.O.A.C. There is no doubt that both the State corporations have been very worried about the possibility of independent airlines competing with them. One must accept that the corporations, which have some knowledge and interest, are extremely apprehensive.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) dealt with the point about competition against the two State corporations. He asked why, if this was not the intention of the Bill, we should not have it stated. I should have thought that a perfectly simple thing, although since I have been here I have discovered that "shall" means "may" and "may" means heaven knows what, so I have ceased wondering what anything might mean. It seems a simple thing to insert in a Bill a proviso that no licence shall be granted if the granting of such a licence is against the interests of State corporations and they are unable to prevent it.
  Some hon. Members on the back benches opposite say they are very much interested in this subject, but they chortled over that. Then they composed their faces and put on an expression to show that they were concerned for the wellbeing of the corporations. If they so wished, the Government could make a provision in the Bill to ensure that it does not operate against the interests of

  1289
  the two corporations. If the Minister would come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Government were interested in doing something like that, I am convinced that that alone would make an enormous difference to the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made a heart-rending speech about independent airlines existing on the crumbs left by the corporations. We are talking about one-third of the total air travel in this country. They describe that as crumbs, but it is a pretty hefty sort of dinner. Hon. Members opposite tell us that the independents—due, I admit, to the efficiency of many of the independent companies and due to their initiative because they were forced into a position in which they had to fight or go under and rose very well to that challenge—have under their wing something like one-third of the total air traffic of the country. They have a rate of expansion which is higher than that obtained by the two State corporations. Do not let us paint a picture of poor, suffering private industry existing on a few meagre scraps left by the wicked State corporations who take all the cream.
  One of the problems and difficulties with which we are faced is that this competition between the two sections of this essential industry is not fair competition. The corporations are faced with the same sort of problem that faces any State industry. They not merely have an obligation to make a profit. I should say that making a profit is one of the least important needs of a State industry. Their prime purpose is to produce a service for the people in the country as a whole. We believe that if the independents were prepared to operate on the same terms some of the routes operated by the State corporations they would find those routes uneconomic. I doubt whether there will be a big struggle to get into those routes.
  What do the independent companies want? I do not know. The hon. Member for Watford mentioned, in passing, the North Atlantic route. Are the independent companies interested in that route, or are they interested in the internal Scottish routes?
  Mr. James Dempsey: Why mention Scotland?
  Mr. Marsh: It would be impossible in a debate in the House not to mention Scotland if one wanted to remain in this party.
  Because of the fact that they have to run uneconomic routes, the corporations are, and always will be, at a disadvantage compared with the independent companies. There is no doubt that the provision of frequent services on many routes results, and is bound to result, in a load factor of about 60 to 65 per cent. The hon. Member for Gillingham mentioned fares. There is no difficulty about decreasing fares if one can run a more infrequent service with a higher load factor. That is certainly one way in which it could be done.
  Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Member aware that the average fare per passenger-mile in the United States is about 3d. and in Europe about 8d. and that there is, therefore, plenty of room for a reduction?
  Mr. Marsh: I do not know the figures, but I have no reason to doubt those given by the hon. Member. One of the big problems is that the amount of assistance given to airlines in the United States is on a far larger scale.
  Mr. Burden: No.
  Mr. Marsh: Military contracts and trooping contracts given to certain American airlines are worth a large sum. I should like to see more done in the direction of trooping contracts in this country, if we want to have a healthy aircraft industry.
  This is an extremely important subject which has much wider implications than the narrow argument whether we should allow the independent companies a little reign against the State corporations. In recent months in the House, certainly since I have been here, there has been constant criticism of the disregard of public money by the Government. Hon. and noble Members opposite have constantly complained about the apparent lack of concern by the Government for the taxpayer's pocket. This is becoming increasingly obvious. The Bill appears to some of us to be another example of how a Government can make sums of public money available to their supporters and to sections of private industry, directly and indirectly, because

  1291
  if this Measure operates against the State corporations it will be the taxpayer who has finally to foot the bill, and in recent months he has had to foot some very large bills. One can understand the growing concern of some hon. Members opposite, which is reaching the stage at which we can hear their consciences rumbling in their stomachs right across the Chamber.
  Mr. Farey-Jones: Is that where the hon. Member keeps his conscience?
  Mr. Marsh: I shall be only too pleased to assist the hon. Member and any others in a discussion on where people keep their consciences, if they have any. I am sure that in due course, if he ever develops a conscience, he will watch its position with great interest.
  Large sums of public money have been given away in one form or another since this Government took office. They have given it away by two methods. The first is by straight gifts of large sums of public money and the other is by the misuse of State industries. The denationalisation of the road haulage industry was a classic example of a magnificent gift of the nation's money to private firms.
  Now we are to improve the position of the independent airlines, knowing that this is bound to react against the State corporations and, if it is continued, to result in a deterioration in a State industry and a consequent payment by the public of a subsidy, as has happened so often in the past, to private interests. One can understand the moral justification, as it were, for this. After all, large sums of money were spent by sections of British industry in the last election, and one expects that they will begin to receive their just reward, if not in Heaven at least in the House.
  The taxpayer has invested in recent years large sums of money in the two State corporations. In the early days the State corporations met tremendous obstacles, primarily because of their lack of experience in international aviation. In recent years they have overcome most of those difficulties. For the last six years B.E.A. has been a profitable corporation.
  There is agreement in the House that air transport is probably the most deli-
  1292
  cate industry in international affairs. It is highly competitive, indeed to the highest degree. It is extremely sensitive to fluctuations of politics and of financial trends in the world. Because of this, anything which adds to the difficulties of either the corporations can only increase the possibilities that they will cease to remain as profitable as they have been in recent years.
  Turning back to the degree of competition between the two sides of the industry, it is a fact that the two corporations provide many services for this country which are not expected of any independent company. The preoperational development burdens which fall on the two State corporations are enormous and are of considerable value not only to the corporation but to the whole of British aviation. If we are to have competition, we might well claim that there should be some balancing factor to allow for the extra problems which beset the State industry. Earlier, B.O.A.C. was making very heavy weather. It is not nearly as profitable today as B.E.A., but it has proved that as a State corporation it can operate in the most competitive sections of the world very well.
  What is the position? In the 'sixties, the degree of competition will be much more intense than ever before. Speed will increase. The expenditure upon new types of aircraft will be enormous. I understand that at present B.O.A.C. has on order aircraft to a total cost of over £90 million. This proves that State corporations have to attain a degree of operating efficiency higher than that generally accepted by the independent companies. Many independents operate aircraft which are to some extent outdated. The State corporations lead this country and other parts of the world in providing modern aircraft.
  All this involves tremendous expenditure of public money. We on this side do not feel that the State corporations should be used to provide a sort of milch cow helping the independent companies to compete, not on equal terms, but on very unequal terms. I say without any shame whatsoever that the corporations, which are backed by the public purse and are representative of the country, deserve from the House more consideration than any private company.

  1293
  Everyone will agree that the prime purpose of Members of Parliament is to look after the British taxpayer and the British citizen, and not to look after small private companies. If the purpose behind the Bill is nothing more than to tighten things up, to allow fair competition and to introduce safety measures, the Parliamentary Secretary can easily say, in winding up the debate, that the Government are prepared to write into the Bill an undertaking that they will not grant licences which appear to militate against the interests of the State corporations.
  If we cannot have such an undertaking, most hon. Members on this side will not feel disposed to assist the Government to place a State industry and the British taxpayer at a disadvantage so that we can transfer a few more tens of millions of pounds of public money to the pockets of private companies.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley McMaster: I should like, very briefly, to answer a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). I say straight away that I have no financial interest in any independent company. Of course, I have a financial interest in B.O.A.C., as has every taxpayer.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he is concerned with the taxpayers' money. Does he think that it would be in the taxpayers' interests for these large boards—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—to be completely free to run a monopolistic concern free from competition? The Bill ensures that any competition which arises will improve the efficiency of B.E.A. B.O.A.C. and the independent airlines, and is in the interests of the taxpayers and the travelling public.
  We have heard that a return fare to Paris of about £3 would be possible by independent airlines running bus services to Paris. The travelling public must be considered. The taxpayer cannot be continually asked to subsidise an industry which has a complete monopoly.
  Mr. Marsh: It is not a fact that the State corporations have a monopoly. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree with that?
  Mr. McMaster: In many cases State corporations have a monopoly. There
  1294
  are scheduled services. The situation arises under the 1949 Act, which is being relieved in the Bill, whereby the independents have only a small share of the market. They should be given a fair share of the market. Strong independent companies or strong independent combines are in the public interest, because they can reduce fares and reduce the burden on the taxpayer. They can also help B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to compete with foreign airlines more efficiently.
  I wish to make one point to the Minister in connection with the appointment of the Board. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule says that the Board, which
  "shall consist of not less than six nor more than ten members"
  is to be appointed by the Minister. This, along with the provisions in Clause 5 (1, c), which allows an appeal to the Minister, is a matter of some concern. It means that the Minister, who is in the position of an interested party, will appoint the Board and that he, or his nominee, will sit to hear appeals.
  It might be possible to qualify the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Schedule so that the Board which is to be appointed will be fairly representative of independent and State boards. In addition, appeals should lie to a completely independent arbitrator. It is not fair to the Minister to ask him to decide any dispute as to issuing or granting a new licence to an independent along the lines set out in Clause 2. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about this when he replies to the debate.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: This has been a very remarkable debate indeed, because it has shown quite clearly the different approach of the two major parties in the country to what is a great issue of public policy. I shall return to that theme a little later.
  First, I wish to say that we are in complete agreement with the safety provisions of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) welcomed them. My hon. Friends the Members for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) spoke of the great satisfaction it would give to their constituents to have the safety provisions

  1295
  in the Bill. It is clear to me that safety is one of the major considerations in any person's mind when deciding whether he shall travel by air, sea or land. That is probably the first consideration, more than cost or speed. Therefore, anything which we can do through the Bill to improve safety in all aspects of aviation will be much appreciated.
  I have only one question of this aspect. Will there be any major additions to the regulations which have so far been issued under Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949? If we could have some information about any extra provisions which may be made to avoid such an accident as we had at Southall two years ago it would be very welcome.
  We certainly approve of bringing in the non-scheduled and charter operations, covering them in the Bill and making it absolutely impossible for the sharp operator to run his business. Some people think that this could well have been done in a separate Measure if necessary. Although we do not object to it being dealt with in the Bill, we regard it as the main purpose of the Bill to deal with the relationship between the public corporations and the independents in future allocations of aviation business.
  At one stage in the debate I thought that I was in the wrong place. I rather thought that I was at the annual general meeting of the British Independent Air Transport Association. It seemed to me that all the arguments which the Association has put forward in its meetings between 1952 and now were being made tonight, not only by hon. Members opposite but also by one of my hon. Friends. I do not object to that. They have a perfect right to put those claims forward, and the hon. Gentlemen concerned declared their interest.
  One thing which was significant in the debate and which emphasised our fears of what the Bill might bring forth was that, although the Minister probably expected some very fierce attacks to be made on him by his hon. Friends, because of their view that perhaps he had not gone far enough in satisfying the independent interests, he had a favourable reception from his hon. Friends on this point.
  1296
  I think that those hon. Members read far more into the Bill than the Minister himself has been prepared to indicate tonight. One of the weaknesses of what we have so far had is that we really do not know what the Minister has in mind. We must probe much further to find out, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us more information on how the future activities of the independents and the corporations are expected to work out.
  We have been asked: what about the place of the independent? We certainly admit—indeed, my right hon. Friend did so at the beginning of his speech—that we are not against the independents as such—certainly not. It was the Labour Government, in 1949, that enabled them to step up their business to a very considerable extent and, over the last eight years, they have been able to develop their interests from very small beginnings to 30 per cent., if not 33⅓ per cent., of all operations in this country.
  We believe that there is a place for both forms of operation, but the argument is, and must be, over how much is to be in one sphere and how much in another. The argument will be over the allocation of space. We think that there will be a vast expansion of air traffic. The corporations are certainly basing all their future planning on a tremendous increase in air travel, and we should be very foolish indeed if we did not think that the independents should not get a considerable part of that expanding air business. That is inevitable, even under present arrangements. I therefore want to make it quite clear that the corporations, which are our chosen civil aviation instrument, must be viable in order to take part in this expansion, and so benefit the public interest.
  I have been really touched by the solicitude that certain hon. Members opposite have displayed for the wellbeing of the corporations. It is most helpful to us. I only hope that if, in Committee, we move Amendments to establish those principles in the Bill, we shall get their support; but I very much doubt it.
  In the Bill we are trying to establish a relationship between the independents and the corporations. We are giving this new Board an extremely difficult

  1297
  task, with the vaguest of instructions to help it carry out the policy. Really, two contradictory policies are being advocated. The Minister has said on more than one occasion, as have his predecessors, that there is full ministerial support for the corporations as the main flag carrier of the nation, and that nothing he wishes to do, and nothing he intends to do, will undermine that position. At the same time, there is pressure from the independents' spokesmen to get a greater share of the existing air business. All Ministers have had to face this dilemma. I thought that after the 1952 changes in policy—which have been working out gradually over the years—we had reached a stage of peaceful co-existence in this struggle but, apparently, I am wrong.
  Some hon. Members opposite have spoken as though the Labour Party and its policy had restricted the development of the independents, but that cannot be seriously maintained for a moment when the facts are studied, because even now we have reached what I look upon as a reasonably satisfactory modification of the 1949 Act, working out in practice.
  We have had the growth of the independents up to as I say, about 30 per cent. of the business being carried. We have the significant suggestion that we are stopping competition, as though this were a field in which there was not real cut-throat competition between one national enterprise and another. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) spoke of there being no competition, but he has only to pick up any newspaper to see the prestige advertisements of all the world airlines competing with ours for the trans-Atlantic and Continental traffic. The competition is tremendous.
  The tendency of the independents has been against competition. They are now formed into four main and powerful groups of companies who, between them, carry 90 per cent. of all the independent traffic and we have had an indication this morning of a merger between two of the largest companies. That will provide a fairly formidable organisation, which should well be able to stand on its own in the world of air transport.
  I want now to refer to the speech made by the Minister at the annual dinner of
  1298
  the independents—I think, early this year. As reported in The Times, he
  "… wondered whether some of the independent companies might not think it worth while to join to form a smaller number of units."
  In anticipation of what? Airwork and Hunting Clan were fairly quick off the mark, but what are they anticipating? For what purpose was it to be worth their while to get together?
  The Minister has been rather good at inducing people to join together, and we want to know what inducements have been proffered to the independents to this end. We have tried to find out in this debate exactly what the independents want. I asked, but I got no answer. They certainly have not been getting just the crumbs as has been suggested.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) who referred to the "poor" independents, but that is not right. They have not been crippled by previous legislation. I should like here to quote from an interview between Mr. Frank Beswick and the chairman of Eagle Airways, reported in a recent isue of Flight. This is what Mr. Bamberg said, and he is probably the archetype of the independents, with whom, I believe, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is associated.
  Mr. Bamberg said:
  "We see our future largely in terms of international scheduled flying"—
  With whom will that competition be? Obviously, it will be with the corporations—
  "both passenger and freight. Even under present arrangements he confirms that his company has the largest British network of independent scheduled services in Europe, with 12 routes in Europe now showing a profit."
  That does not sound as though we have been preventing this enterprising organisation from going ahead.
  Mr. Bamberg went on:
  "Like others, I accept that the corporations' basic interests must be protected: they are a vital part of British aviation. But there is still scope for parallel services and the new Board has the job of deciding where they will be."
  This issue of scheduled parallel services goes right to the root of it all, and if the private companies are to get a parcel of scheduled services handed to them from the corporations, or are allowed to run in parallel to places to which the

  1299
  corporations go now, it seems to us to be against the interests of the corporations.
  Mr. Burden: The point is that out of last year's total traffic of 69 million passengers only 3 million came through British airlines. There is obviously a tremendous opportunity for enlightened operation on that scale, and we must take it if we are to retain our position as a great commercial nation.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Until B.O.A.C. had misfortune with some of its aircraft we had been getting an increasing share of world traffic, and we are now going ahead again. If we take the North Atlantic route alone, B.O.A.C. is pulling in more and more of the world traffic, and I understand from the very good advertisements of B.E.A. that one out of ten people travelling in Europe travels by B.E.A. What it all comes down to is that hon. Members opposite are trying to denigrate in this sort of way the achievements of the corporations.
  Let me ask this question of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is proposed to give the independent air lines scope to expand, in spite of the fact that the Minister wants to maintain the corporations as the main flag-carriers on the international routes. May I ask this simple question: where does he propose that they shall expand? Which part of the kingdom of B.O.A.C. and of B.E.A. is to be handed over? If we look at what the companies are able to do at present in the spheres of charter work, trooping, freight, scheduled routes in association, which we agree must be put right, car ferries, colonial coach, inclusive tours and possibly in the near future very low fares, that is giving a good field to the independents in which to operate.
  We have to ask definite questions. It is no good talking in airy-fairey fashion about wanting to give them greater chances. We have got to ask, "Where? What next?" There are two main areas of possible conflict between the corporations and the independents. One will be affecting B.O.A.C. with the routes to Africa and perhaps to the Far East and the Caribbean, and the other one will be affecting B.E.A. mainly on its European high traffic services. B.E.A.
  1300
  operates social service routes. Not much has been said of them today, but they are operating uneconomically to give services to the Highlands and Islands and to the Isle of Man which they are covering by the proceeds of what they make on their other routes.
  It is extremely unlikely that any independent will come forward and offer to take this route off B.E.A., and if such an offer were made by an independent it would want a subsidy or a return for doing it. If an attempt were made to operate such a service without a subsidy, after a little while the independent operators would say, "We are sorry, but we cannot carry on at the prices we are getting The alternatives are that the fares go up or the service is suspended, or we get a subsidy." It is clear that they will not want to take over some of the corporation's marginal routes. They are not in business for that sort of thing. They are in business to get as much as they can out of it, and that is understandable. There is a case, perhaps, for certain peak services on highly seasonal routes, but they can do that now in association, if they wish, with the corporation.
  There is the whole question of very low fares, and perhaps we shall hear something about that in the near future. In connection with that matter, certain complications may arise. It is a shrinking market because the colonial dependencies are reaching their independence, and then I.A.T.A. comes into the question. There is the question of foreign rights wihch will have to be negotiated—a very difficult question. There will be the possibility of avoiding undercutting and the disruption of the regular services which the airline corporations are running. Therefore, I should think that there is not a great deal of scope for the independents to operate in this shrinking market.
  All this leads us to the point that there is nothing wrong with the original policy of the Labour Party in relying for the main international routes upon the policy of a chosen instrument, which, in our case, is represented by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The only part left where the independents are likely to want to come in are on the high density traffic routes. I think the hon. Member for Gillingham said that the Paris—

  1301
  London air route was one which would offer a suitable field for the independents.
  Let us examine that possibility. If we were to let an independent company come into this field, immediately the French would respond and say, "We want another line on this, too" and it would he almost impossible for the Minister to negotiate traffic rights on that basis. That, therefore, is a non-starter.
  Sir W. Wakefield: The hon. Member must realise that already there is a London—Paris private independent service carrying tens of thousands of passengers.
  Mr. Chetwynd: If that is so, what are we quarrelling about? If they have got this arrangement whereby they can do it in present circumstances, why is it required to be scrapped and something else put in its place? That is a different service from the normal B.E.A. scheduled Paris route. It is clear to us—and what we have heard only emphasises our conviction—that the independents are really interested in skimming off the cream from the best of the services. If they are allowed to do that, that will obviously jeopardise the position of the airline corporations.
  We can see no place at all for disrupting the services which have been built up over twenty-five years in the case of B.O.A.C. and over ten years in the case of B.E.A. We can see the difficulties which will arise over trying to get reciprocity and foreign rights. The negotiating is bad enough as it is with one operator, let alone with two or three. This is going against the way in which European airlines have been steadily working.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall mentioned the case of Air Union. It is against all good experience. The corporations are working well. There is a tremendous investment in their present and their future. About £275 million of public money is already invested in the airline corporations. Their plans for bringing in new aircraft this year and in 1963 are running into hundreds of millions of pounds. We cannot expect corporations with liabilities and responsibilities of that kind to look with any favour upon a Government Measure which, to say the
  1302
  least, is unsettling to them and which, if the worst comes about, will disrupt their activities.
  If the kind of advice is given to the Board which we suspect, the effect on the corporations will be a material financial diversion of their proceeds. That is borne out in the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and in the annual reports of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. It would have a disastrous effect on the morale of the people employed in this industry, which is extremely high and very important indeed to the wellbeing of a State line. It would have a serious effect upon the future planning of the corporations. We could not possibly expect them to go ahead with their large orders for the Boeing 707, the VC10, the DH121 and the super-VC10 if their future were not assured to them. The whole of the aircraft industry is tied in with this. It is not just a question of the air transport side; it is a question of the industry as well.
  Foreign competition would become extremely acute, and in that case it would be the companies with the largest resources which could rely upon their Government for the largest subsidies which, in the end would survive. I believe, also, that instead of leading to lower fares all round, the chaos would he such that it would mean a setback to the controlled policy of lower fares which the corporations are now actively pursuing. For those reasons, we want much more information about the Government's intentions.
  The corporations are left with tremendous obligations and responsibilities. If there is to be competition, then let it be equal. The corporations have to pay interest on all their capital, whether they make a profit or not. They have got to maintain their scheduled services. They have got to take the rough with the smooth. They have got the heavy costs facing them in the future of introducing new British aircraft; and perhaps at this stage we might get from the Minister a little more definite information on what assistance he is going to give the corporations in introducing these new aircraft.
  Whatever assistance the Minister gives, there is still a considerable amount of money to be found by the

  1303
  corporations. They have got to carry out non-commercial investments in the furtherance of Government international policy, such as in the case of B.O.A.C., in Kuwait. They have got the higher standing charges, higher wages, higher maintenance and higher overheads. All those are extremely good reasons for not making it more difficult for the corporations to exist, but for trying to assist them even more.
  It is a curious thing that this demand for greater help for the independents comes again at a time when the corporations are showing signs of getting on a sound footing. We have B.E.A. making a profit and carrying more people, and B.O.A.C. getting rid of the difficulties of the associated companies and probably coming out just on the right side of the line this year. They are just recapturing lost ground. They are earning more foreign currency and more dollars than ever before. They are making a bid at this stage to capture new markets in the world, and this is the time when the Government are creating more uncertainty for them and causing them considerable unrest and confusion.
  As the Minister well knows this is an extremely marginal industry. The least little thing happening in international relations, the slightest recession in world trade, and all the plans for improved traffic go wrong. They are facing tremendous problems with their future aircraft and this is not the time in our view when we should be tinkering about with some means of helping the independents which we regard as worsening the position of the corporations.
  The weaknesses of this Bill have been brought out very well so far. There is no provision whatsoever for public knowledge of what the Minister's observations to the Board will be. I am not referring to his observations on international traffic rights which may be inexpedient; I am referring to the general provisions of Clause 2 (2, g), whereby the Board must take note of any observations made to the Board by the Minister. Some of my hon. Friends have said that that is all right so long as we have the present Minister. If I read my Sunday papers aright, he will be the next Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer—we just do not know.
  1304
  We may get the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) or the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) in his place. What kind of observations will they make to the Board? Perhaps they would be different ones from those of the present Minister, but the point is that we would not know. There is no provision for telling us what these observations would be and it is obviously one thing which we would want to put right.
  There is no question in this Bill of the new Board making an annual report to Parliament through the Minister. There was in the old A.T.A.C., but that has been dropped. We should like to have an annual report from the Board to the Minister in which we can see the directions which the Minister gives to the Board. There is no power under the Bill for the Board to call upon the airlines for full financial and traffic statistics. How can we tell the relative merits of one application against another on the scanty information that we have now? No one knows the financial state of the independents. No one really knows how much traffic they carry. Their finances are swallowed up in the parent groups, which are mainly the shipping companies, and here again we have a woeful lack of information about the whole thing.
  There is no definition of purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said in his excellent speech. There is no provision apart from what the Minister has said orally for public hearings and, what is more important, there is no regard for the customers. The old A.T.A.C., whatever its faults, was meant to be a forum through which public complaints and suggestions could be brought forward. That, again, has been dropped, and it is something which ought to be brought in.
  There is no obligation on the Licensing Board to adopt the positive things which I should like to put in Clause 2. All that it has to do under Clause 2 is to consider certain things and, having considered them, it need not do anything more about them. It can say, "We have considered it and we have not taken any notice of it." We wish to turn that round into a positive obligation upon the Board that where there is no proven need for a service, where a company cannot show clearly that it can carry

  1305
  out a service and where there is a material diversion of the corporations' profits, it shall be an obligation on the Board not to grant a licence. I hope that, in view of the great concern of hon. Members opposite for the wellbeing of the Board, they will certainly help us on that.
  The difficulties facing the independents, which we recognise, are not difficulties of the structure in the Bill. They are the difficulties of airline economics as a whole. They are not common to us, but they are common to all the world. It is our belief that the national corporations have not failed the nation. We believe that they have done a grand job. We think that they should be encouraged to go on doing that job in the future. This is not really a matter for political decision. It is a matter for economic decision and if the worst of our fears are realised the Bill could well be harmful and, indeed, disastrous in some cases to the future of the corporations.
  Therefore, unless we can get a fairly firm assurance, which we have not had hitherto, we shall be compelled to oppose the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee we shall try to make it a much better and much more worthwhile Measure.
  7.57 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): We have had a very good debate with views fairly and thoughtfully expressed on both sides of the House. I thought that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) put the position very fairly from his point of view. I hope that I may succeed in allaying some of his anxieties and those of his hon. Friends. I thought that he went very much to the root of the matter when, in the earlier part of his speech, he said that this was not a cut-throat industry. I thought that much of what he said indicated that there is really no great fear of damaging either the corporations or the independents.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he need not fear that the integration of the independent companies into stronger units is for the sinister purpose of undermining the structure of the corporations. They are forming stronger units for the reasons why my right hon. Friend indi-
  1306
  cated when he moved the Second Reading. They are doing it because, in considering the granting of licences for any air service, one of the factors to which the new Board will have to have regard is the financial and other resources of the applicant. As traffic is expanding, as aircraft are becoming more expensive, and as new opportunities arise—and we have heard much about that today—it is imperative that operators should have sound financial resources.
  Many of the questions which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have asked—what will the independents do; what will happen?—are, of course, all matters which it will be for the Board to determine in the first instance. It is important to recognise on both sides of the House that we are very much concerned to set up an independent and impartial body which can sift the evidence and weigh all the considerations. The great safeguard will be the public hearing. The hon. Gentleman said that we have only the oral assurance of my right hon. Friend about that. I am sure that he has no reason to be dissatisfied with that undertaking. It is clearly important that there should, normally, be public hearings.
  The hon. Gentleman was concerned that the advisory functions of the Air Transport Advisory Council were being abolished and the new Board would be merely a licensing authority. If he looks at Clause 4 of the Bill, he will see that it substantially reproduces the advisory functions of the Air Transport Advisory Council as originally set up under Section 12 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. This is an important provision to which the House may well wish to have its attention drawn. It is the provision under which any person will be able to make a representation to the Board
  "relating to, or to facilities in connection with, air transport services by means of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, being services required by this Act to be authorised by an air service licence, or with respect to the tariff or other charges in respect of any such service or facilities."
  Provided that it is not a frivolous or vexatious representation, the Board will have to consider it, make a report to the Minister, and make recommendations. Clearly, it is a very wide power. I hope this will go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman.

  1307
  There is, I think, a very large measure of agreement on the Bill between the two sides of the House. As far as I judge the situation, there is no disagreement in principle on the primary objective of the Bill, namely, the establishment of the Air Transport Licensing Board in place of the present Air Transport Advisory Council. By a curious process, initiated, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, by the Labour Government, the Council has developed into a de facto licensing authority acting in an informal way. As has been widely acknowledged on both sides of the House, it has carried out its duties with considerable success. However, neither its constitution nor its procedures are really suitable to sustain such a rôle indefinitely. In order to circumvent the legal monopoly of the airways corporations, independent companies were appointed as "associates" to the corporations for particular services. This was something which the Labour Government did and, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said, it involves a completely false relationship between the corporations and the independents.
  The right hon. Gentleman described the present state of affairs as ridiculous, a fiction, even a lie. The present procedure necessitates also the exercise of a quasi-judicial function without public accountability or rights of appeal. I should have thought that it must be accepted on all sides that we should regularise the position by setting up this new independent Air Transport Licensing Board, with proper procedures, in a way which will safeguard both the corporations and the independents.
  We appear to be equally agreed on not merely the desirability but, indeed, the absolute necessity of the provisions in the Bill about safety. In a sense, the Bill in itself is not directly concerned with considerations of safety; they will not fall within the terms of reference of the new Board. But there is no doubt, as several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), have said, that the present regulations do give cause for concern. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) have very much in mind, quite rightly,
  1308
  the accident at Southall, which drew public attention to the difficulties.
  Hitherto, as an incidental preliminary to the approval of services by the Advisory Council, operators of scheduled services have been inspected by the Director of Aviation Safety, but this, of course, has not extended to non-scheduled flying. The provisions of the Air Navigation Order—which we propose to strengthen—were quite general in effect and enforcement was difficult and cumbersome. It is now intended, under a new Order to be made under Section 8 of the 1949 Act, to cover all commercial operators. It is, I think, generally agreed to be an essential provision. Of course, an air operator's certificate cannot prevent all accidents taking place. It will, however, ensure that facilities for air transport are offered to the public only by firms with adequate safety arrangements.
  That is the measure of agreement between us, which is, I think, very substantial. Coming to the main objections of the Opposition, which were voiced both by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, they are really two-fold. First, they say that the Bill is vague and imprecise so that none can tell what the consequences may be. Secondly, they say that the Bill is likely to have an effect seriously damaging to the corporations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South pointed out, those are somewhat contradictory conclusions to arrive at.
  I think the real answer to these and other criticisms and questions which have been raised concerning the activities of the new Board and their effect on the future pattern of aviation is that they ignore the main aim of the Bill. The main aim is to bring the law into line with reality, by abolishing the now quite fictional monopoly of the corporations and securing equality for both public and private enterprise before an independent Board.
  Of course, as several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) have said, the success of the new system must ultimately depend upon the strength, wisdom and independence of the members of the Board

  1309
  themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) wanted a representative Board, but as my right hon. Friend said, that is not at all what we have in mind. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall thought that the numbers proposed were excessive. The numbers are somewhat larger than in the case of the Air Transport Advisory Council because it is intended that the now Board should be able to sit, as and when necessary, in two divisions. I believe that that is an important provision to make.
  The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was very much concerned that the Board could, apparently, take anything into account or ignore anything, and that the factors which it will be asked to bear in mind are imprecise. It ought to be remembered, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, that under existing legislation there was, perhaps, no need for any Bill at all. Section 13 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, provides for a licensing authority to be set up merely by Order in Council. We have gone much further than was proposed in Socialist legislation.
  It is fair also to make the point that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, among many distinguished offices he has held, was himself Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and must appreciate the great similarity there is between the procedures envisaged under this Bill and those provided for by Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, another piece of Labour legislation, governing the grant of bus licences. It is there provided that, in deciding whether to issue a road licence, the commissioner is to have regard to many matters which are similar to those in Clause 2 of the Bill—the suitability of the routes, the extent to which they are adequately served, the extent to which the service is necessary in the public interest, the needs of the area as a whole, the possibility of unremunerative services, and so forth. I should not have thought that the operation of that system had in any way prejudiced the position of the British Transport Commission. That body may have other troubles, but they do not stem from the operation of the licensing system. Indeed, it is fair to say that there has been very little criticism of the procedure proposed under the Bill. This, I think,
  1310
  is because it is probably recognised that what is proposed follows fairly closely the procedure which has already been tried and tested satisfactorily in connection with bus licences.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East raised the point that it was not, perhaps, appropriate for the Minister to hear appeals. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the matters with which the Board will be concerned are questions of opinion or policy and not merely of interpretation of law or of fact, as in the case of the air safety certificate. Parliament would wish that in the last resort the Minister should be the accountable authority.
  It is the same kind of reasoning that led Parliament to provide for the Minister of Transport to hear appeals from decisions of traffic commissioners on bus licence applications. Incidentally, that whole procedure has been recently considered by two Committees. It was considered by the Thesiger Committee on the Licensing of Road Passenger Services, which was appointed in 1952. That Committee recommended against any change in the appeal procedure. The Franks Committee considered that Report and said that they had received no evidence which led it to differ from that conclusion.
  The list of considerations set out in Clause 2, which is like that set out in Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is by no means exhaustive. We should not attempt an exhaustive list. It does, however, indicate an intention to ensure a measure of protection to existing established operators, whether air corporations or independents. At the same time it allows sufficient flexibility to permit of constant new developments of the kind of which many hon. Members have today spoken and to provide reasonable scope for both the corporations and the independents to expand.
  It is against that background that we have to consider the major charge that in some mysterious way an independent licensing authority, weighing all the evidence and sifting all the considerations, would damage the corporations. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that, with the agreement of both the corporations and the independents, we are making provision to ensure that the

  1311
  Board gets off to a fair start concerning the carry over of existing traffic rights. There should be no difficulty with provisional transitional licences in ensuring this fair start.
  In the case of the corporations, the position is simple. They will simply carry on as at present on the routes they now serve. When the independents are operating approved services, those approvals will continue for the existing period and for the present frequencies. There is a little more difficulty in the case of independent services which need no approval now but which will be controlled hereafter. We will therefore have to set a date reasonably far in advance before it becomes an offence to fly without a licence.
  As my right hon. Friend said, in making these generally acceptable provisions for transitional licences, there is no question of perpetuating the present pattern. Nor is there any question of smashing it. I assure hon. Members opposite that the great public investment in the corporations will be protected. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) put the position clearly when he said that no independent wants to take the place of the corporations. As the hon. and gallant Member said in the little debate which took place between himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), demonstrating that there is no workers' solidarity on the other side of the House, there is a place for both the corporations and the independents.
  At the same time, however, in answer to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, there may be scope for parallel services. That, however, is a matter that the Board will have to determine in the first instance. There will certainly be no sudden change in the pattern of traffic. It is, however, a fact that the corporations' monopoly of almost every British domestic and international air route will not be automatically inviolate. All operators will have the opportunity of making their case to the Board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South was quite right in emphasising that we should think of the corporations and the airline companies
  1312
  as operators. There should be no thought of a battle between the corporations and the independents. This is not a great ideological issue. The independents may well try to seek a bigger share of an expanding traffic, but that does not necessarily mean a bigger percentage. It might be described as a growing share of growing cake.
  That point was brought out in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), Watford and Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) all of whom, together with the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North, emphasised the enormous possibilities of traffic expansion. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North went out of his way to explain to his hon. Friends the distinction between the sort of jobs that the independents want to do and those that the corporations are carrying out. We must not take too narrow a view of this matter.
  We can recognise quite properly that the independents have played a great part in opening up new routes and services. They have concentrated particularly on popularising flying among people who might never have flown. In the long run, that must be generally in the interests of British aviation and, indeed, of the corporations themselves. The independents have also made a notable contribution, not merely in pioneering new services, but in pioneering them, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) said, at reduced fares.
  At the same time, one does not belittle the achievements of the corporations. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees referred, quite fairly, to the fact that in the last calendar year, British European Airways reported a profit and that B.O.A.C. also has had its successes. It is fair to point out that B.O.A.C.'s share of Atlantic traffic between New York and London has enormously increased since the low 1954 figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham. The corporation is now getting roughly 40 per cent. of the traffic. This is an achievement which should be put on record.
  The right hon. Member for Vauxhall showed himself also a little concerned about the possibilities of unfair competition between the independents and the

  1313
  corporations. One of the advantages of tightening up the safety regulations is that we shall ensure that there is no possibility of economising in that direction. It is also fair to say that there is no possibility of the independents undercutting the corporations in the way that the right hon. Member suggested by offering less favourable terms and conditions of service.
  Clause 2 (2, a) of the Bill provides that the Board shall be satisfied of an applicant's ability to provide, among other things, satisfactory staffing arrangements, but that is not the whole story. The Bill leaves quite unaffected Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, which provides that the terms and conditions of employment offered by independents, unless they are regulated by another Act or by an agreement between the independents and the trade unions or in accordance with a national joint council agreement, must
  "comply with the following requirement, that is to say, that they shall not be less favourable than the terms and conditions observed by the Airways Corporations in the case of persons engaged in comparable work".
  I turn now to the questions which arise on the terms of reference. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was particularly anxious that it should be mandatory upon the Board to refuse any application that was held to result in wasteful duplication or material diversion of any kind. I cannot feel that that is a fair way of ensuring equality before the law. I should have thought that these matters should be left to the Board to take account of together with other aspects of public interest, and to balance fairly.
  The right hon. Gentleman also drew attention to an apparent discrepancy as regards tariffs. Clause 2 (5) provides for the fixing of fares whereas paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of Clause 2 only provides that the Board shall have regard to the tariff in force in respect of a similar service. In other words, it would be proper for the Board to have regard to the fact that on a certain route there was only a first-class service and that therefore there was a public need for an economy or some other lower fare.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle questioned the necessity to have regard to the need for a proposed service and said he would like that to be eliminated. It should be understood that, as
  1314
  drafted, the Clause does not require the applicant to prove a need, so it does not put him at a disadvantage. If there is a need it is an argument in his favour.
  Mr. Strauss: This is not a point of controversy but it is of some importance, so would the Minister say more about the question of fares because it is not clear at the moment? The Board must take account of the tariff of any similar service when an application is before it, but the Minister fixes what the fare shall be for all services abroad. If an applicant states that an ordinary service is being run by B.O.A.C. at a certain fare and that he will run a similar service at a lower fare, is it for the Board or the Minister to decide what the fare shall be?
  Mr. Rippon: The Board does not fix the fare so it will not argue about precise details. Clearly, however, in the circumstances to which I referred that is a relevant factor for the Board to consider. That is as far as one can reasonably go at this stage.
  The other matter under the terms of reference which has caused some discussion arises under paragraph (g) of Clause 2 (2), namely, the observations made to the Board by the Minister. It is accepted that there may be matters relating to international negotiations on which it will not be wise or possible to publish the Minister's observations. I can say, however, that where the observations are of a general character, for example on fares, it is our intention that these shall be published so that applicants may know where they stand and so that the House may question the Minister about them. There is one further point to which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees referred, namely, the annual report and statistics. I can undertake that we will consider this point.
  In all the circumstances I think we have had a valuable debate which has ranged over many points arising under the Bill and I have tried to deal with as many as I could. I can safely commend to the House the broad principles of the Bill, although I assure all hon. Members that we will take full account of all that has been said before we reach the Committee stage. If either the corporations or the independent operators had felt that in every particular the Bill was welcome to them, that would have

  1315
  been a very worrying circumstance. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees seemed to be expecting the independent operators to complain about a number of matters. The fact that this has happened is a good thing.
  The purpose of the Bill is to secure a full share of opportunity for both the
  corporations and the independent operators through a procedure which we trust will be in every way open, fair and impartial.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 175.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  REQUISITIONED HOUSES BILL
  Order for consideration, not amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 20, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Michael Stewart.—[Mr. MacColl.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  REQUISITIONED HOUSES BILL

    Clause 2.—(RENTAL COMPENSATION AND EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.)
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty".
    This Amendment is the final point which we want to put to the Committee after a fairly thorough examination of the Bill in Standing Committee.
    As hon. Members know, the Bill is designed to extend the period after 31st March in which it will be possible for local authorities which have requisitioned property to go on holding that property while they complete the operation of derequisitioning. The issue between us and the Government at this stage is not whether it is right to de-requisition or to continue the period in which derequisitioning can take place, but what subsidy should be paid by the Government to local authorities which have not completed their derequisitioning by 31st March.
    Originally, requisitioning was undertaken by local authorities as agents for the Government and a 100 per cent. grant was given on the deficiency of the whole operation, that is to say, after the rent had been collected and out of the rent there had been paid the cost of maintaining and repairing the property and compensation to the owners of the property, any deficiency was met by the Government up to 100 per cent.
    That continued until 1955 when the subsidy was reduced from 100 per cent. to 75 per cent., which was a reasonable figure because it represented more or

    1321
    less the general proportion of central and local subsidies for housing operations under the Housing Acts.
    I do not want to go into the question of why it has happened, but there are authorities which have not completed their derequisitioning and are carrying on in the same way as they were under the 1955 Act, and performing precisely the same kind of activities, and the Government are purporting here to fine them for having failed to complete their derequisitioning. Had they been able to complete their programme by 31st March they would have received 75 per cent. Under the Bill they will get 25 per cent.
    We discussed this in Committee and suggested that there was a strong case for maintaining the same subsidy as had been given under the old Act. The Government resisted that and we were defeated. We are now coming half way to meet them and suggesting 50 per cent. instead of 75 per cent.
    There are two main arguments against giving the subsidy of 50 per cent. The first argument which the Government have used is that it would not be keeping faith with those local authorities which will have completed the operation by the end of this month, and it would be unfair to them if authorities which have failed to complete are in the same financial position as they are.
    One of the difficulties that the Government have in holding that argument with any conviction is that they also say that there is very little involved in this, that very few dwellings will be involved and that the actual charge will not be great. If it will not be great from the Government's point of view, the "good local authorities", the "good boys" who played the Government's game will not have much to complain about if their weaker brethren who have failed to achieve the same objective in the same time get the same grant. It is a specious argument any way. The Government are obviously trying to stir up a little local authority jealousy by saying that the local authorities which have completed the job will be livid if the others get a certain amount of money out of the Government.
    That is not a sensible approach to the local authority outlook. Most local authorities would recognise the difficulties of their neighbours and would not
    1322
    be motivated by such thoughts. They would not care two hoots whether the other authorities were getting 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. They would feel that any local authority which managed to get a grant out of the Government should be encouraged to do so. The Government's argument is not a good one.
    The other argument is that those authorities which have not completed the operation by the end of the month are in some sense to blame for it, and therefore they ought to suffer financially for not having done it. That argument was put forward with great vigour and energy by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), and my impression was that he caused a good deal of embarrassment to the Government. Certainly the Parliamentary Secretary could not have used more honeyed words to the local authorities involved. He made no suggestion that this was in any sense a fine which was being levied on them because they failed to do the job.
    There are many reasons why they may have failed to do the job. They may have had more property to deal with. In some cases they may have had landlords who were more difficult to persuade to accept licensees as tenants. The property may have been older and required more money to be spent on it to get it into a reasonable state before it could be used. There are all sorts of complications which explain why some local authorities have failed to keep up to the level of the others. Therefore, if the Government are not out to fine them for bad behaviour, there is no case for discrimination. If, as the Government tell us, there will be only a very small overlap—perhaps a matter of a few months, in most cases, involving very few dwellings—the sensible thing is to continue the financial arrangements negotiated with local authorities in 1955 until the whole operation is completed.
    8.45 p.m.
    The Amendment goes a little beyond that. In it we are saying, "All right, let us agree that there should be a small financial sanction to discourage them." That is not a very strong argument, but we will accept it as being something that the Government want. In that case, I suggest that the figure of 50 per cent. is a

    1323
    much more reasonable approximation to what is required than is their very drastic reduction from 75 per cent. to 25 per cent.
    In the Bill the Government have changed the rules to the disadvantage of local authorities. I am not quarrelling with them for changing the rules, but I would point out that they have increased the amount of compensation payable to the owners of property. The Committee approved that increase as being desirable, but it means that the loss on the property is liable to be greater. It means, therefore, that on the one hand the Government are increasing the loss likely to be incurred on requisitioned property and, on the other hand, are backing out of their responsibility for their own decision by reducing the percentage which they are prepared to pay on the deficiency in running this operation.
    In those circumstances I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment, which is a reasonable compromise. It goes some way to meet the Government's desire to have a slight financial discrimination against the dilatory authorities while, at the same time, it avoids inflicting financial hardship upon them.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has moved his Amendment very persuasively, to the effect that, after 31st March, taxpayers should continue to pay, in respect of those dwellings which, by an order of my right hon. Friend, are still under requisition, a contribution not of 75 per cent., as now, but of 50 per cent. The hon. Member has been able to do this only by disposing far too easily of what I regard as the two main arguments in favour of a reduction to a rather lower figure.
    As the hon. Member says, this provision will concern only a few local authorities. It will affect a body of local authorities who, for a few months, will not quite have disposed of their requisitioning problems—some because they started too late, some because they went too slowly, even though they made an early start, and some, perhaps, because of a political miscalculation. But we must remember that the vast majority of
    1324
    local authorities—including many which had just as daunting a problem as that which faced those few who will not have finished the job—will have totally disposed of their requisitioned property by the end of March. They will have every right to resent the easy availability to those who, for one reason or another, did not manage to finish the job, of anything like the same amount of taxpayers' money as they themselves received.
    The hon. Member says that he is humouring the Government by departing from his own principles so far as to agree to a reduction in the 75 per cent. grant received now. He comes down to 50 per cent. I still think that he underestimates the resentment which will be felt by local authorities who have made such great efforts to succeed in their task if so little difference were made for those few who, for one reason or another, have not been so successful.
    We take the view that local authorities who do not finish the job have no right to expect anything. There were a number of warnings—this is the second argument which the hon. Gentleman failed to meet—that any authority which failed to finish derequisitioning by the end of March could not expect a contribution from the taxpayer. Far from holding the local authorities concerned to this prediction, we are, in fact, tempering the wind by conceding a 25 per cent. contribution from the taxpayer.
    We believe that the level of 25 per cent. is just about the right compromise. It eases the shock for those very few local authorities for the short time still left, while maintaining faith with the vast bulk of local authorities who, often in the face of equally difficult problems, will have totally succeeded in their task. I very much hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be pressed, and that the figure of 25 per cent. will remain in the Bill.
    Mr. David Weitzman: I fail to understand the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that the local authorities concerned have no right to expect anything. Let me remind him that since 1955 the Minister has been warned repeatedly that, despite every effort which they might make, some local authorities would be unable

    1325
    to complete their derequisitioning programme by 31st March this year. It was only belatedly that the Minister recognised the justice of that criticism.
    I wish to recall to the Parliamentary Secretary the date when the legislation was brought forward and when an offer was made by the present Minister of Aviation, who was then in charge of the Measure, to extend the period for two years. He thought then that some period ought to be put forward. It seems to me absolutely monstrous to argue that these local authorities ought to expect nothing, but that the Government are kindly offering to them the small amount of 25 per cent.
    I should like to hear the Minister state in plain language whether he regards this as a penal Clause. From what he has said it is nothing less than a penal Clause. In effect, the hon. Gentleman said that the authorities which completed their derequisitioning task by 31st March would be good boys and would have done their work, and, therefore, they would have the 50 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary says that they will resent the payment of anything more than 25 per cent. to the others. What evidence is there that there will be such resentment? Why should there be? It may be that there are local authorities which will complete this work because the task was comparatively light. How do their difficulties compare with those, for example, of the Borough of Hackney and the Borough of Stoke Newington which have made every effort to complete their gigantic task?
    Surely the Minister is wrong in saying that every authority which fails to complete its task by 31st March is at fault, because that is what he is saying. He proposes to punish them by limiting the amount of compensation to 25 per cent. There may have been one or two which failed. Perhaps one or two of the authorities have been dilatory in this matter. What about the others? Are they to suffer also? Does the argument apply to all? If one or two have been dilatory in some way, why punish the others?
    If the Minister were to take cognisance of the facts which exist in certain constituencies—the Herculean efforts made by them, efforts to get landlords to accept statutory tenants—he would
    1326
    know that they have striven to carry out their obligations though they have failed. They have not been able to complete derequisitioning by 31st March. The Minister says, "You have all been naughty boys and as a result we shall give you only 25 per cent." Surely it is simple justice to recognise the position.
    The Amendment is a moderate one. The former Amendment which asked for 75 per cent. was a just one, but this is an attempt at compromise. The Minister should recognise that he has been at fault. He should recognise that the efforts of those borough councils to get something done should be rewarded to some extent. He ought not to punish them in this way. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think again and to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Albert Evans: I was rather surprised at the words the Parliamentary Secretary used in replying to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have an unfortunate attitude towards local authorities. He said that those which have not completed derequisitioning had started too late, acted too slowly, or made a political miscalculation. Those which had succeeded in derequisitioning might be full of resentment if the Government were considerate towards those which had been unable to complete derequisitioning.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not persist in this attitude towards local authorities. He holds an office in an important Ministry, a Ministry to which local authorities look for guidance and help. It would be unfortunate if he were to speak too freely on the lines on which he has spoken today, blaming local authorities for being too slow, too late, or making a political miscalculation and causing resentment. We take the view that the Minister should do all he can to help local authorities. As my hon. Friend said, the attitude of the Government seems to be that those which have not completed de-requisitioning by 31st March are responsible for some mismanagement and default in carrying out the task that the Government placed upon them. I take quite the opposite view.

    1327
    I know, and I think that the Minister and the House know, that the incidence of the burden of requisitioning and de-requisitioning varies considerably from place to place. We must all admit that the amount of requisitioning in different local authority areas varied considerably because the amount of bombing varied considerably. Local authorities did not start with an even task and the same amount of work to do; they had different burdens to carry. It was to be expected, in those circumstances, that some would finish the work earlier than others. Now, through no fault of their own, those which have not completed derequisitioning are to be penalised by the Government because they failed to complete a task which it was not possible for them to complete in time.
    9.0 p.m.
    We submit that, on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary failed to give due consideration to local authorities which had generally had a heavier burden than those which had managed to complete the derequisitioning programme. In view of the small amount of money involved, it would have been better for the relationship between the Ministry and local authorities if the Ministry had met us on this point and had raised the figure from 25 to 50 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes said, this is not an unreasonable request. Personally, I think that it should go further—to 75 per cent.
    The Parliamentary Secretary has not met the argument or approached the local authorities with understanding. I ask him not to take the attitude towards local authorities that they will harbour resentment against other authorities. They will do nothing of the kind. I have had some experience of local government, and I suggest that it matters a great deal what attitude the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary adopt towards local authorities' efforts. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the Amendment, I ask him at least to bear in mind that it is not helpful if local councillors are accused by the Minister of not fulfilling their duties and of harbouring resentment against each other.
    Mr. Michael Cliffe: I hope that the Government
    1328
    will pay serious attention to the Amendment. It is quite unreasonable to suggest that a penalty should be imposed upon all those local authorities which have failed to return all requisitioned properties to their owners by 31st March, 1960.
    I believe that the Minister is well aware that on more than one occasion the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee was more than convinced that, with the best will in the world, it would be impossible to meet the Minister's requirements by 31st March, 1960. The Committee made numerous protests, and asked the Minister to reconsider his decision and to give more time in order to enable local authorities to complete these duties within the meaning of the Act. This was not done.
    Most people who have any knowledge or experience of housing in London agree with me that local authorities have performed miracles. What has been achieved is beyond anything we dared to imagine in 1955. Local authorities were obliged to buy much property which was sub-standard, and they spent a lot of money in trying to make that property habitable in order to provide alternative accommodation where they were unable to effect any agreement about the requisitioned property.
    If there has been any delay, some responsibility ought to be accepted by the Minister, because at the beginning very little or no encouragement was given to local authorities to purchase other properties in order to deal with their derequisitioning problems. It was only after he himself appreciated how far short most of them would fall that he finally gave some encouragement to local authorities to try to meet the position by purchasing other properties.
    I represent a double-barrelled constituency. Both Shoreditch and Finsbury have complied with the situation, but at what a cost. About £180,000 has been paid for 240 properties, and at present money is being lost because the properties need so much in the way of repairs merely to maintain them in a habitable state.
    These are the kind of things which most local authorities have had to do. To suggest that further burdens have to be carried by local authorities, which means that they have to be carried by

    1329
    local rates, is not only unjust, but extremely unreasonable. The moving of the Amendment is reasonable, and I hope that the Government will see its justice and accept it.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: I had not intended to intervene, but I have been rather stung by the Minister's attitude on this very reasonable Amendment. Whatever he may say, clearly this is a penal provision. It is directed against local authorities—admittedly a very few of them—which have been up against most exceptional difficulties. Every one of the authorities concerned has had not only a requisitioned housing problem but also a variety of other housing problems.
    The Minister knows that in Wood Green we are not affected by this problem. We have managed, and we hope that by 31st March we shall have cleared our requisitioned housing problem. At the same time, we are defaulting in other ways. For example, we have not cleared our "prefabs" from open space. Local authorities have very often had to weigh up one consideration against another. Some authorities which have had a requisitioned housing problem have had acute cases of overcrowding, ill-health, and so on, on their housing waiting lists which have had to take priority.
    When the Minister comes to the House and talks as if he regards these local authorities as being offenders—technically they may be—he completely under-estimates the real difficulties in which they have been involved. Every one of these authorities has a housing problem the solving of which gives its officials and councillors a continuous headache. They are built-up areas. There is a shortage of suitable property to acquire to replace requisitioned property which is of low standard.
    Every requisitioned property has to be verore a local authority decides to buy it. In Wood Green we visited every one. I have been in practically 200 properties, looking them over from top to bottom to ensure that they were suitable for the authority to acquire. Where they were not, alternative properties have had to be provided. There is a shortage of alternative accommodation. I do not think that the Minister is taking all these factors into consideration.
    1330
    As representing one of the authorities which has cleared the problem, I assure the Minister that we in Wood Green and Tottenham—and, I am sure, other boroughs with similar responsibilities—would not view it with any disfavour if he would now be generous to authorities in difficulty, if he would accept the Amendment and give them 50 per cent., which does penalise them but not so much as he attempts to do.
    I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have second thoughts. The Bill gives an extension of time to these local authorities that are in difficulty. If he would now be a little more generous financially, he would not only help them but would help this very grave housing problem which, I think, he has underestimated.
    Mr. MacColl: In part, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. The real difficulty, perhaps, into which some local authorities fell was that of making a political miscalculation. It is probably beyond all question that had we won the General Election, the local authorities know that they would have got fairer and more generous treatment than they have got from the present Government. But the steel speculators made a "packet" out of the success of the Government. They made a successful political calculation. Local authorities in the built-up industrial areas, and the ratepayers there, made a political miscalculation, because they knew on which side were the people who really cared for, understood and sympathised with their problems. That, of course, is why they have to pay this penalty. The Parliamentary Secretary has at last come clean, and, on that issue, I would press the Amendment.
    Sir K. Joseph: This debate has really called for a repetition in brief of what I thought I had made abundantly clear on Second Reading. Derequisitioning has been a huge task. No one here deities that. As the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) said, it has been a vast task for those concerned and, as the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has said, it has often had to be tackled simultaneously with tackling a number of other housing jobs.
    I quite accept that, and I accept, as has been said tonight, that the burden

    1331
    fell unevenly because the bombing fell unevenly. I accept that solving the problem was complicated by uneven distribution of other properties, and of sites, of unco-operative landlords, and that, altogether, derequisitioning has involved a vast campaign on the part of the local authorities concerned.
    I recognised this, so generously, I thought, on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) this evening described my words towards local authorities as "honeyed". I have uttered no word of blame. I have not spoken of offenders. The fact is, as hon. Members must recognise, that by the end of March 98½ per cent. of the dwellings ever requisitioned during or since the war will have been released and, in many cases, they will have been released by local authorities with problems just as great, difficulties just as baffling, and other housing tasks just as numerous as there will be among those few local authorities who may apply—
    Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Name them.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have the greatest admiration of the efforts made by all the local authorities concerned—
    Mrs. Braddock: Name them.
    Sir K. Joseph: There is Battersea, for instance, which has had a very large number of requisitioned houses but which, I believe, will have solved its whole problem by the end of March; in number, as large as any other borough, with just as much shortage of sites and lack of large houses for conversion as any other borough. However, it would be invidious, on this sort of occasion, to bandy relative merits.
    No word of blame is being uttered from this Box, but the fact is, as the hon. Member for Widnes said, and as has been said by other hon. Members, some local authorities started late, some, after starting in time, did not exert the maximum vigour that others exerted—some, perhaps, made a political miscalculation. There is no word of blame from here, but the fact remains that any loss or injury to local authorities con-
    1332
    cerned can only be the result of their own efforts and, therefore, they can have only themselves to blame, though it is not my job or that of anyone else to blame them.
    9.15 p.m.
    The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) asked why the majority of local authorities who will have finished the task in time should resent it in any way if much the same contribution towards the management deficit were to be continued after the final date. He should ask himself what, among other things, spurred these local authorities forward often against quite baffling difficulties—difficulties quite as arduous as those which met those few local authorities that may not have completed in time. All local authorities have been twice warned. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked where the warning was, and why they should have had reason to expect no contribution from the taxpayer after 31st March. The answer is in two circulars, one in 1957 and one in 1959, as well as in answers to Parliamentary Questions. In all these they were repeatedly warned that after 31st March there would be no contribution from the taxpayer.
    I am sorry that I cannot, therefore, agree that justice to that vast majority who will have succeeded in time, often against odds quite as large as anywhere else in the country, would be done by continuing the taxpayers' contribution for the short time and for the relatively few dwellings involved at a level as high as 50 per cent. The contrast between the treatment of those who have succeeded and those who, without any attribution of blame, will not quite have succeeded will not be sufficient to do justice to those whose efforts have resulted in complete success.
    I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties that have had to be overcome. I repeat, there is no question of blame from this Box, but faith must be maintained with the vast majority of local authorities, and I still hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
    Question put, That "twenty-five" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 121.

    Division No. 47.]

    AYES

    [8.25 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Marten, Neil

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Allason, James

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mawby, Ray

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Gower, Raymond

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

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Barber, Anthony

    Green, Alan

    Mills, Stratton

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Batsford, Brian

    Grimond, J.

    Morgan, William

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Neave, Airey

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Noble, Michael

    Bidgood, John C.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Page, Graham

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hay, John

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peel, John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hendry, Forbes

    Percival, Ian

    Bossom, Clive

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Peyton, John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Box, Donald

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

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hobson, John

    Pitman, I. J.

    Brewis, John

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Pitt, Miss Edith

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

    Holland, Philip

    Pott, Percivall

    Brooman-White, R.

    Holt, Arthur

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

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

    Bullard, Denys

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Burden, F. A.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ramsden, James

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Jackson, John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Chataway, Christopher

    James, David

    Rees, Hugh

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Renton, David

    Clark, William (Nottingham. S.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Cole, Norman

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Collard, Richard

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Cooke, Robert

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Robertson, Sir David

    Cooper, A. E.

    Kirk, Peter

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Lambton, Viscount

    Roots, William

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Cordle, John

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Russell, Ronald

    Corfield, F. V.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

    Costain, A. P.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Critchley, Julian

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shepherd, William

    Crowder, F. P.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Simon, Sir Jocelyn

    Cunningham, Knox

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Curran, Charles

    Litchfield, Capt. John

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Smithers, Peter

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    McAdden, Stephen

    Speir, Rupert

    Doughty, Charles

    MacArthur, Ian

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Duncan, Sir James

    McLaren, Martin

    Stodart, J. A.

    Duthie, Sir William

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Eden, John

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

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Elliott, R. W.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Emery, Peter

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    McMaster, Stanley

    Tapsell, Peter

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Fell, Anthony

    Maginnis, John E.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Finlay, Graeme

    Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Gammans, Lady

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Gardner, Edward

    Marshall, Douglas

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Turner, Colin

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Wise, Alfred

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Watts, James

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Webster, David

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Woollam, John

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Whitelaw, William

    Worsley, Marcus

    Vosper, Pt. Hon. Dennis

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Sharples.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Oram, A. E.

    Albu, Austen

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Awbery, Stan

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Owen, Will

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Holman, Percy

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

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Paton, John

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

    Howell, Charles A.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Benson, Sir George

    Hoy, James H.

    Peart, Frederick

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pentland, Norman

    Blyton, William

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Boardman, H.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Prentice, R. E.

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

    Hunter, A. E.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Boyden, James

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Rankin, John

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Janner, Barnett

    Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jeger, George

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

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

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Ross, William

    Carmichael, James

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Short, Edward

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Chapman, Donald

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Chetwynd, George

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Small, William

    Cliffe, Michael

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Collick, Percy

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Stones, William

    Crosland, Anthony

    Lawson, George

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

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Swain, Thomas

    Darling, George

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Sylvester, George

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Deer, George

    Logan, David

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Loughlin, Charles

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Dempsey, James

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Diamond, John

    MacColl, James

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

    Dodds, Norman

    McInnes, James

    Timmons, John

    Driberg, Tom

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    McLeavy, Frank

    Warbey, William

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Watkins, Tudor

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Weitzman, David

    Evans, Albert

    Mahon, Simon

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Finch, Harold

    Manuel, A. C.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Fitch, Alan

    Mapp, Charles

    Whitlock, William

    Fletcher, Eric

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Foot, Dingle

    Marsh, Richard

    Willey, Frederick

    Forman, J. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Williams, Rev. Ll. (Abertillery)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Millan, Bruce

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mitchison, G. R.

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

    Ginsburg, David

    Monslow, Walter

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Moody, A. S.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morris, John

    Woof, Robert

    Grey, Charles

    Moyle, Arthur

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Oliver, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Probert and Mr. Redhead.

    Division No. 48.]

    AYES

    [9.17 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Partridge, E.

    Allason, James

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Peel, John

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Hay, John

    Percival, Ian

    Balniel, Lord

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Barber, Anthony

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pitman, I. J.

    Batsford, Brian

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pott, Percivall

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hobson, John

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Holland, Philip

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Bidgood, John C.

    Holt, Arthur

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hopkins, Alan

    Ramsden, James

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bishop, F. P.

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

    Rees, Hugh

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bossom, Clive

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Renton, David

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Box, Donald

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Jackson, John

    Robertson, Sir David

    Brooman-White, R.

    James, David

    Roots, William

    Bryan, Paul

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Russell, Ronald

    Bullard, Denys

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Seymour, Leslie

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Shepherd, William

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Simon, Sir Jocelyn

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Kirk, Peter

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

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Smithers, Peter

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Speir, Rupert

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Collard, Richard

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Cooke, Robert

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Cordle, John

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Corfield, F. V.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Critchley, Julian

    McLaren, Martin

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Curran, Charles

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

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Turner, Colin

    de Ferranti, Basil

    McMaster, Stanley

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Maginnis, John E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Elliott, R. W.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Emery, Peter

    Marshall, Douglas

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Marten, Neil

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Fell, Anthony

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Watts, James

    Finlay, Graeme

    Mawby, Ray

    Webster, David

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Gammans, Lady

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gardner, Edward

    Mills, Stratton

    Wolrige Gordon, Patrick

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Morgan, William

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Motts-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Woollam, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Worsley, Marcus

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Noble, Michael

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grimond, J.

    Page, Graham

    Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Sharples

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Cliffe, Michael

    Forman, J. C.

    Awbery, Stan

    Collick, Percy

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Crosland, Anthony

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

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

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Blackburn, F.

    Deer, George

    Grey, Charles

    Blyton, William

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Boardman, H.

    Dempsey, James

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

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

    Diamond, John

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Boyden, James

    Dodds, Norman

    Hayman, F. H.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Evans, Albert

    Hilton, A. V.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Finch, Harold

    Holman, Percy

    Carmichael, James

    Fitch, Alan

    Hoy, James H.

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Foot, Dingle

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    1334

    1335

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mapp, Charles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hunter, A. E.

    Millan, Bruce

    Stones, William

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Sylvester, George

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Morris, John

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Janner, Barnett

    Oswald, Thomas

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Paton, John

    Timmons, John

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Peart, Frederick

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pentland, Norman

    Warbey, William

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Weitzman, David

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Probert, Arthur

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    King, Dr. Horace

    Rankin, John

    Whitlock, William

    Lawson, George

    Redhead, E. C.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Logan, David

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

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

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Ross, William

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    MacColl, James

    Short, Edward

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    McInnes, James

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Woof, Robert

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Yates, Victor (Lady wood)

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Small, William

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment: not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time and passed.

  CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the licensing of certain flying, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Aviation in consequence of the provisions of that Act;

  (ii) any sums required to be so paid by any Order in Council extending any of the provisions of that Act with or without modifications and adaptations to any of the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Aviation under that Act.—[Mr. Rippon.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, lines 8, 9 and 15 and to the Title, line 1, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Maclay.—[Mr. Leburn.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES BILL

    Clause 1.—(ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS PROVIDING SEA TRANSPORT SERVICES.)
    9.28 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I beg to move in page 1, line 8, after "persons" to insert "(a)".
    I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Gordon, if we could consider, at the same time, the Amendment in page 1, line 9, at the end to insert:
    (b) who provide such services and are local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, or
    (c) who propose to provide such services.
    and also the Amendment in page 1, line 15, to leave out subsection (3), and the Amendment to the Title, line 1, to leave out "wholly or mainly."
    The Chairman: I think that that would be convenient for the Committee.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: Would it be convenient also, Sir Gordon, if we were to take the Amendment to the Secretary of State's Amendment in page 1, line 9, at the same time?
    The Chairman: When we have passed the first Amendment, in line 8, after "persons", to insert "(a)", we shall then come to the Amendment in line 9 and take then the Amendment to it standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Leburn: In accepting an Opposition Amendment to Clause 1 (3), in Committee, I undertook to reconsider this subsection and, if necessary, put down an Amendment clarifying its intentions particularly in relation to local authorities. I explained later that any new Amendment would be designed to ensure that local authorities would not be cut out of the Bill. I have also borne in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there should be room for assistance to what he described as a holding company if it were desired to give assistance in that way.
    9.30 p.m.
    I have given effect to these undertakings by this series of Amendments, which propose the deletion of subsection (3) and the substitution of a revised subsection (1). The effect of the revised subsection is that three categories of

    1337
    persons may be assisted under the Bill. The first category is
    "persons (a) who provide, and are wholly or mainly engaged in providing"
    sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands. These words are already in the Clause and the only change is the addition of "(a)". This provision would also allow for assistance to be given to a company that would be responsible for providing services but would he doing so by making an arrangement with, perhaps, an operating company.
    This would be the holding company arrangement that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) had in mind. The holding company would be the principal and the operating company its agent. I am advised that a company which made arrangements of this kind could properly be regarded as providing services, just as a local authority provides houses although it does not necessarily build them.
    The second class of person that may be assisted are those described in paragraph (b):
    "persons … who provide such services and are local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act. 1937".
    This clarifies the position of local authorities, first, by mentioning them specifically and, secondly, by making clear that they are persons who may be assisted.
    Since paragraph (b) is not now qualified by the words
    "wholly or mainly engaged in providing",
    any doubt as to the application of the provision to local authorities is removed. Perhaps I should explain that the reason for defining local authorities as I have done is because the local authorities as defined in the 1937 Act—that is, county councils and town councils—are the only local authorities which have power to acquire and operate ferries.
    The third class is those described in paragraph (c):
    "persons … who propose to provide such services."
    This enables assistance to be given to intending operators when help is necessary prior to the start of the service, for example, by means of a grant or loan towards the cost of a ship. With
    1338
    these three Amendments in subsection (1), the existing subsection (3) now becomes unnecessary and can be dropped.
    The last of the series of Amendments provides for the deletion of "wholly or mainly" from the Long Title. This is appropriate to the inclusion of local authorities as persons who may be assisted. Clearly, local authorities cannot be described as
    "wholly or mainly engaged in providing such services."
    The inclusion, therefore, of these words in the Long Title would be an inaccurate description of the range of persons who may be assisted under the Bill. I hope that, with these explanations, hon. Members may feel disposed to accept the Amendment.
    The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to pass the first Amendment and then formally to propose the Minister's second Amendment, when the Amendment to it by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) can be discussed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end insert:
    (b)who provide such services and are local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, or
    (c)who propose to provide such services.—[Mr. Leburn.]
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "1937", to insert:
    (c) any district council which provides such services.
    The Amendment proposed by the Joint Under-Secretary gives effect to his undertaking in Committee that he would make it abundantly clear in the Statute that local authorities could be assisted under the Bill. It was necessary to do more than make it abundantly clear. It was necessary, of course, to amend the Bill to make it possible at all for local authorities to be assisted under the Bill.
    Under the Bill as drafted, however, the Joint Under-Secretary was at pains to tell us that "persons" in subsection (1) included local authorities. Now he states "local authorities" without any qualification. The assumption was that any local authority which provided a service ancillary to a sea transport service might qualify for assistance under

    1339
    the Bill. I put it like that because we must never assume that anyone who provides such a service will always receive assistance. Each application must be considered on its merits.
    Since the Joint Under-Secretary brought forward his Amendment he has shown to us that the local authorities he had in mind were those within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, and these are the local authorities which normally provide the services mentioned. The hon. Gentleman will not deny, however, that some of those authorities having powers under the 1937 Act have declined to exercise their powers and have delegated them to the district councils.
    Has not Argyll County Council passed the whole responsibility for piers to the district councils? I well remember it doing this many years ago when there were many piers in Argyllshire which the county council was invited to take over and manage. The job of taking them all over was so great that the county council felt it could not undertake the task and as it did not want to incur the odium of selecting which piers it would take it gave the whole responsibility for piers to the district councils.
    There are some people concerned with the well-being of district councils in Scotland who think that the Argyll County Council did this out of a desire to help the district councils in their work. In fact, it did this out of a desire to relieve itself of a responsibility, and the district councils were given the responsibility of managing those piers. Are not those the very piers that will be required for use by vessels that would qualify for assistance under the Bill?
    It may be that at any time any of the other Highland county councils will delegate their powers under the 1937 Act to the district councils. If the demand for the provision of a local service arises, as is possible, it is equally possible that the county council, rather than spread the burden over the whole county, will allow the district council for the area to provide the service. In other words, it will delegate its responsibility under the 1937 Act to the district council.
    If the district council can come in in that way, as it has already done, it
    1340
    seems to those of us who have looked at the work undertaken by the district councils that if the Joint Under-Secretary gives effect to what he said during the discussion of the principle of the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee about assisting local authorities as well as persons who are willing to provide such essential services in the Highlands, it will be necessary for him to accept our Amendment.
    I have said enough to show that there is justification for bringing the district councils in as suggested. I realise that the district councils were not written into the 1937 Act, but then the district councils were written into very few Acts at that time. We have become increasingly aware of the need to fertilise local government in Scotland, to give it more power than was given in the 1930s, bearing in mind that district councils were born only in 1939 and had a very uneasy birth after the demise of the county councils. We are doing our best, we hope, to help our local government bodies in Scotland to do the work. We are anxious to encourage more people to take an interest in local government and there is, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, much to be said for giving some encouragement to the smallest of the local authorities, namely, the district councils.
    It seems to be the position that some of the piers that may be used, or ought to be used, for an improved service at the present time, are, in fact, owned by the district councils. It also seems that others of these services which the county councils have power to provide under the 1937 Act—and in some cases are not providing at present—should be provided if we are to improve services in the Highlands and Islands. It seems to me likely that they would give these duties to the district councils.
    I hope that the joint Under-Secretary of State will accept this Amendment and give the Secretary of State power to give to the district councils the job we believe they should do.
    Mr. J. Grimond: If the district councils are to be encouraged to do the kind of thing which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) envisages—with which I agree—then at some point the Government will have to look at their financial powers.

    1341
    I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Government Amendment which proposes to remove the words "wholly or mainly" from the Title of the Bill and ensures that the Bill covers holding companies and local authorities.
    If I read that Amendment aright it does relax the bonds on the Secretary of State. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is here—that that wild man has been let out of the Scottish Office. I see that he is escorted by the Lord Advocate on the one side and by the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the other.
    As far as I understand it, the controversial words "wholly or mainly" will not apply to subsection (1, c)—that is to say, it will not apply to people who propose to provide such services in the future. The Secretary of State, under this Clause at any rate, would be enabled, if he were so minded and could escape from the Lord Advocate and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for an afternoon, to give assistance to a company which is not at present providing services but which proposed to provide them, even if that company was not "wholly or mainly" engaged in the area. That is how I read it.
    I do not quite know what the effect of Clause 2 (2) is, but presumably "wholly or mainly" add something to the Amendment we have passed to Clause 1 (1, a). If they do add something to that, there is presumably some reason for leaving them out of subsection (1, c).
    I welcome this Amendment which gives effect to many of the points made in Committee. I hope it means that there will be no question of holding companies and councils not being included in the Bill.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I welcomed the undertaking given by the Minister in Committee. In addressing myself to these Amendments, I think that the point about district councils should be discussed a little further. I am not quite certain how many district councils would in practice be able to exercise these powers. I cannot see much argument against making it permissive for them to do so. A district council area like Bellshill, in Lanarkshire, has a population of perhaps 20,000. I am told the whole area has 60,000.
    1342
    A district council in the Outer Hebrides might have a population of 2,000. Perhaps the biggest of them, Lewis, say, would have a population of 24,000 or thereabouts, but one could get down to islands like Uist and Eriskay with a few hundred. There is no comparison between one district council and another, between, say, Bellshill and a small island in the Outer Hebrides. Even if the populations are similar, a district council with a population of 20,000 in the heart of industrial Lanarkshire and a district council with a population of 20,000 in one of the Scottish Highlands, on the North-East or North-West, are completely different when it comes to rateable values and what they are able to contribute from their rates.
    In a heavily industrialised area, there is any amount of highly rateable subjects and very considerable rating revenue, while in the other case, although the population might be the same, it would be scattered over a much wider area and there would be a very small revenue from a heavily derated area. To make comparisons on any fiat basis of population or area is very difficult.
    On the other hand, there seems to be no argument against allowing district councils to operate these services provided that county councils are prepared to delegate the necessary power. I think that that must involve from the start delegating financial powers to district councils, and I know that that is a step which Highland local authorities at least are extremely unwilling to take. They are very jealous of their financial control, perhaps quite rightly so.
    Another difficulty is to find district councils with the staff, or able to get the staff, to operate the services, particularly the ferries.
    However, allowing for all that—and I think that I have fairly reasonably stated the difficulties, which we recognise, in case the Secretary of State intended to throw them out in one heap—I cannot see any argument against permitting district councils to operate the services if they are able and willing to do so. In practice, it will largely remain with the county councils to decide whether they are to delegate financial responsibility and power to the district councils from the county council centres.

    1343
    Argyll is more generous than most other counties in that respect, but Ross and Cromarty has refused time after time to trust district councils. I do not think that that county council trusts district councils on the mainland let alone on the islands. I do not see Inverness County Council or Ross and Cromarty delegating financial responsibility to district councils. I wish they would do so more. That would give district councils a sense of participating in local democracy and in the life and administration of the areas for which they are responsible. That is highly important, and we all want to see that. Merely to offer the new opportunities when in practice everything would have to come from the county council would not take them very far, and the Secretary of State will have to be very forthcoming about the financial aspect of any change such as is proposed.
    On the other hand, I do not see why he should not be so forthcoming. If a district council is permitted to provide these services, there is no reason why, as from the passing of the Bill, it should not be able to go direct to the Secretary of State, instead of having to worry about the county council, to ask whether it can qualify to receive a grant or loan.
    Is there any reason why we should not encourage local authorities, county councils, or the authorities defined under the 1937 Act, private firms and various other people to come along? Is there any reason why we should not also allow the district councils to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for a grant or a loan?
    If the Amendment were accepted they would not have to go through the county council. They would be enabled to go direct to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the same way as any other person defined in the Bill. I do not see any argument against giving them this power.
    I support the Amendment and I hope that it will be accepted.
    Mr. Forbes Hendry: I am impressed by the arguments put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the inclusion of district councils because I regard these bodies as potentially important, especially in the North of Scotland. The importance of these bodies is not appreciated in the South,
    1344
    where a county council can act as an executive local authority. In the vast areas of the North, one finds decent men who have little or no interest in what happens at the other end of the country and who are not prepared to go down and take part in the county council's discussions.
    These bodies are frustrated because the 1929 Act—not the 1939 Act as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said—was intended to give these small bodies extensive executive powers in their own areas, but, for some reason which I do not understand, that was not done.
    I know that in my constituency district councils have little or nothing to do. They are frustrated. Men of substance, good will, and ability who go on to the district councils find themselves without a job because the county councils will not allow them to do anything. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider very carefully whether the whole set-up of local government in Scotland should not be looked at to give some reasonable responsibility to district councils.
    In this case, I do not think it is appropriate to write in district councils because, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, very considerable thought would need to be given to the financial powers of these bodies. To write them into the Bill would be nugatory, but the potential importance of these bodies is such that the Secretary of State for Scotland should give careful thought to giving them reasonable powers in the future.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider the Amendment favourably. On this occasion it would be wrong to advance the argument that district councils throughout Scotland as a whole should get more powers, although I am in favour of that. The Secretary of State for Scotland would have a strong argument against accepting the Amendment if we advanced an argument along those lines tonight, because in the southern counties where there are large aggregations of populations among a geographically smaller county council area one would find that the county council as such would be the appropriate authority to do work of this kind.

    1345
    That argument does not hold good in far flung areas of the crofter counties. I am thinking of Argyllshire. I hope that anyone who has any responsibility for Argyllshire will realise the importance of the Amendment in trying to achieve the objectives outlined in the Bill. It would be very difficult to carry out, as they ought to be carried out, the principles outlined in the Bill for ferry services and piers if the conduct of these businesses was carried out from the county council's main offices. But if it were operated in the district council areas, where the local people know of suitable persons to operate the ferry and do the necessary work in connection with the pier, it would be a success.
    I hope that we are not going to rely upon the power of delegation possessed by county councils. They have been very loth to use that power. I have been amazed at the attitude of some county councilors, who are also members of district councils by virtue of their being county councilors, who have attended meetings of district councils and have listened to their problems without realising that those problems could easily be solved through some delegation of county council powers. If district councils were allowed to regard themselves as local authorities in their own right, there would be no financial difficulty because they would receive a grant from the Secretary of State, and if they did not have sufficient rating to augment it the amount of grant could be reconsidered in that light.
    I understand that we are also dealing with the Amendment to leave out the words "wholly or mainly" from the Title. If they were being left out of Clause 1 (1) it would suit me much better. We should then be reaching the situation we argued for in Committee.
    I hope that we shall have some consideration for the geographical areas providing these services. We should try to do something to make district councils feel that they are more than mere bodies to provide playing fields in the Highlands, and perhaps not even that in some of the very scattered communities. Very often there is no question even of street lighting, which is the other main responsibility they have, so that they are left with virtually nothing. I hope that we can use the Bill to put some life and
    1346
    vigour into district councils which, in many areas, are dying for want of a real interest.
    Sir David Robertson: There is considerable merit in the Amendment. It has been supported by almost every hon. Member who has spoken so far, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). I could well have made the same speech as he made. I realise that we have many very fine district councils. I had the honour of meeting the headquarters delegation to a conference held in Wick last summer, where I got the impression that they were all very frustrated. They are willing and anxious to do a local authority job.
    They are the very beginning of democracy—the first stage in local government—yet we seem to keep them impoverished. They are subject to the orders of the county council. That may be desirable, but I should like to see them given greater freedom. No persons could be better equipped to do the necessary job in a county like Sutherland, which is similar to Argyll. Since, in that county, the county council devolve responsibility for piers on to the district councils, I do not see why the same should not be done in Sutherland and Caithness.
    I do not think that we should be hindered from doing something which is right because of some Amendments which may have to be made to the Local Government Act, 1929. All kinds of changes have taken place in the world since then. It seems to me a simple matter. Take the piers—
    It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.
    Proceedings on the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr Maclay.]
    Committee to sit again forthwith.
    Bill accordingly again considered in Committee.
    Sir D. Robertson: I was referring to the willingness and ability of local councillors to do the job, as envisaged

    1347
    by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and other hon. Members, and which, I think, they are well qualified to do. Apparently, under the 1925 Act the responsibility and the financial provisions are designed to go to the county councils and not to the local authorities. I was saying that if this is a right thing to do, I see no reason why the local authority regulations should not be altered if that be the will of the Committee.
    I do not suppose that that can be done under the provisions of this Bill, although the thought occurs to me that as they would be entirely grants, for example, for piers—piers were specifically mentioned—for which none of these county councils could find the money for repairs, that might be dealt with under this Bill or under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act. If it were a question of grants there would be no difficulty at all, because the total cost of restoring these piers to meet the needs of the Bill would be made. For that reason, I strongly urge my hon. Friend, who has piloted the Bill so well through its various stages, to tell us that he is favourable to the main changes being made, even if he cannot bring that matter within the ambit of this Bill.
    Mr. James Dempsey: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) who, I believe has been actuated by considerations of geography. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to travel in some parts of the West of Scotland, in the North and in the Islands on local authority business, know of the special problem which exists in that part of the country which does not obtain in the industrial belt. I recall that in one part in which I found myself it was necessary to travel by chartered aeroplane if one wished to attend a meeting of the county council. Therefore, I think, we should pay special regard to the geographical considerations.
    We should do our utmost to avoid being drawn into controversy regarding delegated functions, because that could be a contentious subject in many parts of the country. It might even result in the explosion of a political bombshell in some corners of Scotland. It seems to
    1348
    me that if a large county authority is willing to delegate functions of this kind voluntarily, we should make provision in the Bill for such an arrangement. We must be careful and remember that we are talking about district councils in remote parts of the country. We should avoid dealing with any situation which would result in a lack of uniformity, duplication of services and economic wastage, which could happen in the industrial parts were we to say that functions could be delegated from county councils from district councils. It is for that reason that I contend that there are special circumstances in this case which make the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton a practical proposition worthy of consideration.
    Great stress has been laid on the question of finance. It should not be difficult to apply the financial provisions if the Secretary of State is willing to accept the Amendment. The county council could easily delegate that administration to the district council. It could delegate other particular services to the district for which it is financially responsible and for which it receives in return some contribution, either by way of Exchequer block grant, or by a directly approved grant. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider introducing a direct grant for services of this nature, which are essential to the country if modern transport facilities are to be maintained in an efficient fashion.
    From the point of view of geography and co-operation with the county council, and the financial influences which are bound to arise, I cannot see any valid reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Leburn: Perhaps I ought to have intervened a little earlier, but as one who has had a great interest in district councils and served on them for a great many years, I thought it would be interesting to hear all that had to be said on this subject.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: We have not said it all.
    Mr. Leburn: All that has been said meantime on this subject. Before I turn to the Amendment, I will reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland

    1349
    (Mr. Grimond), who referred to paragraph (c) in regard to those who propose to provide services. That applies only to the question of the Secretary of State giving assistance. Once they start to provide the services, they will come under subsection (1, a) or (1, b), as the case may be. I think the hon. Member will understand from what I have said that it does not necessarily mean that the words "wholly or mainly" are cut out.
    Turning to the question which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) put when moving his Amendment, we all understand that the Amendment is directed to adding district councils to the local authorities to whom the Secretary of State may give assistance under the Bill. At present, local authorities whom the Secretary of State may assist are town councils and county councils. This is the effect of the definition by reference to the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, which defines local authorities in that way. The definition includes a combination, if necessary, of county councils and town councils. That Act confers on those authorities power, among other things, to acquire and operate ferries, and suitable ferries operated by a local authority could well be sea transport services under the Bill.
    It has been the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should be able to assist local authorities to provide such services, but here we come to the rub: district councils do not have power to provide sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands or, indeed, sea transport services of any kind. The Amendment therefore would be of no effect. If a local authority has no power, there is no point in providing that the Minister should be able to assist it.
    The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) is quite right that, strictly speaking, a district council is "a person" in respect of this Act. The other point which he made and which was raised by two other hon. Members concerns the question of delegating powers from local authorities to county councils. That could be done, because the county council would be the provider of the service. This is also true of the point which I made to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about what he called the establishment of a
    1350
    holding company. It could be the provider of the service, delegating to the district council as agents. Piers are not sea transport services but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said, district councils can be assisted in the provision of piers under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act.
    In view of the fact that district councils do not have powers to provide sea transport services, I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton not to press the Amendment. The question of giving district councils powers to provide these services goes beyond the scope of the Bill, which is to enable the Secretary of State to give assistance, not to bring in other bodies and to give them additional powers. I therefore very much hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary of State has tried to be helpful throughout the consideration of the Bill, but he has done himself less than justice in that speech. He impressed on the Committee the proposition that district councils have no power to provide sea transport services. Hon. Members agree that that is so. Would not he equally agree if I say that the county councils and town councils have not the power to provide sea transport services? Hon. Members will echo that, too.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State says that the provision of a ferry might be construed as a sea transport service, but I invite him to look back to what he said on Second Reading about the words in brackets in Clause 1 (2). I will read the subsection:
    "In the foregoing subsection 'sea transport services' means public transport services (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof)…"
    That is, any services on the land which are ancillary to a sea transport service. It includes a bus service and it includes a road haulage service, as long as it is ancillary to the sea transport service. It includes all the harbour and pier facilities, which are all ancillary.
    It is only because of this wide definition of sea transport services that the Joint Under-Secretary of State can bring in the local authorities at all.

    1351
    What I said was that some of these services which are ancillary to sea transport services are at present provided by district councils in the Highlands and Islands. The powers have been delegated; they could not have performed the function otherwise. All that my Amendment mentions is district councils which provide services. Under the Amendment they would not get assistance if they were not providing the service.
    10.15 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary did not deny that there are district councils providing these services at present. He said that they can obtain grants under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act. That is not good enough. If we are willing to give the county council or the town council, as the case may be, financial assistance under the terms of the Bill when enacted for the provision of those land facilities ancillary to a sea transport service, exactly the same facilities should be provided for the district council. Why should the Government tell the district council that it must go to some other quarter for assistance to improve the facilities it provides? Is there any reason why the district council should not come to the same door as the county council or the town council for assistance for providing exactly the same service?
    The Argyll County Council has delegated responsibility for piers to the district councils because it could not face up to the responsibilities in a county having so many piers. Does the Joint Under-Secretary say that when a district council asks for assistance to improve a pier so as to improve sea transport services recognised by the Bill, the district council will have to go to the county council which will then assume responsibility and make application to the Secretary of State? I do not think that the county council will. It has already washed its hands of the whole affair.
    District councils have inadequate powers, but no one should assume that they have no rating powers at all. They have rating powers. District councils are allowed to rate up to 1s. in the £ of the rateable value. Under all the Statutes since 1929 by which they have been given statutory powers they are able to rate above that level. There are many district councils in Scotland providing
    1352
    services costing up to about 3s. in the £. If this is a service which is much more likely to be provided by the authority on the spot than by an outside authority, I do not see why Parliament should not assist the authority on the spot.
    I do not want to talk about the local authority serving the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). What are the county towns of the two counties—Inverness and Dingwall, on the east coast of Scotland serving those islands out in the Atlantic. If a local authority is to provide a service under the Bill in those islands in the Atlantic, which authority is it to be—the council in the area or the county council with its headquarters at Dingwall or Inverness? It will clearly not be the authority situated on the eastern seaboard on the mainland of Scotland. It will be the district council.
    In any case, the Joint Under-Secretary has not replied to this proposition. The district councils in Argyllshire provide the service at present. If the hon. Gentleman is not willing to accept the district councils as proposed in the Amendment, he is saying that of all the local authorities providing these services in the Highlands and Islands the only ones that will be excluded from any benefit are the district councils in Argyllshire.
    I see that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), has departed from the scene, I believe temporarily. He has been here for most of the evening, but as soon as the Joint Under-Secretary made his speech the Parliamentary Private Secretary departed. I do not know if it is another resignation. The district councils in his constituency are providing these services. Why? Will not the Under-Secretary accept the Amendment and enable the Secretary of State to accept an application for assistance from these district councils?
    Mr. Leburn: On the various points put to me by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) perhaps I might try to clear up first the one about powers of rating. At no time did I suggest that district councils did not have powers of rating.

    1353
    I will turn now to the hon. Gentleman's question about the provision of certain facilities. The facilities which I think that he had particularly in mind were piers. If we are to widen the Bill to give assistance to everyone who in any way provides any kind of facility, it will become very wide indeed.
    Quite frankly, I think that where the hon. Gentleman has gone slightly wrong in this is that he has linked his proposals to the words in subsection (2) of Clause 1:
    "… (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof) …"
    It may partly have been my fault, in that many times in Committee I referred to these ancillaries as things like piers and harbours, but if the hon. Gentleman will read on in subsection (2) he will see that it says:
    "… provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea."
    Coming back from that, I suggest that the trouble is that the district councils do not have the powers to provide sea transport services and, therefore, as I said before, the Amendment would have no effect. It is not that I am unsympathetic towards the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is just that the district councils do not have powers to provide sea transport services. If we link that to Clause 1 (2), the ancillaries to which the hon. Gentleman referred are qualified by the words:
    "… provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea."
    The hon. Gentleman may say, of course, that the time might come when the district councils should be allowed to provide such services as sea transport services, but I think that that is a matter for general policy at some later date. Should the district councils, at a later date, be given that power, the necessary enabling legislation would no doubt take into account the question of assistance being given by the Secretary of State. At present, however, they do not have that power.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Then give it to them.
    Mr. Leburn: I have tried to make it clear that it would be going quite beyond the scope of the Bill to use it as a means of giving district councils power to
    1354
    operate sea services or shipping services. This is an enabling Bill, to enable the Secretary of State to give assistance. It is not a Bill to widen the power of district councils. I am sorry, but I must resist the Amendment.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I regret very much that I have not the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading debate with me, because the hon. Gentleman is now contradicting what he then said. He did not admit then that the words:
    "… (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof) …"
    were qualified or restricted by the words that follow:
    "… provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea."
    I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is now construing those words wrongly.
    I wonder whether the Lord Advocate would look at this? I read subsection (2) as follows:
    "In the foregoing subsection 'sea transport services' means public transport services"—
    and then, to make clear that the Government do not mean only transport services,
    "… (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof)."
    On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary made clear that these words were put in to cover all those land services ancillary to sea transport—
    Mr. Leburn: I agree with that, but going on to say:
    "… provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea."
    Mr. Fraser: May I read these words from the text? If we leave out the words in brackets which, we were led to believe, were put in to include those services that are not sea transport services but are ancillary services on land, the subsection would read:
    "… 'sea transport services' means public transport services"—
    with this qualification—
    "provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea."
    That is what is meant by sea transport services. That does not refer to the ancillaries. There is not one hon. Member

    1355
    who sat through the Second Reading debate or the Committee stage of the Bill who will not agree that we were clearly given the impression by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that these words in brackets meant the provision of services other than sea transport services, but services on land that were ancillary to the sea transport services.
    What the Joint Under-Secretary is saying now is that he has brought in the local authorities—meaning the local authorities which provide a ferry service—to qualify for assistance under the Bill. That is not what we expected to emerge from the consideration of the Bill both in the Committee stage and now. What we had a right to expect was that the Under-Secretary would make clear that the local authorities would be entitled to provide services that would qualify for assistance under the Bill free from the restriction that they must be wholly or mainly engaged in running a sea transport service.
    If the Under-Secretary sticks to his guns we are having much less than we had before. We are now being told that the local authorities that are being brought in by this Amendment are those which will provide a ferry service and nothing else, and all that we said about those services ashore that were ancillary to a sea transport service ought never
    1356
    to have been said at all, because apparently they are no longer applicable. If I am wrong in that there is no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
    I think the Under-Secretary has been badly advised and that when he looks at what he said during the Second Reading debate and at what he encouraged hon. Members to say both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, he will see that he is regarding the wording of subsection (2) as being much more restricted than we were led to believe. I shall regret very much if he does not make a concession.
    The hon. Gentleman seems to be refusing to tell us—I wonder whether he will yet say—whether a pier in the Orkneys and Shetlands is ancillary to a sea transport service. If it is, and if it is provided by a county council or by the Town Council of Lerwick, will the local authority be entitled to ask for some assistance for the land services in connection with the Northern Isles Shipping Service? Will the local authority be told that it does not come under the Bill, or will it be entitled to consideration? I do not ask whether it will get the grant, but if the Town Council of Lerwick is entitled to consideration, why should not a town council in Argyllshire which is responsible for a pier be equally entitled to consideration?
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: The Joint Under-Secretary is surely going to answer the reasonable question that my hon. Friend has asked. He asked whether a town council that was responsible for a pier would be able to qualify for a grant under the Bill. We have had a long argument about this. It seems to rest on the interpretation of subsection (2), and I should have thought that we might have had the benefit of the wisdom and advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Surely he can advise us about what this really means. The argument really centres around whether the ancillary services have to be part of the sea services or can be separate, as I understand it. That is really the point, and a very simple one it should be for him.
    I cannot understand why, when he is confronted with the perfectly reasonable proposition that the district councils should be given these powers, the Joint Under-Secretary says that this is not a Bill to give powers to local authorities or to district councils. It may not be a Bill to give powers to local authorities. Indeed, we are not asking for that. But what we do say is that we have discovered, during the course of our consideration of the Bill, that it would be an advantage if the Secretary of State availed himself of power to give these grants to district councils.
    What difference would it make? We pass many Bills giving powers to local authorities of one kind and another. I am not certain that all such Bills set out to give powers to local authorities, but they certainly succeed in doing so, and it happens all the time. There is nothing very wrong with what we propose. The nation will not collapse as a result of a breach of a rather obscure constitutional practice. I have always thought that it was the proud boast of the British people that our Constitution was democratic and flexible, that it was able to meet any situation, and that it enabled us to tackle problems as they arose with despatch, expediency and efficiency.
    Mr. William Ross: That is the Tory garden fête speech.
    Mr. Willis: Yes, we hear a lot to that effect. In lecturing on this subject, as I have done in a great many spheres of life, I have always used this argument and said that we ought to be proud of our Constitution—we were not like the stupid Americans; we did not tie ourselves left, right and centre so that we found ourselves unable to act.
    Here all we want to do is to say that if a district council has the initiative, if it has the men with the enterprise to go ahead and provide something which is recognised as necessary, it should be helped. Yet we are told that we cannot help. We recognise that we ought to help such a council and, if we did, we should be forwarding our purpose in the Highlands. But, apparently, some mysterious business of procedure stops us. Really, this is not good enough.
    In all seriousness, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) were very cogent arguments. I confess that I was not at first very enthusiastic about the Amendment, but, after listening to the arguments, I have become very enthusiastic about it. I have been persuaded by the cogency of my hon. Friend's arguments on the matter.
    The Minister should be sufficiently flexibly minded to say, "I have made the case. I recognise that the hon. Member for Hamilton has made a number of good points. I will look at this matter. It must go to another place. There is plenty of opportunity to put in this Amendment, or to give it proper consideration." Hon. Members who have spoken on his own side have been in favour of it. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept it "off the cuff," why cannot he say that he will consider it and introduce it in another place? The aim is a good one and should be encouraged.
    Mr. Leburn: In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I shall try to make the point a little more clearly. It must be my fault that I have failed to get it across. I can best do it by following the point raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) concerning Lerwick. If that town council is providing the shipping services and qualifies for grant and the Secretary of State deals sympathetically with its application, it can be assisted in regard

    1359
    to the ancillaries—that is, piers. It cannot, however, be assisted unless it is providing the shipping service. That applies not only to local authorities, but to companies and to persons who are providing or who propose to provide the services.
    I have been trying to find the Second Reading quotation to which the hon. Member for Hamilton referred. Unfortunately, I cannot find it offhand, but I have found a passage by my right hon. Friend on Second Reading which might be helpful. My right hon. Friend said:
    "This is essentially a Bill to assist Highland shipping services and it is not, save within certain narrow limits, intended to provide for assistance to other forms of public transport. Thus, a person or firm, to qualify for assistance, must first provide what is substantially a sea service".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 10th December, 1959; c. 9.]
    As I see it, if the person or firm is providing the sea transport service, on to that we can link the ancillaries, but under the Bill we cannot link the ancillaries if the person or the local authority does not provide the shipping service.
    Mr. Manuel: If the district council provided the ferry from one side of the sea loch to the other, would it qualify within the argument that the hon. Gentleman is now advancing? It would be providing the sea transport and the ancillaries, the pier at either side. Would it, therefore, qualify for grant?
    Mr. Leburn: That is purely hypothetical, because the district council does not have power to run that ferry service. Such a case would not arise.
    Mr. Manuel: But if it did?
    Mr. Leburn: In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, if I felt that I had misled the Committee I would be prepared to look at the matter again, but I do not think that I have misled the Committee. I hope, however, that it is clearly understood from what I have now said that if the person, local authority or company provides the sea transport, it can qualify for assistance in getting help with ancillaries, including piers. Short of having misled the Committee, however—I was worried when the hon. Member for Hamilton suggested that I had done so—I do not feel inclined to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I do not quite follow the full logic of the Under-Secretary of State's argument. In reply to one of my questions a little earlier the hon. Gentleman said that a local authority, a district council, would qualify. He said that a district council which applied for assistance "as a person" might qualify for grant or loan. Is that correct, that it would qualify not as a district council but as a person?
    Mr. Leburn: As I see it, a district council could apply as any other person could apply. Even if the Secretary of State dealt with the district council as a person, it has no powers, as I tried to emphasise to the Committee, to run that service.
    Mr. MacMillan: May I ask the Minister to elaborate that point a little? If the district council came along as a person and asked for a loan and the Minister said, "You have no power as a district council to run a ferry service and, therefore, cannot be granted a loan," could that district council then come back and say, "Look, we have been in touch with our county council which has asked us to be its agent in running a service on its behalf."? In that case, would the district council qualify and could it get a grant or a loan?
    Mr. Leburn: No, the district council would not qualify, but the county council would qualify and would be quite entitled to delegate its agency to the district council.
    Mr. MacMillan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for answering on the spot, but it is important to get this matter clear. As I understand it, in that case the district council, acting as the agent, would be able to run the service on behalf of the county council. In fact, it would be the operator of the service. Therefore, I am hopeful that as agent of a local authority under the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, its schemes qualify for aid under the usual practice, with a grant of up to 75 per cent. for the purpose of establishing a ferry service.
    What, then, is the difficulty? In practice, we are to have the picture of a district council as the agent of the county council, acting as the operator of the county council's sea transport service. Yet the hon. Gentleman has resisted the

    1361
    argument that the district council should be given the power to apply direct on its own behalf. In fact, it would involve only the same amount of money, even if it were accepted directly as the actual operator of the ferry. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the county council would ask the district council to be its agent in the running of a ferry or ancillary service unless the county council thought that the district council was the most appropriate "person" to run it?
    That is all that we are arguing about. In certain cases the district council is by far the most knowledgeable agency and by far the most intimately acquainted with local conditions. In some island areas, especially, the best body for the purpose of running a service of this kind might well be the district council.
    If the district council is so acceptable to the county council that it is prepared to appoint it as its agent, why not give power direct to the district council to get on with the job? There is very little in the matter at all. I see no reason at all why the Minister should not accept the Amendment. I hope that he will accept it with the serious intention of having something done not only about the ferry service, but also about the ancillary services, the harbours, the piers and all the rest of it by those most directly concerned, the district councils.
    The Joint Under-Secretary seems to think that it is sometimes better to ask a peer to help a pier, and I have no doubt that if the Bill is sent to another place someone would be found capable of moving a suitable Amendment covering our intention. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee think that what we are asking for is reasonable and that if the Minister were to say "Yes" every hon. Member opposite would from force of habit alone echo him and say "Thank you" with us. We have already said it, so he would have the whole Committee with him.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Leburn: Let us get this clear. I have explained at least twice before why we cannot bring in district councils. The reason is that this is a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to assist. It is not a Bill to give powers to district councils. I would be going wide of the scope of the Bill if I were to start accepting Amendments giving new powers and new
    1362
    scopes to district councils. On that ground, I must resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Grimond: I want to clear up one point, having just found the place. I want to refer to some of the remarks which the Under-Secretary has been drawn into making in the course of this controversy. I do not want him to answer this tonight, but if he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings in Standing Committee he will see that he gave me an answer about the situation in the North Islands of Shetland. He said:
    "I confirm his point"—
    that is, my point—
    "that if the ferries and the buses are integrated, though they do not necessarily need to be integrated with the shipping service, they qualify."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 11th February, 1960; c. 82]
    I do not think that he has gone back on that tonight, but it is very important that he should not do so.
    There have been moments tonight when the hon. Gentleman has been inclined to say that those subsidiary services must be subsidiary to what one might call a full shipping service. However, in the North Islands of Shetland the ferries are subsidiary to the bus services so that it may well be argued from what the hon. Gentleman said in Standing Committee that they would not qualify. I hope that there is no question about that. Perhaps in the cool of the morning the hon. Gentleman might like to look at that again and make sure that the case is as he explained it in Standing Committee.
    Mr. T. Fraser: If, earlier in our proceedings on the Bill, the hon. Gentleman had made clear that the ancillary services were only those services which were run by the shipping companies and not the ancillary services provided by the local authority, the Bill would not have had such an easy passage through Standing Committee. We do not accept a position in which the Secretary of State takes power to give a grant to a private enterprise shipping company to maintain a pier or harbour because the company owns it, but not to give a grant to a local authority owning a pier or harbour and serving exactly the same shipping service. I should have thought that there were

    1363
    hon. Members opposite who would not have accepted that position.
    However, the Under-Secretary has made it clear that that is the position, so that if the company which operates the service takes over a pier or other land service ancillary to the shipping service, the private enterprise shipping company can apply for assistance from the public purse, but if a local authority provides exactly the same service to run for exactly the same shipping service the local authority has no right to apply. Does any hon. Member on either side of the Committee think that that is right? But that is what is now described to us by the hon. Gentleman as the purpose of the Secretary of State.
    It is too late to table an Amendment now. We have always understood that whoever was responsible for running these ancillary services would be entitled to ask for assistance. They might not get it, but they would be entitled to ask for assistance. We believed that that was the proper interpretation to put on this provision. We thought that district councils would come in.
    If the Joint Under-Secretary is correct in his interpretation, there is no point in including district councils, because very little will go to the county councils, or town councils, under the provisions of the Amendment with the limitation that the hon. Gentleman has said must be applied to subsection (2).
    I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider, between now and the time when the Bill will be considered in another place, such Amendments as will enable him to assist the person, whoever he may be, who provides the ancillary services in exactly the same way as he may assist the provision of an ancillary service when it is part of an undertaking run by the person who runs the sea transport services.
    That is a reasonable request because we think that it is the ancillary services which should be supported and not just the company which, for the time being, happens to run the sea transport services and the actual shipping services. We think that district councils should be in along with the other authorities.
    For those reasons, I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I have listened very carefully to what has been said. I am sure that there must be some misunderstanding about this. Many hypothetical situations have been discussed, but the simple fact is that if the local authority, whoever it is, is providing the shipping services it becomes eligible for assistance under the Bill for any ancillaries. If it is not providing them, there are other powers under which assistance can be considered, for example, those under the Congested District (Scotland) Act 1897. I cannot see what the confusion is about.
    It was made clear in the quotation from my Second Reading speech what ancillaries meant in that context, and it has been developed in the discussions today. If the local authority is providing the shipping services, under the Bill it can come in for consideration in respect of the ancillaries of the kind described. If it is not, and there is need for some assistance, that can be considered under the Congested Districts Act.
    I cannot see what the problem is, because we have covered all the points. If we have misled anybody we will look at this again between now and the time when it is considered in another place, and consider how we can put it right.
    I have studied what went on in Committee, and I have tried to follow closely what has been said tonight. In answer to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), I agree with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary that it would not be reasonable to use the Bill to deal with the general powers of district councils. There is room for argument and discussion on that subject. I know that this is an important point, but even the most ingenious Secretary of State for Scotland could not try to slip into a Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Bill a complete change in the powers of district councils.
    Mr. Manuel: We have not asked for that.
    Mr. Maclay: If district councils have powers delegated to them to run these services, they will be able to do so. That was one of the things that was wanted. I do not see how, with the best will in the world, we can go further to meet hon. Gentlemen.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I cannot understand the Secretary of State. He says again that he cannot see the justification for accepting an Amendment to add to the powers of district councils. The Amendment does not add to those powers; it merely enables the Secretary of State to assist people providing services. Its words are:
    "Any district council which provides such services."
    So the district council has to be providing the services before it is eligible to ask for a grant. We are merely asking him to take powers to assist people who are providing services.
    What he says about congested districts legislation does not carry much weight, because there are severe limitations on the areas he can assist under that legislation. In any case, is the kind of assistance he would give a local authority providing one of those ancillary services the same as he would give to one providing a shipping service? We think it wrong that he should be asking Parliament for power to give subsidies to private enterprise to maintain piers while declining to give the same kind of subsidy to local authorities.
    The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying, "If the local authority is providing a shipping service …"but he knows that local authorities do not do so. We are talking not about shipping services but about local authorities providing the ancillary land services which are essential to the operation of a shipping service. We disapprove of being told this so late in the day.
    Mr. Maclay indicated dissent.
    Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State can shake his head, but we went all through the Committee stage and had a lot of discussion on the matter, when we were told that the ancillary services included helicopters and rotodynes, and all sorts of other aircraft. We shook our heads in disbelief at that, but we were very willing to believe that piers and those other land services which are as essential to the running of a shipping service as a railway station is to a rail service would be included. We regarded those as ancillary services which might be supported under the Bill. We thought that the Bill meant what it said when it referred to persons providing these services benefiting.
    1366
    We could understand the restriction applied to the words "wholly or mainly" in the Title, and in subsection (1), because local authorities providing ancillary services could not be wholly or mainly engaged in the provision of sea transport services. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would put that right by way of an Amendment on Report, and we thought that he had put it right. But his speech shows that he has not, and that this is just another Bill to provide a subsidy to private enterprise without making it available to public enterprise which is providing exactly the same service.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Maclay.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Title
    Amendment made: In line 1, leave out "wholly or mainly".—[Mr. Maclay.]
    Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

    Clause 2.—(ADVANCES AND CHARTER OF SHIPS.)
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to "regular" in line 11 and to insert "provides".
    During the Committee stage I undertook to reconsider the drafting of this subsection, and, in particular, to consider whether there was any dubiety about the meaning of the words
    "in the same undertaking or otherwise."
    I now propose to simplify the subsection by deleting the group of words referred to in the Amendment. A number of hon. Members thought that the subsection as drafted was somewhat complicated. Its intention was, and remains, to exclude from the benefit of the Bill persons who operate regular transport services outwith the Highlands in addition to services serving the Highlands.
    The reason for this has frequently been explained. To repeat what I said during the Committee stage discussions:
    "… we do not intend to assist services which are essentially services to places outside the

    1367
    Highlands. This subsection ensures that the management and the accounting arrangements of any company which we assist shall be entirely self-contained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th February, 1960; c. 125.]
    We do this in a clear-cut way. In effect, we say, "Form a separate company either for your Highland operations, or for your operations outside the Highlands." I do not think that this is asking too much. It is not a difficult or unreasonable requirement, and it has the advantage of being absolutely clear.
    I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Amendment meets the wishes expressed in Committee.
    Mr. T. Fraser: My hon. Friends and I do not like the way in which the Joint Under-Secretary has managed to amend subsection (2). I understand that Amendments which I had tabled will not be called, but I think I can say what I wish to say in the discussion on this Amendment, because all the words which appear in the Amendments I put down are also contained in the Government Amendment. I think that the words proposed to be taken out serve a useful purpose in the subsection as it is drafted. As amended, the subsection would read
    "The Secretary of State shall not under this section undertake to make, or make, any advance to, or enter into any contract with, any person of a description specified in the foregoing section who provides regular public transport services serving places outwith the Highlands and Islands otherwise than incidentally to the service of places within the Highlands and Islands."
    I think that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to make clear in the Bill that he did not mind supporting a person who provided a service to the Highlands and Islands provided that it was done in a separate undertaking. Why not provide for the subsection to read:
    "… any person of a description specified in the foregoing section who provides in the same undertaking regular public transport services serving places outwith the Highlands and Islands"?
    That is what the hon. Gentleman was at pains to tell us was the intention of the Secretary of State, and the purpose of the subsection. We think he has made the intention a little less clear by taking out so many words.
    Before we pass from the Amendment, I wonder whether the Joint Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate would consider
    1368
    whether it would not be more clear if the words "in the same undertaking" were left in so that assistance could be given to the person who had separate undertakings.
    Mr. Leburn: I have to confess that when I looked at the three Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and his hon. Friends I found it difficult to come to a decision, because I saw little difference between the Government Amendment and the Opposition Amendments. There seemed to be a marginal advantage in the Government Amendment in that it made for clarity and simplicity.
    I gladly say to the hon. Member that if he feels that the Bill will be improved by putting in these words I shall consider whether they might be included when the Bill goes to another place. I am being quite honest about this. I discussed the Amendments for a long time yesterday and today and there seemed to be an absolutely even balance. It was purely on the grounds of simplicity and clarity and the fact—I hope that I shall not be out of order in saying this—that the Amendments in the hon. Member's name, from the point of view of grammar, were a little difficult to understand and to link.
    But I do not want to go into that. It was really on grounds of simplicity and clarity that, on balance—and it was a delicate balance—I decided that we should keep to the Government Amendment. If the hon. Member would like me to reconsider this, I shall be happy to do so and, if there is any advantage in adopting his words, or words like them, I shall so arrange.
    Mr. Willis: As one who took part in the lengthy discussion in Committee, I should say that it centred around the words "or otherwise" and not "in the same undertaking" Because of that, we tabled our Amendments.
    Subsection (2), as amended by the Government Amendment, would not make it clear that anyone already running a service outside the Highlands, by setting up a subsidiary company, could set up an organisation which would qualify for assistance under the Bill. I had to read the provision several times before I saw that that was what it included. If we put in the words we suggest it would be made crystal clear

    1369
    that a separate undertaking can be set up to do what, in Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary said we should do. I hope that he will look at the matter again. So far as we can understand, our proposal would meet the position more clearly. I do not know about the grammatical error he suggested there was in our Amendment. I thought at first there was one, but, on reading it again, I do not think that there is.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I am grateful for what the Joint Under-Secretary said. We should all be grateful to him for his undertaking that he will have a look at this between now and the Bill being considered in another place.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end to insert:
    "(4) Where the Secretary of State proposes under this section to enter into a contract for the charter of ships to any person, he shall do so only in accordance with an undertaking a draft of which (including the terms and conditions upon which the undertaking is proposed to be made) has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the Commons House thereof."
    This Amendment raises the question about which we had discussions in Committee. It then became fairly clear that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to provide a hidden subsidy to a person running such a service by chartering the boat to the operator at a figure much below an economic charge. During our discussions, the hon. Gentleman said that the kind of figure the Government had in mind for chartering was about 10 per cent. of the cost. That could run into £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000. It is obvious that the Secretary of State could, under the terms of the Bill, charter the vessel to an operator for a figure very much below that—it might be £10,000 below that, it might even be £20,000 below it—and no one would know anything about it.
    Subsection (3) says:
    "Where the Secretary of State proposes under this section to make to any person in any financial year any advances which, by itself or taken with any other advance made or to be made under this section to that person in hat financial year, exceeds in the aggregate thy- sum of ten thousand pounds …"
    it has to come before Parliament.
    It is possible that the person operating the service could be provided with a
    1370
    hidden subsidy much larger than £10,000 and for it not to come before the House of Commons at all. That should not be so. If there is to be a hidden subsidy to the operator, if there is to be this particular form of subsidy to the operator, the House of Commons should know something about it. It is because we felt that we should know something about it that we tabled the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look upon it with favour.
    Mr. Leburn: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will not press the Amendment. I understand clearly the point he made, but the trouble is that, taken as it stands, the Amendment would mean that if the Secretary of State proposed to charter even a motor boat to an operator of a small service he would have to lay the contract before Parliament and the House of Commons. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has that sort of case particularly in mind.
    There is a more serious difficulty, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend during the debate on the Money Resolution. He then referred to the problems of seafaring. Conditions can very well arise in which it is necessary to find and charter a ship at very short notice to carry out essential services. Moreover, a charter might conceivably be for a very short time, perhaps for a month or even for a single voyage. In those circumstances, it might not be possible or appropriate to seek parliamentary approval.
    I appreciate the proper desire of the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the House is able to exercise a proper control over public funds, and, in particular, his desire to see that my right hon. Friend's undertaking not to give a hidden subsidy by chartering at less than an economic fee is observed. I do not think that there is very much fear on this point. In practice, the chartering of any sizeable vessel is likely to be associated with an undertaking under Clause 2 (1, a), which would he of sufficient importance, namely, over £10,000, to come before the House. I agree, however, that it is not absolutely essential. But if that happened, the Amendment might mean a double debate first on the undertaking and then on the charter.

    1371
    11.15 p.m.
    In addition to any particular charter, large or small, I think that the hon. Member might remember that the matter can be raised in various ways. I think that it can be brought out to the House that there will be no hidden subsidy, and my right hon. Friend has, in fact, given an undertaking that that is not his intention. It could be brought out by Question and Answer on the Floor of the House. It could be raised on the Estimates, and it could be inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee. I think overall there are sufficient safeguards, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Could it, in fact, be raised on the Floor of the House in the form of Questions to the Secretary of State? Our experience is that it is not permissible to ask questions about the operations, say, of MacBraynes, for which the Secretary of State has a certain responsibility.
    Mr. Leburn: No doubt, that would be a matter for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, or for the Table, but I should have thought that it would be proper to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking how many ships, and at what cost, he had chartered over a specific period.
    Mr. Ross: Would not such an item be shown in the Estimates, under appropriations in aid? Are there not limitations on Members discussing what are contained therein?
    Mr. T. Fraser: I should have thought that Members of Parliament found it exceedingly difficult, under normal procedure, to get any information whatsoever about these charter arrangements. We would surely be met at once with the proposition that we must not inquire into the business of private companies, or individuals, which we would undoubtedly be doing. I very much doubt if we would be able to get an answer to such questions.
    I wonder whether the Under-Secretary envisages the circumstances arising that would give any substance to that part of his opposition to this Amendment, when he said that ships might be put out on charter for a month or even
    1372
    for a single voyage. Does the Secretary of State envisage acquiring a large number of vessels that he will hold in readiness for the purpose of letting out on charter to individuals who might want them for special purposes, or is he concerned with the regular essential services to the Highlands and Islands? I thought that he was concerned with the essential shipping services to the Highlands and Islands.
    I had understood that this Bill was required because the vessels running to the Orkneys and to Shetland were in need of replacement and that there was reason to believe that they would not be replaced by the present or any other private company, so that the Secretary of State needed the powers given to him in the Bill to enable him to let them out on charter to the company running that service.
    If that is so, the vessels will surely be let out on charter for a rather long period, and it would be quite exceptional for the Secretary of State to have a little motor boat that he would let out on charter. We do not imagine that he is going in for paddle-boats at whatever holiday resorts there may be in the Highlands in order to extend the tourist attractions of the area. We do not quite visualise notices stating "Two shillings an hour" for little boats made available by the Secretary of State. We do not think that is the kind of ship that he is going to acquire by charter. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us in what circumstances he envisages that he will be the owner of ships that he will be letting out to persons for a single voyage?
    Mr. Maclay: I hope that I can give a quick, simple and clear answer this time to that particular point. I have had a case where, if we had had these powers, we might have solved more quickly a very awkward problem. A small boat broke down, leaving an island in a difficult position. A quick way of acting under these powers would have been to charter another motor boat and recharter it out to the people operating the service, which might in this case have been a local authority.
    Things happen very fast at sea. Ships that look good for a long time sometimes break down, and one has to take quick action. There may not be

    1373
    another ship available, and it may be necessary to charter a ship and recharter it out.
    Mr. T. Fraser: It is an odd situation, that after all that is said about red tape and bureaucracy on the other side of the House we now have a position in which shipowner A, a private owner, has a ship that breaks down, and owner B has a ship that may be able to fill the gap, so the Secretary of State and the bureaucrats come into the picture and charter it in and out again to owner B to provide the service. I am touched by this high tribute now being paid to bureaucracy.
    Mr. Maclay: This may not be relevant, but it is a nice point. I would like to arrange for the hon. Gentleman to see how the Baltic Exchange works, for there that kind of transaction is going on every day, dealing with ships all over the world being transferred with astonishing speed from one service to another by the methods I have described.
    Amendment negatived.
    11.23 p.m.
    Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I know how extremely useful and valuable the Committee stage has been, and I hesitate, to enter into the discussion on this Bill at this stage because I know how very ably my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has handled what is undoubtedly, although not a complex Bill in itself, a Bill which can give rise to the most highly complex, often hypothetical, and certainly extremely difficult questions.
    In a way, that is a tribute to the Bill itself. We have had to devise a Bill which will give the Secretary of State powers to deal with situations which may be clear-cut and long-term, or short-term of the kind we have been discussing. It is not easy to draft a Bill which gives proper Parliamentary control and at the same time the powers needed effectively to deal with the kind of problem which we hope this Bill will deal with.
    I am certain that everyone supports the main purpose of the Bill, and at this late hour I do not think hon. Members would wish me to go through
    1374
    the details again. I will confine myself to saying that I hope that when the Bill becomes law we shall be able to do really valuable work of the kind which all of us who know these problems realise must be done.
    That does not mean that everyone who asks for a shipping service is going to get one. That would be beyond belief and reason. It means that we can tackle some of the immediate problems which I myself have been working on extremely closely and—although I was not able to take part in the Committee—almost living with during my time as Secretary of State. This Bill is a great step forward, and I thoroughly recommend the House to give it a Third Reading.
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: In spite of the considerable displeasure which I expressed a little earlier during the Recommittal stage, I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the skill with which he has handled the Bill throughout all its stages. He has been courteous and helpful throughout, and I think that he and the Secretary of State will agree that the Bill has been improved by the Amendments which have been made.
    The Secretary of State said that he thought we would all approve the purposes of the Bill. Inasmuch as the Bill is designed to maintain and, we hope, improve the transport services available to the people who live and work in the remoter parts of our country, we, of course, support its purpose. But from this side of the House we have reason to support it from another point of view. We have for a very long time taken the view—a view which we have often expressed in debates in the House and in what we have written and said in the country—that the social and economic well-being of those who live and work in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland can be maintained and improved only by an extension of public enterprise.
    It is no fault of the private entrepreneurs who have gone there and have failed, or who have declined to go there, that the great decay has continued for so long. We are convinced that it is only by an extension of public enterprise that this part of the country can be protected and the life of those who live there can be maintained and improved. When the

    1375
    Secretary of State introduced his Bill, we felt like saying "I told you so," for it is a Bill designed to provide further support from public funds to private enterprise in order to maintain sea transport services in the North of Scotland. It was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman that, without further public enterprise in the way of subsidy, those services could not be carried on.
    We were permitted a little chuckle, I think, when the Secretary of State, by his Bill, showed that he was not satisfied that even a subsidy to private enterprise would by itself be enough to maintain the services. He found that it was necessary for him to acquire vessels, to nationalise or take into State ownership the vessels which were to be used in those services. We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having seen the light so shortly after the General Election.
    Mr. Manuel: And after his election speeches.
    Mr. Fraser: After his own election speeches and after a General Election which was fought in Scotland by hon. Members opposite on this Tory election manifesto.
    Mr. Maclay: Jolly good.
    Mr. Fraser: "Jolly good" says the Secretary of State. There is the paragraph which reads:
    "We are utterly opposed to any extension of nationalisation by whatever means".
    Mr. Manuel: Oh, dear.
    Mr. Fraser: The first piece of legislation the right hon. Gentleman had drafted after he was returned to St. Andrew's House was a Bill in which he proposed an extension of nationalisation by giving himself power to acquire ships in order to make them available to the shipping companies operating transport services in the North of Scotland.
    We discovered tonight that Clause 1 is not to be construed as widely as we had believed earlier. All members of the Committee upstairs believed that under the Bill the ancillary services could be supported by the Secretary of State. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the Bill leaves this House, to consider, when the Bill reaches another place,
    1376
    whether he will not so seek to amend it as to take the shackles off the Secretary of State and allow him to assist the local authorities who provide the land services ancillary to a shipping service, in the same way as he can assist the shipping company which owns exactly the same land services which are ancillary to the shipping services which it provides.
    I hope that the Bill will not only cause the existing transport services in the North of Scotland to be maintained. I hope that it will enable the Secretary of State to secure that they are improved and that the provisions to enable the right hon. Gentleman to give a subsidy to the private companies will mean that the services will be available for the people of the Highlands and Islands at fares and freight charges that are reasonable having regard to the size of their incomes.
    11.31 p.m.
    Sir D. Robertson: I appreciate the views held by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) concerning public ownership and his genuine belief that public ownership must play a great part if we are to bring about the rehabilitation of the seven crofter counties, which are covered by the Bill. I take a different view to the hon. Member. For over ten years, I have been striving to have these things brought about by the old and tried methods of private enterprise, which are strongly supported on this side of the House.
    The Bill is a form of public enterprise. It is the only thing that can be brought in at this time with any hope of success, due entirely to the depopulation of the area served and to the decay that has set in following the loss of the people. I am hopeful that it will bring about the shipping service which can, and must, play a great part in the revival of the Highlands and Islands. Once the main—in fact, the only—form of transportation, it has still an important part to play.
    I must, however, warn the Government that unless industry is brought into our old towns—and it is just as easy to do that as it is to take it into the Northern Ireland towns, and much more so in most of the area—we shall not get the flow of produce outward steadily the year round that is essential to make any transport service pay. No one could challenge that.

    1377
    The products that we produce in the North are seasonal products, but if we get an opportunity to earn our own living from Lerwick, Kirkwall, Wick, Thurso, Invergordon, Dingwall and Inverness, we are well capable of doing it. There is no light manufacturing industry that would be impossible for us to perform, particularly now, as we have abundant hydro-electric power in most of the area. I know that the Secretary of State has no direct responsibility for the location of industry—that lies with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—but I urge him to confer with the Board of Trade. The magic that was performed in the six counties of Northern Ireland can be performed in the seven Highland counties of Scotland if the Government have the will to do it.
    11.34 p.m.
    Mr. Grimond: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for his courtesy during the Committee stage. I am critical of the Bill. I have expressed various criticisms, and I maintain them, in regard to certain parts of it, but I do not intend to go into them again tonight. I also have certain hopes that the Bill may enable us to get better and cheaper transport in my constituency and other parts of the Highlands.
    My last word about the Bill is that fairly soon it will, presumably, pass through another place and become law. Then, I press upon the Secretary of State a point of which he is all too well aware but which cannot be put to him too often, that he must get on and get it put into effect as soon as he possibly can.
    11.35 p.m.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: It is not with any reluctance to see the Bill become an Act and put into operation, since it will convey some benefits, that I speak last in this debate. I want to say, first, that I very much appreciate the courtesy and the competence of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who has conducted the proceedings on the Bill, and I am very grateful to him for the way in which he has met the various Amendments moved and the points and questions put to him. At the same time, I hope that in the operation of this Measure we shall see, perhaps, a little more speed than we have seen in the past in dealing with applications for development projects in the Highlands and
    1378
    Islands. I am sure that that is the wish of everyone.
    Many Measures go through this House with great expedition only, very often, to be afterwards forgotten or delayed in their operation. Some have so little effect that one feels they need not have been passed at all. The Acts are passed; then year after year we plead, argue and debate over every tiny little project in the Outer Isles or in the Orkneys. It is an endless task. I have myself exhausted six, seven or eight Secretaries of State in arguing for decades about unbelievably small projects in speeches in the House, by correspondence, by Questions and all the rest.
    I hope that from now on we shall see a speeding up of the Scottish Office tempo. I hope, too, that the Secretary of State is going to take some initiative himself, that he will go to the local authorities and say, "Look, why do you not instal a ferry service? Here is a good idea to develop your tourist trade. You will get assistance under the Act." That would be a refreshing change.
    Let the right hon. Gentleman go out and sell his ideas and show that the Scottish Office is really determined to put the Measure into early operation for all it is worth. If he would do that it would raise the prestige of the Scottish Office itself, of its excellent civil servants and of the Ministers and of this House. People would then believe that we meant business.
    I agree with what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said. Merely to put ships and ferries plying across the Minch and among the islands would be of little avail. We must see that there is sufficient economic development to justify this Measure. Otherwise, all that we shall be doing will be pumping public money in increasing amount into services from which the local people and the public will not derive the benefit which they ought to receive in an area in which there is great potential wealth that could be making a far greater contribution to the wealth of the nation as a whole.
    Until we have development, industrial as well as agricultural, at a much greater rate we shall find it hard to justify, except on social grounds, the spending of the money which we are asking, and rightly asking, the nation to spend on the Highlands and Islands. This Bill is a further illustration of what has been

    1379
    called the infinite capacity of private enterprise to expand provided an indefinite amount of public money is pumped into it.
    The Bill could have been called simply the "Orkney and Shetland Bill". Under it, private enterprise failure in Orkney will only be catching up the earlier failure of private transport enterprise in the Western Isles. Until we received a subvention in the form of public money to sustain sea transport in the Hebrides that area's shipping services were near collapse. Orkney is now to be treated in the same way. I hope, but I have great doubts about seeing it happen, that ferry services will be improved under the Bill and that grants and loans will be made available for this purpose.
    I have great doubts, too, about one other thing under the Bill. I may be right or wrong—and perhaps more should have been said about this—but I think that we are creating a very strange picture of one State-aided enterprise being subsidised to compete with another. That is a departure from the usual system and hon. Members should have very careful regard to accountability in respect of the expenditure of this public money. It is not even invested in the ordinary sense, for there will be no return from it as there is from public investment in some private projects. It is vitally important that we should have at least annual scrutiny and occasionally detailed scrutiny in the House of the operation of the Bill and this extraordinary departure from previous practice, now that we are to subsidise different instruments, different agencies, in competition with one another, with money from the same public purse.
    Neverthless, we hope that it will work out well, for all my grave doubts about it. We can only hope that it will work and give our blessing to that which is best in the Bill, But, as the representative here of one of the major consumers of these services, the Western Isles, I hope that we will see something better than we have experienced from the operation of the MacBrayne's services since 1928.
    Those hon. Members who look forward to magnificent, regular and reasonably cheap services in the Orkney and Shetland areas have a great deal of disappointment ahead if they are so naive
    1380
    as to believe in those dreams. If these services are run in the way that the MacBrayne's services have been run all these years, there is great disappointment ahead.
    That is why I ask the Secretary of State to take the initiative and not to wait until Tory-dominated local authorities in the Highlands and Islands at their own casual speed and tempo come to him from time to time and ask for a little grant for this sea transport or marine scheme, and a little loan for that, almost hoping that he will refuse in their fear that they will have to make their own rate contribution to the enterprise. If the right hon. Gentleman takes the initiative, he will give a boost to the prestige of his office, himself and Parliament.
    11.42 p.m.
    Mr. Leburn: I need reply to the debate only shortly. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the very kind remarks which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and one or two other hon. Members have made about me. I know that they showed me a great deal of indulgence on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, and I am very grateful to them. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given me and the Government assistance in making this a better Bill after its passage through Committee.
    One main criticism has run throughout all our discussions. It is that the Bill is possibly too restricted in its scope. I believe that the Bill covers all the people who are likely to provide services and likely to need assistance, from the main companies to the humble ferryman. Special provision has been made for the local authorities. If we need new blood, we can attract it and get what we want.
    Having said that, the most important thing about the Bill is that it is to maintain and improve shipping services in the Highlands and Islands, and it is most important that it should be realised that it will help the people of the Highlands and Islands and contribute to their welfare and their livelihood. With those remarks, I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  ROADS, WEMBLEY (TRAFFIC)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Russell: I ask the House now to pass from the somewhat complex problems of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to what, I hope, is the simpler problem of the highways and byways of Wembley. I want to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the problem of heavy traffic along some of Wembley's narrow residential roads.
  The first point deals with Sudbury Court Road, which is a narrow twisting road about two-fifths of a mile long, according to my speedometer, which runs from Watford Road to Sudbury Court Drive. It varies in width from 20 ft. to 24 ft. At one end, there is an appreciably steep hill with a bend in the road. It has a footpath along the whole of the north side, and a footpath of sorts along part of the south side, but there is a long gap in the middle without any footpath. The surface is bad. It was never constructed as a proper road, and it has no drainage. It is used as a short cut by traffic travelling between Wembley and Greenford.
  There is an alternative route, which is from Watford Road, partly round the roundabout, and along Sudbury Court Drive. That is rather longer, being about seven-tenths of a mile. This route is far more suitable for heavy traffic than the short cut along Sudbury Court Road.
  As my hon. Friends know, Sudbury Court Drive is no less than 120 feet wide. Between the two lines of buildings on either side it has a dual carriageway for most of its length and service roads as well. It was made originally as a link between Wembley and Greenford, but it does not get the full volume of traffic for which it was constructed because the bridge over the Midland Region railway between Carlton Avenue East and Carlton Avenue West has never been built.
  It is easier for drivers going on this journey to use the route Watford Road-Sudbury Court Drive rather than Sudbury Court Road. It is easier still for drivers going from Greenford to Wembley, because to get into Sudbury
  1382
  Court Road one has to take a right-hand turn out of Sudbury Court Drive across some traffic and when one gets to the other end of Sudbury Court Road one has to take another right turn into Watford Road. That involves crossing a lot of traffic and involves a long wait sometimes.
  There have been complaints since 1951 about heavy traffic along this road. A traffic census was taken about that time, but nothing further was done. More recently there have been further complaints, and in 1958 a petition was got up by residents in the road and sent to my right hon. Friend's predecessor.
  Because of that petition another census was taken on 22nd May, 1958, over three different periods of an hour during the day. As a result, it was found that between 8.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. 34 lorries over 3 tons in weight and 2 coaches passed along the road. Between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. 30 lorries passed along the road, but no coaches. Between 5.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., 12 lorries passed along the road, but again no coaches.
  That census was taken on a Thursday. It did not take into account the unusually heavy traffic that one finds when there are events of some sort or another at Wembley Stadium, particularly on four or five Saturdays in April, and certain other Wednesdays during other parts of the year when there are football matches.
  I am not clear about the result of the census compared with the one taken some years before, because in a letter which the divisional road engineer wrote to the town clerk sometime in 1958 he said:
  "From this you will note that whilst there has been a substantial increase in the total volume of traffic the amount of heavy traffic has dropped appreciably."
  But my hon. Friend, in a letter to me dated 27th January, 1960, said:
  "… the percentage of these vehicles to total traffic has decreased considerably during the same period, which suggests that more use is being made of Sudbury Court Drive."
  There is all the difference in the world between saying that the amount of traffic has decreased and saying that the percentage of traffic has decreased, because there has been a considerable increase of traffic on the road over the past eight years, and it is quite possible

  1383
  that although the percentage of heavy traffic using the road has decreased its volume has increased. That is a point upon which I am not clear as a result of these two letters, and I hope that my hon. Friend can clear it up.
  The residents have asked for a weight restriction of three tons to be imposed on the road, under Section 10 of the London Transport Act, 1924. This was supported by the Wembley Borough Council, but it has been rejected by my right hon. Friend. The chief reason given for the rejection is that it is not justified, as little evidence exists that heavy vehicles are a danger. I understand that nobody has been involved in personal injury there since 1951, but there have been many near-accidents, and one case has occurred when a resident walking along the pavement has had her handbag hit by a passing car which was overtaking a lorry. Clearly the road is dangerous when that can happen. Another reason given for refusal is the difficulty of enforcement.
  I wonder whether many drivers would deliberately ignore a restriction of that kind. Any driver who ignores a restriction is caught red-handed if a police officer happens to be in the road, and that driver can be stopped. The average lorry driver is a reasonable and amenable person, and if the restriction is brought home to him I feel sure he will observe it whether or not there is a police officer present. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter to see whether the restriction can be imposed. There may be few roads where this sort of thing occurs, but this is one of them, and a restriction would be justified.
  My right hon. Friend has asked Wembley Borough Council to improve the road at a cost of £34,000, which would include putting proper footpaths along both sides of the road and taking a little off the gardens of the houses, particularly in Sudbury Court Drive, at the end of the road, in order to make the whole road 24 feet wide. That would destroy its rural character, and it would not be justified in view of the fact that there is a much easier and safer alternative route.
  If my right hon. Friend is adamant, the next best course is to make a "no right turn" restriction out of Sudbury
  1384
  Court Drive into Sudbury Court Road. That would have the effect virtually of eliminating traffic in one direction without making it a one-way street. I understand that Wembley Borough Council intends eventually to extend the dual carriageway in Sudbury Court Drive to the end, which might have the effect of imposing a "no right turn" restriction. Perhaps my hon. Friend would clear up that point. If that is the case, why wait for that to be done? A "no right turn" restriction could be imposed now.
  I pass from that to the Abbey Estate, in another part of my division, where the traffic has increased in volume rather than in weight, because that estate is used as a short cut from Ealing Road into the North Circular Road, and vice versa. It has caused a certain amount of alarm because there any many children on the estate, and the traffic does not observe the speed limit. This might be partly due to the trouble caused by the construction of an underpass at Hanger Lane. I hope it is and that when the underpass is finished the trouble will disappear. If not, again I wish to suggest that the question of one-way traffic be considered. Longley Avenue, one of the roads along which the traffic passes, is only about 20 to 22 feet wide. Were it made a one-way street there are several roads, including Abbey Avenue, parallel to it which might be used as a one-way street in the opposite direction. At one time there was a notice stuck on a lamp post, stating, "If you must use this road, please drive slowly". It had obviously been printed by a resident. I think that shows that something ought to be done to make the road safer, particularly for children.
  Finally, I wish to refer to Oakington Avenue which is used by traffic travelling from Wembley Park Drive to Forty Lane and about which I have had a recent complaint. It is used mainly by traffic passing from the trading estate near Wembley Stadium in the direction of Greenford. This is a residential road, rather wider than any I have mentioned before, but nevertheless people who went to live there did not imagine that a time would come when heavy lorries would travel along that road. Obviously such traffic causes damage to property. There is no need for traffic to go along the road I have mentioned. It could travel up Bridge Road into Forty Lane or use

  1385
  Brook Avenue, which is wider and has the Metropolitan Railway line on one side and houses on the other which are set well back.
  I know that this is a problem which involves many other roads but it is one which we must consider. I am one who has for a long time been urging the Ministry to provide better roads.
  These narrow residential roads were never meant to be used as through roads. It is one thing to have light vans and cars travelling along them, but it is quite another matter when they are used by heavy lorries of up to three tons. Apart from the danger, there is also the problem of noisy exhausts and doors. The houses are rocked and damage is caused to ceilings. Even if nothing can be done to stop the use of these roads by such vehicles, although this is not a matter for my hon. Friend, consideration should be given to reducing the assessments on the properties in that area. This question of heavy traffic presents a serious problem, and I hope that my hon. Friend may be able to give some reassurance to the people concerned.
  11.58 p.m.
  Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I have not so many roads in my constituency requiring attention as my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell). There is one, however, which has caused concern to my constituents whose complaints I can support from personal observation. I refer to Draycott Avenue, a residential road and a turning off Kenton Road. There is good residential property on both sides of the road. It is not a very wide road, but in the last few years it has become a busy thoroughfare for motorists and heavy traffic. There is extensive parking on both sides.
  Like my hon. Friend I made representations to the Wembley Council and learned of its frustration in dealing with complaints about car parking in streets in the borough. The town clerk has sought the assistance of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice-president, and which is considering the problem of car parking generally.
  Naturally, the police wish to keep the traffic moving along the main high roads and so, I am told, they do not discourage
  1386
  parking in side streets, except near road junctions. The position in Draycott Avenue is aggravated by the presence of a transport café near the Kenton Road junction. This café is used by a number of drivers who park their heavy vehicles in Draycott Avenue, and there have been heated exchanges between some of these drivers and some of my constituents. Residents feel—and they have my sympathy—that the use of the road by heavy vehicles should be prohibited by the Minister of Transport. As my hon. Friend said, he could make an order under Section 10 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, but I understand that except where dangerous conditions exist the Minister is loth to make such an order.
  A regulation imposing unilateral waiting in Draycott Avenue would help, and the borough council has decided to ask for such a regulation. Extra car parks would help, but I am told that the railway authorities have been most unco-operative, especially in the amount of rent they require. Perhaps the Minister could do something with the railway authorities.
  In a short time, with the ever-increasing amount of traffic, the Minister will have to concern himself with two points, each at extremes of my constituency. One is at the Watford Bridge end of Kenton Road, and the other where the Kenton-Kingsbury Road enters the Edgware Road at the extreme end of my constituency. Traffic piles up at these points at peak times. I suggest that the Minister should be making plans for these traffic points now.
  12.2 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) have both referred to a problem with which we are becoming more and more familiar in the Ministry of Transport, the problem of traffic which is now coming on to quiet residential roads in suburban areas. As both my hon. Friends acknowledge, it is a consequence of the ever-increasing volume of traffic we have to face in this country today.
  Twenty-five years ago, I suppose, some of these quiet streets in Wembley and

  1387
  places like that were used only by ordinary domestic traffic which was comparatively light. Today there is not only an increase in domestic traffic, but increasing use of these roads by through traffic taking short cuts to avoid arterial road congestion. I think it important to keep the matter in true perspective to realise that since 1949 the total number of vehicles on our roads has doubled. The rate of increase has been about 500,000 a year in the last three years, and vehicle mileage went up by 32 per cent. and goods vehicle mileage by 24 per cent.
  The examples give by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South are by no means unique. We get a great many representations about this sort of problem from local authorities, from hon. Members and from the public. They usually complain of damage to the amenities which they have come to expect. They complain, quite rightly, of risks and traffic hazards created by this greater use of their roads, and local authorities frequently complain about damage which this heavy traffic does to roads never designed to carry it. They ask us either to impose weight restrictions, parking restrictions or prohibitions on the use of certain roads or one-way streets.
  Our general policy is based on two main conceptions. I think reflection will make it clear that we need have no other ideas in our minds than these. The first is that the roads are there and must be used as roads. That is the purpose for which they were laid down. The second is that if we impose restrictions they will be useless unless they can be properly enforced.
  On the first point, it is obvious that we cannot reserve a certain number of roads for certain types of traffic and allow other roads to be used by all traffic. There is a case sometimes—frequently we have to look at individual cases—where it can be said that, because of its structural defects, the road is not suitable for certain types of heavy traffic. However, broadly speaking, we have to accept that roads must be available for use by all types of traffic.
  From that follows the fact that we must adopt some strict criteria when we are asked to impose restrictions. We can impose restrictions only in excep-
  1388
  tional cases—first where there is a serious and persistent nuisance; secondly, where there is a real danger on road safety grounds; or, thirdly—this is the case on which I briefly touched—where the foundations of the road are, for example, inadequate to take the weight of the vehicles.
  On enforcement, as the House knows, the police forces of this country are under strength by and large. Since the restrictions must be enforced by the police, that is a fact which we cannot ignore. When trying to enforce weight restrictions, and so on, there is an inevitable difficulty in distinguishing between traffic which is passing through the road to some other destination and traffic which is making a call on the road in question—namely, the purely domestic or delivery traffic. If we impose restrictions too readily on one road, it is frequently our experience that we simply transfer the problem to an adjacent road. We have to be rather tough in our policy on this.
  It often happens that the problem is somewhat temporary in nature. My hon. Friend mentioned one case, to which I shall come in a few minutes, where increasing use of small residential roads is due to major road improvements which are taking place. But on the whole, this problem is due to the amount and volume of traffic on our roads and the inadequacy of our main roads, which we freely acknowledge and admit. The answer to the problem is that we have to press on with our policy of road improvement as fast as funds will permit.
  I will come quickly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South. Wembley is a typical area of the type where this problem arises. It is suburban, almost completely built up, and traversed by several main through routes. It is mainly residential in character, but it has a light industrial zone at Alperton and it lies near to other industrial areas at Acton, Willesden and Ealing. It is inevitable with an area of what I think the planners call "mixed development" that industrial traffic in residential parts of the district will increase.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South referred particularly to Sudbury Court Road. This is a typical short cut between Watford Road and

  1389
  Greenford Road. It is not suitable for heavy traffic. A far better route is the one he described via Watford Road and Sudbury Court Drive. However, the difficulty about that route is that it involves the motorist or the lorry driver in an additional 500 yards, and there is a natural temptation to take the shorter route if that can be done.
  The history of this is that in 1952 the Wembley Borough Council asked us to place a restriction on the road prohibiting its use to all but light vehicles. We turned that down in that year, on the advice of our Divisional Road Engineer and the police, after the traffic count to which my hon. Friend referred had been taken. The principal reason was that we were not satisfied in that year that there were a sufficient number of heavy vehicles using the road.
  The matter then rested for a number of years, until in 1958, as a consequence of the petition to which my hon. Friend referred, he raised the question in the House. We then put the matter to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. The committee advised that we should reject the request of the council because, first—I hope that I can now make the figures clear—there was a substantial drop in the number of heavy vehicles using the road between 1952, when they were already insufficient to justify a restriction, and 1958 when the decision had to be taken.
  Secondly, there was clear evidence that no heavy vehicles had been involved in accidents on the road since 1949. The Committee also advised that there would be difficult problems of enforcement similar to those which I have mentioned, and took the view that reconstruction and improvement of this road would be better. I believe the council is considering this point now. My right hon. Friend accepted the advice of the Committee and informed my hon. Friend in January last.
  Tonight, my hon. Friend has mentioned two alternatives, as I understood him. One was that we should prohibit the right-hand turn from Sudbury Court Drive, and the other was that we might introduce a system of one-way working in Sudbury Court Road. On these two matters, our Divisional Road Engineer advised that they would be unsatisfactory. The right-hand turn and one-way
  1390
  working would impose considerable inconvenience on those residents in that road possessing cars. It would almost certainly increase the volume of traffic that uses the road, and it would increase the speed, because when there is a one-way street there is a natural temptation for traffic to move faster since there is no stream of traffic coming in the other direction. That is one of the objects of the exercise—to speed up the flow of traffic.
  Mr. Russell: I was not suggesting the creation of a one-way street. I said that the effect of a right-hand turn would be to make it mainly one-way.
  Mr. Hay: I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. For that reason, the difficulty which would be caused to residents with cars in that road, we are advised that the prohibition of the right-hand turn would be impracticable.
  With regard to the quadrilateral of roads—Longley Avenue, Carlyon Road. Abbey Avenue, and Queensbury Road—I will not go into great detail because the problem is similar and my hon. Friend has already mentioned it. But our advice is that a lot of the difficulty here is caused by the roadworks which are going on at the junction of Hanger Lane and Western Avenue where the underpass is being built. That should be open to traffic fairly soon, and after it is open we will look at this matter again to see if there has been a diminution of traffic using this estate.
  As far as Oakington Avenue is concerned, this is not an altogether suitable road from the point of view of surface. A good deal could be done to improve the surface and get rid of some of the vibration that is experienced by residents in that road. I am advised—and I have a lot of technical data on this—that damage to ceilings is hardly ever, if at all, traceable directly to the use of a road outside by vehicles. I will show my hon. Friend the document from the Building Research Station after the debate.
  May I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, North about Draycott Avenue. The position is that in 1955 the council proposed a unilateral waiting restriction, which again the Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee considered. They came to the conclusion that this should

  1391
  not be adopted because if this were done the immediate effect would be that cars which parked in this comparatively quiet street would park in Kenton Road which is a through traffic route and a shopping area. Draycott Road is moreover a side road with a good deal of residential property having what is called in the language of my Department "vehicular accesses" to each house—what most people would describe as drive-ins. If we were to have unilateral waiting, it would mean that we should halve the amount of space available for parking, and that would mean constant usage of one side of the road, so that the drive-ins would be blocked. There would, therefore, be great difficulty for the residents.
  The Divisional Road Engineer and the Police agree that we should not impose these waiting restrictions in that road, and the council was so informed in
  1392
  August, 1956. So far we had heard nothing further from the council about it until my hon. Friend said this evening that it was about to approach us again. When it does, we shall look at this matter as sympathetically as we can, but we shall have to have in mind some of the problems that this question poses for my right hon. Friend's Department in particular, just as it poses problems for those who live in these streets. The short answer is to improve our main traffic routes, and to get on as quickly as we can with our road programme. If we can do that, I hope we shall quickly solve the problem.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. Licence and Television Act
  B.B.C. Licence and Television Act
POST OFFICE
  Radiotelephone (Distress and Urgency Messages)
  Radiotelephone (Distress and Urgency Messages)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Uniform and Kit
  Uniform and Kit
  Ceremonial Unit
  Ceremonial Unit
TRANSPORT
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
ROADS
  Manor Way By-pass, Cardiff
  Manor Way By-pass, Cardiff
  Roundabouts
  Roundabouts
  Urban Traffic (Study Group)
  Urban Traffic (Study Group)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  German Democratic Republic (Divisions)
  German Democratic Republic (Divisions)
  UNITED NATIONS (PERMANENT FORCE)
  UNITED NATIONS (PERMANENT FORCE)
  GERMANY (WAR RECORDS)
  GERMANY (WAR RECORDS)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (CONVENTION)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (CONVENTION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
BECHUANALAND
  Bamangwato Reserve (Mineral Concession)
  Bamangwato Reserve (Mineral Concession)
SCOTLAND
  Local Authorities (Rates)
  Local Authorities (Rates)

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

BIRDCAGE WALK AND BROMPTON ROAD
2.35 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how long the flow of traffic in London has been affected by the road repair work in—

(1) Birdcage Walk, and

(2) the Brompton Road,

and how long this work will continue; also whether the work could be expedited by the employment of two shifts in the twenty-four hours.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the road works in Birdcage Walk started on October 12, 1959, and are expected to be completed by the middle of April. It has been possible to maintain an adequate traffic flow throughout the period of the road works, and the expense of double-shift working would not have been justified. In Brompton Road traffic has been affected by work on the gas mains since October 26, 1959, except for the period from December 16 to January 3 inclusive. The Gas Board's work was completed on February 24, and reinstatement of the road surface is expected to be completed to-day. Every effort has been made to maintain the normal flow of traffic and, except at peak traffic periods, there has been little congestion.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his full reply, may I ask whether, if two shifts of men are engaged, if different workmen are employed, one shift needs to be paid more than the other?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I can give the noble Lord an adequate answer to that. The normal procedure in these matters is for the authority which is carrying out the work to specify what it considers to be a reasonable period for the work to be carried out, and it is then left to the contractor himself to organise his methods of doing the work within the terms of his contract.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I ask one further question? Would it Apt be better, in view of the enormous time taken by having one shift, provided that the second shift does not have to be paid pore than the first, if the authorities could be encouraged to employ two shifts so that the work does not take so long?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord this. In rough terms—and one can only generalise in the roughest terms, because naturally circumstances vary with almost every job—one can normally calculate that double-shift working knocks about a quarter off the time and adds between 5 and 15 per cent. to the cost. Treble-shift working, if that can be done, just about halves the time and adds 15 to 25 per cent. to the cost. When one is talking about shift work, it must also be borne in mind that the extra cost and the extra fees obtained means that the money has been spent and therefore cannot be spent on some other scheme.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his full reply.
LORD REA: My Lords, did I hear the noble Lord aright when he said that, an adequate flow of traffic had been maintained along Birdcage Walk? Would he bear in mind that that is probably a matter of opinion?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords; I quite agree.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, one of the principal difficulties is that at night that stretch of road is so badly lit that it seems dangerous and awkward. Could not some extra lighting be installed there at night?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, extra lighting could be installed, I should have

655
thought, only as a very temporary measure. If the noble Lord means more red lights along it, or something like that, I will certainly pass on that suggestion.

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF LEISURE
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN rose to call attention to the problems and increased opportunities of leisure available during the next decade; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. I thought we might this afternoon have a short walk into the future, a future not so many miles ahead of us. It looks as though, for the first time in the history of man, we are approaching an age of mass leisure. Nothing can stop it. Automatic processes proliferate; every day brings a new labour-saving invention; we have atomic power. If not in our time, then most certainly in our children's time we shall have a four-day week, and perhaps even a three-day week. In the United States of America, the average working week decreased from 70 hours in 1850 to 40 hours in 1950. In New Zealand, they work only 38 hours; and so, of course, it will go on, here, as elsewhere, and at an ever-increasing rate.
This sounds a most delightful thing; and if, as we believe, the soul of man is the most important part of him, we must welcome this opportunity for him to develop his intellectual and spiritual powers. But will it work out like that? Material well-being does not necessarily lead to happiness—exactly the contrary, in fact. In Sweden and Switzerland, where they have few national worries and the highest living standards in Europe, what happens? They shoot themselves, my Lords; they shoot themselves in great numbers. Their suicide rates are the highest in the world, except for Japan, where it is a national tradition. And they openly admit to their frustration. The Swedish Prime Minister recently accused his fellow countrymen of finding life meaningless and Sweden of being an unhappy country. The leading Swiss weekly recently wrote:
"What on earth is wrong with us Swiss? Our faces are morose, cheerless and surly."
No, my Lords, the picture is not so attractive as it might at first seem. Indeed, I personally find the prospect of mass leisure positively frightening, for the truth is that it is difficult for man to be happy unless he is fully occupied. Those of your Lordships who from time to time may have found yourselves with not enough to do will know just how soul-destroying that can be. The enemy, of course, is boredom. There has admittedly been a leisured class for many hundreds of years, but in the past it comprised only a minute section of the population, and with that leisure there usually went great responsibilities. Moreover, they were highly educated people. Even so they suffered from boredom. One has only to read the novels of Jane Austen to realise that.
Now we are faced with the prospect of tens of millions of leisured persons with few responsibilities and with incomplete education. What are they going to do with their spare time? I do not underestimate the British character when it comes to improvisation and the ability to "do it oneself", but judging by present social habits one envisages a great sea of blank, gaping faces stretching out before innumerable television screens from midday to midnight, with short pauses for the absorption of tinned foods recommended on the advertising programmes. This may sound fantastic, and perhaps it is; but you will remember that that far-seeing writer, Mr. Aldous Huxley, forecast something just like this thirty years ago in his book Brave New World. The solution in his ghastly Utopia was a pill called soma which made one happy. It took one outside time, and it left no hangover. Fortunately, soma has yet to be discovered; but meanwhile we are well on the way to it with these things called tranquillisers.
Let me pursue my forebodings. What else can we expect with our new heaven on earth? "Satan finds some mischief still" may be a cliché, but it is very true. If I may again take the case of Sweden and Denmark, the pattern there is of alcoholism and promiscuity. The divorce rates in Denmark and Sweden are the highest in Europe: in Sweden they are twice as high and in Denmark three times as high as in this country—and ours are nothing to boast about.

657
The illegitimacy figures are 10 per cent. in Sweden and 7 per cent. in Denmark as against 4·8 per cent. in this country. It is not for me to take a moral line, but sociologically at least these things are bad.
I hope your Lordships will not think this is too sombre a canvas. At least you will admit, I think, that the dangers are there. How can they be met, or, to put it more positively, how can people be helped to make good use of this new found opportunity? Let me say first what I think are the wrong ways. I cannot believe that leisure is a matter for Governments or for legislation of any kind. A Ministry of Culture or of Sport is an abhorrent thought; it smacks of totalitarianism. Ours is an individualistic race, and leisure is or should be an individualistic thing. Therefore I would deprecate the regimentation of leisure in any form. I must admit to an instinctive dislike even of such excellent things as holiday camps. I know that they are happy places and that they provide easy rest for tired people who want everything done for them, but I do not like the idea of people being exhorted by loudspeaker and invited to answer the question "Are we having fun?" with a great cry of "Yes." Again I do not think that subsidies are a complete answer, though of course money is involved in this as in everything else. The Election manifestos of all the Parties recommended Government grants for the promotion of culture. That is fine, but first of all you have to get people interested in culture, and they cannot be bribed by money into that; they have to find it for themselves.
It is easy to be negative and say what things one thinks should not happen. It is difficult when it comes to putting forward constructive ideas, particularly in a field so new and so unexplored. All I propose to do to-day is to point to the places where I think an answer can and should be found. It is natural that one should think first of all of education. Put quite simply, the problem is to make people inquisitive and to make them think for themselves. If the seed is sown early, it will eventually germinate, even though it may lie dormant for many years. I do not propose to elaborate this theme. It is too obvious, and it will be discussed fully and no doubt expertly when the Report of the Committee on
658
Youth Services comes before your Lordships' House. I would only throw out the thought to-day that in our passionate and justified absorption with youth we tend to overlook the claims of the present generation and still more the claims of those whose work is done but who remain sentient and, all too often, suffering human beings. "To-morrow belongs to the young" is an easy catch-phrase; but what about to-day and what about yesterday? Everyone will have the new leisure, the old most of all, and meanwhile I believe we are paying far too little attention to the problem of geriatrics.
Next I think of the churches. To them, above all, we look for a lead. No doubt they are giving serious and dedicated thought to this matter, and I am particularly glad to see that the right reverend Prelate will speak to us this afternoon. I believe that the age of leisure offers the greatest challenge to the Christian churches for a hundred years. If they accept the challenge, if they can persuade people to devote a small part of this God-sent bounty to the service of God, they will have justified themselves. If they fail, then I would go so far as to say that the survival of our faith may be in jeopardy.
Last of all, I think of those who might give us advice and inspiration—I think of the trade unions. I conceive that the purpose of that massive organisation, the T.U.C., is to care for the welfare of its members in every form. This it does most faithfully on the practical side. But one may be allowed to wonder whether, in the struggle for more pay and better working conditions, it does not sometimes tend to overlook the longer-term and even more essential parts of its task, whether it does not sometimes mistake the trees for the wood. I have not been able to find any evidence so far that it is occupying itself with the problem of keeping the workers contented after it has secured for them the material benefits which it seeks. With respect, II think that it should.
Here, then, are the three great bodies—the churches, the educational authorities and the trade unions. For all of them, I believe, there is a special responsibility. At the working level there are the cultural organisations, the voluntary organisations and the sporting organisations. I wonder

659
whether it might not be a good idea to appoint a non-governmental committee—a mixed bag of a committee, with the broadest terms of reference, to take a look at this subject. The Albemarle Committee has done splendid work, but in a limited sphere. The part has been considered: should we not now also consider the whole?
My Lords, I would end as I began. I am frightened by this new social marvel. It should be a blessing; it may be a curse. I do not know the answer. I do not believe that anyone does. We should be wise to plan and prepare for it now, lest it come upon us unawares and the last state of man prove worse than the first. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
2.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I know that the whole House will be delighted with the most charming speech which the noble Earl who moved this Motion has just made, and with the fact that he has raised this important question. The interest which has arisen in this House is obvious from the long list of distinguished speakers to whom we are going to listen this afternoon after I have finished, and I know that this debate will have been well worth while.
I should like to join issue with the noble Earl straight away in the main function of his speech, which is, I imagine, to frighten us, as he is himself frightened, at the results of the increasing amount of leisure which we are going to enjoy in the next ten years. I should like to challenge that statement. I see no special reason to believe that the amount of work that will be done by most people in the next ten years will be materially different from the last ten years. It may surprise noble Lords to find that in fact the average number of hours worked over the past ten years has increased. We are, on the whole, working longer and harder to-day than we did in 1947 or in 1937. I could quote figures from the Ministry of Labour reports, but I will not bother the House. I hope noble Lords will take it from me that that is so: that these returns indicate, that the hours worked over the past twenty years have not decreased but have, though only fractionally, increased. It is true that the nominal hours per week
660
have gone down—in most industries the working week has gone down from 48 to 44 or 45. But if you take two facts into account—first of all, that additional work is done and paid for by way of overtime, and that to-day far more women are engaged in occupations than they were before—I think you will find that the average is rather higher.
What is there in the economic and industrial conditions to make us believe that there is going to be any revolutionary change such as the noble Earl fears, over the next ten years? I should not like to prophesy that there will not be a reduction of an hour or two per week, but when the noble Earl talks of a three-day or a four-day week in the next ten years, I should certainly be prepared to join issue with him and say that I do not believe that that is going to happen. I take it that the reason why he fears this is the growth of automation, because it is only automation which can produce these results, if anything can do so. But automation is not of universal application; it applies only to repetitive work, to certain manufacturing industries, to machine accounting; and, to my mind, at the moment, there is only a very limited field in which it can be applied.
Whether, in actual practice, automation is introduced is in most cases a question of cost and balancing. In my own office I could introduce a great deal of automation, but I should have to make a lot of money before I did so, and it would be many, many years before, in the end, one would get a reasonable return on one's money. I imagine that that will deter a great many people. In fact, I would suggest that only in large industries is automation practicable, and although it is already taking place to a considerable extent, it has not produced the dangers the noble Earl fears. But so far as I can see, automation will never be applicable to high-class or quality work, to individual processes, to agriculture and horticulture (although there is room for a good deal of streamlining in both of these industries), to transport, to building, to catering and to a great many other industries and occupations that I might mention. So I hope that the noble Earl will leave this House tonight in a somewhat more comfortable mood than when he first introduced this

661
matter, and will not fear that this frightful thing is going to come upon us, at any rate as soon as he contemplates—and certainly not in the next ten years.
If and when we do get a substantial reduction, however, not only in hours but in days, then I agree with him that there are a great many dangers to which we have to look. For instance, is he assuming that there will be a reduction in hours and that it will be necessary to work only two or three days a week in those industries in which there will be mechanisation and automation, but that in others, where those conditions will not apply, just as many hours will have to be worked as now? If that is so, it is bound to arouse a great deal of discontent. How are we going to reconcile those who are engaged in one form of industry, which, according to the theory of the noble Earl, will require them to work only two or three days a week, with other people who have to work the whole week round—such as in industry—very much as they do to-day?
EARL BATHURST: Like Ministers.
LORD SILKIN: Like Ministers. There will arise problems of pay. Are people who are going to work only half the week to be paid as well as those who work the whole week? Of course, they must be, in practice, because generally speaking they will expect the same standard of living as those who occupy themselves the whole week; and that is going to create a great many difficulties and dangers.
The other point is that, generally speaking (and one can speak only in generalities), I would say that those who are likely to be engaged in work involving automation will be less well equipped, by reason of education and conditions of life, to make profitable use of leisure than those who have had a more formal education. And these are the people who are going to suffer from the boredom which the noble Earl fears. On the whole, I suppose we may say (again as a very broad generalisation) that those with the least leisure are best equipped, mentally and culturally, to appreciate and enjoy it; and those who have the leisure are, broadly speaking, those who have not yet learned how to make the best use of it. There is one other danger about leisure under present conditions, to which the noble Earl did
662
not refer; that is, that most people to-day, and particularly those of whom we are thinking, have a good deal of loose cash in their pockets. If they do what the noble Earl visualises as the worst, and spend their evenings sitting by the television, things would not be so bad. But they could be much worse. They could use their spare cash for much more injurious things than merely sitting by even an expensive television set.
What can we do to prepare people for the increased leisure which I suppose will come one day, though nothing like so soon as the noble Earl fears? In my view it is all a matter of education. I agree that the Churches have a part to play. I agree that the trade unions could play a part, and even the Press and a good many other organisations of opinion—indeed, I would say that the Press have a very great part to play. With all respect to the Press, I do not think they are being particularly helpful at the present time, because the interests they are arousing in people are not those best calculated to enable them to enjoy leisure. They are arousing a spurious form of interest and enjoyment which, on the whole, is not beneficial. But all these things—eaucation, the Churches, trade unions and the Press—have a very big part to play.
I want particularly to say a few words about education. I do not believe that the right moment at which to start educating people for leisure is when they are on the point of enjoying it. I believe that that teaching should start in the schools, and should start early; and I agree most cordially with the noble Earl when he says that the right method is to stimulate people, to arouse their interest and to do it in a great variety of different ways. I know that already a good deal is being done. Those of us who come to your Lordships' House frequently see constant streams of children visiting the House, being shown Westminster Hall and other places of historic interest, and having these things explained to them, so that they may understand them. At any rate, they are coming here; that is something, and one would like to see far more of it.
In my view the right age at which to start this education for leisure is when the child first enters school. I believe

663
that children, apart from having knowledge pumped into them, should have their interest aroused in matters in various ways; and that can be done because children up to a certain age, like dogs and other animals, are inquisitive creatures. I keep pigs, and they are frightfully inquisitive. They will run away from one but they come back because their curiosity gets the better of them. Children are the same in that respect; and so are dogs. I believe that if we start with the very young, and arouse their curiosity and interest in a great variety of things, it will be found that there is something in Which they are especially interested. Whether it be the use of their hands or some particular subject is a matter for the teacher to ascertain, and, having ascertained it, to encourage the child along those lines.
There are some things of which we do not do enough in the schools—homecraft, stimulating interest in gardening and hobbies of various kinds, painting, and participation in creative work. There is too much watching of other people doing things and not enough of people doing it for themselves.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I believe in television. I think it could be an instrument for good—although I do not possess one myself. I feel that there is a great deal in television which could help to arouse people's interest. But we must pay far more attention to the programmes. Among the things we feared in television was that the programmes would not be entirely of the educational kind, suitable for the purpose of stimulating people in the right kind of leisure; and I am afraid that that is happening. I suppose those who sponsor television programmes have to cater for the masses, and the masses want entertainment, rather than matters of interest. But I believe that, with the use of a judicious mixture of the two, television can play a big part in providing music, discussions, readings from the classics, and so on.
It is remarkable that the sale of gramophone records has increased enormously since music began to be broadcast and televised. Broadcasting has had some effect in arousing an interest in music, and I believe that television
664
could play a very great part here. Her Majesty's Government ought to be ready to spend money on this. Like the noble Earl, I do not believe that it is necessarily the business of the Government to intervene in the ordinary life of people, but there are some things which only a Government can do. We obviously want young people to have opportunities for playing games themselves. That involves an increased number of playing fields. I agree that money should be found privately as well, but I feel that the Government should make themselves responsible for providing a certain amount of the necessary funds. Then we ought to encourage people to go to see various parts of the country for themselves. There is a difficulty here. It may be that when we have three days off a week life will be a little easier in the countryside, but at present anyone who tries to take his recreation in the countryside over the weekend finds it by no means a pleasure. It is a great ordeal, and when you get to your destination, more often than not you find it extremely difficult to get even a cup of tea because things are so overcrowded. I think we ought to do something about that, if only to encourage people not all to use the Brighton road or the Southend road on a Sunday.
There are other places in the countryside that are equally interesting, and equally enjoyable and beneficial. There are houses of historical interest which people ought to be encouraged or, rather, stimulated to become interested in. They are fascinating once interest in them is aroused. But this is a thing which needs to be done at the very earliest age. If we could take young people, school children, away for a week-end, take them to some of the historic country houses and explain to them in simple terms what they are all about, the history of the houses and the works of art and the furniture, I think we should arouse a permanent interest in these children, and we should find that as they grew up they would discover other outlets for their energies than speeding up the Brighton road. And so I could suggest a great many things that could be done in the years before a child leaves school.
One of the problems I have been thinking about, anticipating a debate which I hope to have the privilege of

665
opening in a few weeks' time, is what we should do with the ordinary child if we raise the school-leaving age. I am very unhappy about merely raising the school-leaving age and otherwise leaving schools and the curriculum very much as they are. I doubt whether another year of the same thing would be of very great advantage. But if we could teach children what really amounts to the way to live, teach them to enjoy a fuller life, it would be a great achievement. After all, this world is full of riches and culture which have been handed down to us over the ages. How few people really enjoy and appreciate them! If we could use the school life of a child for that purpose, to enable him to enjoy the riches we have inherited, how much more worth while would be the raising of the school-leaving age and the years which the child spends at school!
I have largely concentrated on the child, because I believe that the problem of helping the older people who have more settled ideas to enjoy recreation, which in any case I doubt whether they will have for a long time to come, is too big a problem. But if we start with the child, I think that by the time we are likely to have to face up to this problem we may hope to have a generation capable of enjoying the blessings of leisure—and they can be blessings, as weal as the reverse; and we shall, as a nation, have the satisfaction of feeling that our people are really enjoying a fuller and a better life. I should like once more to express my deepest gratitude to the noble Earl for having raised this very interesting and important subject.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I remember reading some 73 years ago in a book called A Child's Garden of Verses some lines by Robert Louis Stevenson:
"The world is so full of a number of things I am sure we should all be as happy as kings."
But Nanny never told me that you had to bring to this wonderful world a certain modicum of mentality in order to obtain that happiness. And she did not tell me, either, that there are quite a lot of kings who are not as happy as all that. Indeed, the problem of leisure is not a new one. I have read recently that the Plantagenets nearly died of boredom
666
in their cold and gloomy castles. To come to more recent times, my grandmother, who was a beautiful but not very intelligent woman, suffered severely when she had to draw down her blinds in Ennismore Gardens during the month of August in order to pretend that she had been asked out of London in that unfashionable month. Her ennui, as she called it, was even more profound when she stayed with Lord Lonsdale at Lowther Castle where the men went out shooting all day.
But in the old days great trouble was taken to assist the limited minds of the rich from the affliction of boredom: shooting and hunting for half the year; racing and yachting for the other half. Golf courses and tennis courts, health resorts and a great deal of changing of clothes among the women, helped to fill the long, empty hours of prosperity. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, my grandmother was bored. And I find this inability to make life interesting, this depression and disillusion, disbelief in their own future and in the future of the world, still more dangerous and conspicuous in some of my grandchildren.
I hope this important matter will not be approached from above with well-meaning plans on a class basis, because this boredom is not a class affliction. John Osborne's Jimmy Porter represents no special class; but it is because he represents the delinquent mentality common to all classes in the modern world that we are afraid of him and feel that something ought to be done to excite the interest and fill the time of the countless young people who stand, with a great deal of money in their pockets, at the corners of the streets, before they fall into the temptations of actual delinquency. In my view, delinquent behaviour is very rare, but delinquent mentality is widespread among our prosperous proletariat.
The noble Earl who put down this Motion knows that it is an important subject, well worthy of your Lordships' attention. It is easy enough to say that it is a long-term problem that can be solved only by education. Surely we cannot wait for that, even if it is true. Surely the first step is to change the atmosphere; to change the attitude towards things of the mind which is conspicuous in this country. How can you

667
expect to develop the mentality of our vast urban and suburban populations if the people at the top, to whom they are accustomed to look for guidance and example, despise the intellectual and artistic approach to life? A distinguished professor said to me the other day that the House of Lords and the House of Commons represent the democracy of this country perfectly in their hatred of the arts. Occasionally the intellectual minority gets its way, as it has done during the last 100 years about education, and a few financial sops are thrown to the arts. I do not want to be accused of looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I must say that the quality of that spavined nag which was produced by the Government last week does not really come up to expectations. The promises made are to keep us quiet and they are pretty low.
The fact is that the differential (I believe that is the favourite word, like that word used by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, just now, which I did not understand) between what the Government respect and admire and what they consider unimportant is very conspicuous; and we have evidence of this on every side. I could give your Lordships a dozen examples of this disastrous prejudice reflected in the policy of those who govern us. An institution of utmost value, like the London Library, is crippled by sudden taxation. The subsidy allowed to a propaganda body, like the British Council, is far larger than that to a creative body like the Arts Council. This country, with a Budget of £5,000 million, cannot afford two of those millions to build a national theatre. If £100 million is added to the £1,500 million that is usually spent on obsolete armaments that everybody knows cannot be used, no letter of protest appears in the Press: and the Opposition cannot bring themselves to oppose the nuclear war, either. But if a sum so small as to be invisible to the so-called Ministry of Defence is spent on preventing a Rembrandt from going to the United States, angry voices are raised on every side, protesting against this waste of money—an amount of money which is quite insufficient to buy even one of those bombers that are so useless in modern war.
668
If the people at the top (the Establishment, I think we are now told to call it) the so-called educated people, value the development of the mind at so low a rate, then what can you expect of the television millions? Everybody remembers the famous saying of Goering, that when he heard the word "culture" he felt for his revolver. Well, we are not as barbarous as that, but when politicians and civil servants hear the word "culture" they feel for their blue pencils—although the appointment of Lady Albemarle's Committee and its admirable Report show that the Government are becoming slightly anxious about the situation of these empty minds in the Welfare State. Surely it is obvious, even to those boisterous extroverts in your Lordships' House who think that culture is effeminate, that the development of the mind is in fact the only cure for boredom and the only solution of the problem of leisure. This is the next freedom that we are waiting for, and I suggest to your Lordships that it is time that the able and very friendly men in the Government stopped standing in the way of its attainment.
3.29 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, enough has been said already to indicate that this is an enormous subject. The noble Earl who introduced this meal to-day began with what I can describe as a delightful soufflé the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, gave us a huge and most effective cut off the joint; and that has been enlivened with a piquant sauce from the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, who has just spoken. In some ways, what I have to offer is a vast lump of suet pudding by way of sweet; for I have with me one of the most formidable briefs that I have ever caused to be assembled, designed in every respect to show the splendour and munificence of the work of the Government through their different Departments in the sphere of leisure.
My Lords, the Apocrypha, which we are enjoined by the Prayer Book to read for the improvement of manners, and which for some reason has fallen out of the common culture of Protestants in Europe, although it contains some of the greatest wisdom in Holy Writ,

669
assures us—and I quote (Ecclesiasticus, c. 38, v. 24):
"The wisdom of a learned man cometh by opportunity for leisure, and he that hath little business shall become wise."
If this be so, it is surely encouraging that the noble Earl should have decided to raise the subject of leisure to-day in your Lordships' House. I would say that it was not only encouraging but also in accordance with the movement of public opinion, since I think that this has shown lately a stirring of interest in the whole subject of the use of leisure. One sign was that both political Parties at the last General Election gave ground for belief that more was to be done by the Government in the encouragement of the wise use of leisure. And certainly, so far as I am concerned, I will do my best to see that this promise is kept. Both Houses of Parliament have already shown an increasing interest in branches of this subject, from the fine arts to youth clubs, and I would say that the more discussion we have about it, the more we can rely on a wise and informed public opinion.
But as must already have been obvious to your Lordships, for a free society the subject is not devoid of fundamental difficulties, and the discussion already, it seems to me, has thrown out two separate issues for debate upon which two different points of view have been taken. Are there in fact the increased opportunities for leisure referred to in the Motion, or are shorter hours simply another name for more overtime? On this issue the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, took diametrically opposed points of view. What are the Government doing to encourage the proper use of leisure? What, in theory and in practice, are the limits of what they can do in a free society? On this I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, was unaware of the fact that although the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had taken a fundamentally liberal view on the limitations of government, the noble Viscount was expounding the Socialist case with considerable power and with his inevitable and admirable vigour.
When I first saw the terms of the noble Earl's Motion, I was struck with both questions, and my first action was to ask my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour to discuss the question how far
670
there was statistical evidence that increased opportunities for leisure depend on shorter working hours, since I myself have observed, in the course of my life, that every new labour-saving device inevitably leads to an increase of human activity and not to a diminution of it. At first sight, my right honourable friend was on the noble Earl's side. He told me that between New Year's Day and the end of this month of March, between 3 and 4 million workers would have their standard hours reduced by between one and two hours a week and a number of substantial claims for reducing working hours are still outstanding.
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out to your Lordships, a reduction in standard hours does not necessarily mean increased opportunity for leisure. We have had experience of that before. We had the experience of 1946 and 1947. in which there was a reduction of between one and two hours in the standard hours worked, but that reduction did not mean an increased opportunity for leisure. It did not involve any reduction at all in the actual hours worked. Shorter normal working hours can conceivably mean nothing but more overtime. It is still too early to dogmatise about the present trend, but so far as my right honourable friend is concerned, he has enjoined me to say that while Her Majesty's Government stand for increased standards of life, the question of what proportion of these will be taken in leisure and what proportion in pay must be left to the two sides of industry, and to some extent to the inclination of the individual, to decide.
Nevertheless, perhaps I may be allowed to express a purely personal preference. I range myself unequivocally on the side of more leisure. If this is not possible, and if it be true, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has indicated that it might be, that these great savings in drudgery lead to more activity, the moral, as a matter of fact, is that the right use of leisure—on this hypothesis, a scarce commodity—becomes the more, and not the less, important, and the preservation of leisure, in the sense in which the writer of Ecclesiasticus would have understood it, is an important national objective. I have never been one of those who cried,
"Go to the ant, thou sluggard!"

671
or who have lauded the socialist economy of that malevolent, restless and bloodthirsty little creature, the honey bee. Rather my sermon would be that it would be essential to preserve and popularise the idea of leisure.
"Be still then,"
the psalmist says,
"and know that I am God."
I am unequivocally for the legend which makes rest an essential part of the process of creation and lays down at least one day in seven for repose as among the human freedoms never to be lost.
There is much to be said for reviving the idea of leisure in the twentieth century, for leisure is in truth a condition inseparable from the hard work to which, by and large, humanity is condemned. It is a natural requirement of the human race, but I would say that it was not something separable from life or even from work. For what is leisure for one man is the work of another. The hobby of one age becomes the technology of the next. A gardener may want to sit in his chair of a Sunday, but I like to be in my garden. Both of us are enjoying leisure. The schoolmaster and politician may climb the Zinal Rothorn on their holidays, but the factory worker and the housewife prefer to enjoy cooked meals in a hotel or a seat on the front at Blackpool. Who is to judge between the rival claims of sailing boats and grand opera—and who is to pay for either?
When it is grand opera, the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, says that it should be the Government, and complains bitterly at the increase we propose, because he described it as almost invisible. But how are we to discriminate? How far is a benevolent Government to encourage, to subsidise or to finance? To what extent is it morally right for the taxes paid by Jones to support the personal interests and tastes of Robinson? These questions can be answered authoritatively only in a dictatorship, and then only because a dictatorship does not require a political or moral philosophy. All can be subordinated to expediency, policy or prestige. But a free Government which endeavours to govern in accordance with public opinion and to justify its actions in the light of justice and reason must at least ask these ques
672
tions, even if it does not conclusively answer them. And when we want to divert more public funds to this or that, we have to say to ourselves, in an age of full employment and abounding wealth, "To what extent and on what principles is the money to be used?" That is not a question to which the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, addressed himself; and so far as my noble friend addressed himself to it, he arrived at a wholly negative conclusion.
We live in an age when there never has been so much money spent on entertainment and the use of leisure. Motor bicycles, television, juke boxes, dance bands, cinemas, steamships, aeroplanes, compete together for an increasing share of the wages of full employment. But it is not always wisely spent. To what extent have the Government a part to play in all this? Have we a responsibility for the public taste? And, if so, how are we to discharge that responsibility? Can we act by prohibition if we disapprove of the lubricity of certain Sunday newspapers? If we do not like commercial television, we have argued to what extent we can substitute a public monopoly.
On one thing your Lordships have all so far been in agreement, and that is the vital rôle of education in the inculcation of the right standards. For there, at least, the Government have a responsibility which is both plain and undisputed. But I should also add the home. Of the home I can, of course, say virtually nothing this afternoon, and yet in talking about leisure and its use the home is surely the foundation without which nothing else is much avail. Good moral standards, good æsthetic taste, good conversation, good manners, a respect for books and works of art, for friendship and hobby, even for love and courtship, for philosophy and idleness—where are these things to be learned at their best save in the home, our own and other people's? For the home is the place where people are at their best and at their worst; and in the use of leisure the home is, of course, the critical battlefield between good and evil.
As noble Lords have said, however, of the home the school is the invaluable ally. If education is a preparation for life viewed as a whole, it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, as much

673
a preparation for leisure as a preparation for work. I therefore should feel bound to begin any account of Government action in this field by some account of what we are doing for leisure in some of our schools and technical colleges. For, strange as it may seem to the pupils, it is no coincidence that even our word for "school" is derived from the Greek word , which means nothing less than "leisure". More and more, staying on at school, even going to the university, is the characteristic of our time. By the time they leave, the new generation requires and in fact enjoys a higher type of sophistication and taste than any of the ages which have gone before. Whilst they are in full-time education it is vital, at least in my judgment, to emphasise that young people have, or at least ought to have—and I think that they do have—a finer opportunity for instruction and practice in the art of using leisure than anywhere else. Nowhere more than in education it is true that
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy";
and I hope, indeed, that we may have an opportunity in various debates which we shall be holding to give some more particulars of the way in which our schools are playing their part in education for the use of leisure.
This is also true of our technical colleges. The key place occupied now by scientists and technologists in modern life has made it imperative to try to increase their awareness of the economic and social implications of their studies, and a large and increasing number of experiments are going on. Subjects such as the history of science, economics and human relationships are finding their way into full-time and sandwich courses at all levels, from the Diploma in Technology downwards, and more and more of the larger colleges are appointing staff to teach liberal subjects and to develop, what is even more important, in many cases, extracurricular activities voluntarily organised.
Leaving, then, formal education, I come to approach once more the questions which I have posed from the factual point of view. To what extent can the Government play a part in these matters; and to what extent are they doing so and do they mean to do so? The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, was
674
quite right to refer to Lady Albemarle's Committee on the Youth Service. Thirteen months ago we had a debate on that. But so much has happened since then that there is a good deal that is new which can be said; and perhaps again we may have some opportunity of discussing it in greater detail. To-day the youth service comprises club and other facilities made available by local education authorities and voluntary organisations, both jointly and separately. It encourages many voluntary activities and such things as the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. About one million people between the ages of fifteen and twenty—and this is only one in three of the available public—use these facilities. Here, again, is a field for debate upon which I would say it is quite clear that recent events have shown that the Government are playing an increasing part; and the turn of the youth service has now come for considerable development and encouragement.
The Minister of Education has already announced that those parts of the Albemarle Committee's Report which are the subject for Government action have been immediately accepted, and he will as soon as possible be discussing with the local education authorities the part they should play; and he also desires me to lay great stress on the need for voluntary effort. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be carrying on parallel activities in the realm to which his Department extends.
Then, again, we must consider the question of adult education. This is a subject upon which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, already has a Motion down, and I am hoping to take part in that discussion in two weeks' time. To-day, therefore, I will only say that facilities for adult education offer great opportunities for the constructive use of leisure. These facilities are already expanding and changing to meet changing needs, both in the realm of liberal studies and in the realm of more practical courses.
The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, referred in detail to the Government's interest in and support for the arts or "the things of the mind" as he calls them; and these, of course, form a completely separate and specialised field of

675
leisure activity. My right honourable friends have always been acutely conscious of the importance of opportunities for the practice and appreciation of the various arts, and I think I may claim that, on the whole, they have been more sympathetic and helpful to the arts than any previous Government in the history of Parliament, in spite of the somewhat opprobrious terms in which their generosity was referred to by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I think we have to give the Labour Party credit for having produced £40 million for the preservation of artistic buildings in this country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I certainly was not going to indulge in any Party recriminations in this matter but the fact is that our present contribution to the arts is higher in absolute and in relative terms, even than the record to which the noble Viscount refers. I merely think that it was a little ungenerous of him to refer to this munificence as a "spavined nag". The truth is, as the noble Viscount does not seem to have appreciated, that the rôle of the Government in this field is not at all easy to establish. For them to try to direct artistic activity in the community would, as we believe, and as we think we know from other countries and other times, be largely to strangle it. At the same time, we recognise that to leave the arts to fend for themselves is an almost equally arid policy. What the Government have tried to do is to take the place, to some extent, of the best of the private patrons in the past, under whose encouragement and financial help many things of beauty have been created to the lasting benefit of all. Of course, this is not a field which is free from controversy. At the moment I would say—and it is for your Lordships to judge whether I be right—that our increased patronage of the arts is highly popular. But the whole process inevitably involves a delicate balance of judgment between the inclinations, on the one hand, of those taxpayers who would prefer to patronise the arts themselves with the money still in their own pockets and, on the other, those who feel that the State must help even more in this field with money which belongs to the taxpayer.
676
Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed a discussion in another place last Friday. I think this will necessarily shorten what I have to say on this subject. But I would remind your Lordships of one or two of the outstanding features. In the first place, the Arts Council is to receive next year an extra £300,000, bringing its total grant up to £1½ million. We understand that this will enable the Council to double its expenditure on drama, and that the greater share of this increase will go to provincial repertory theatre companies. Orchestras, opera, ballet, particularly in the provinces, and other Arts Council activities throughout the Kingdom will similarly benefit.
Next, Parliament will be invited to approve for national museums and galleries, excluding the science museums, an increase of £350,000, or 13 per cent., in 1960–61 over the current year. This excludes any special grants which have been or will be made towards the purchase of particular outstanding works of art beyond the capacity of the ordinary annual grants of the trustees concerned. Annual purchase grants for our national museums and galleries were increased last year from £125,000 to £335,000, and to ensure that the public galleries of the United Kingdom, and in particular the major national collections, should have their share of the few remaining important masterpieces, the Government have, as your Lordships will know, authorised nearly £200,000 in special grants in the last year or so. These grants have been supplemented by some particularly magnificent gifts, the most recent of which is that of Mr. Alexander Maitland, Q.C., to the National Gallery of Scotland.
Moreover, we have increased from £15,000 to £25,000 the amount which the Victoria and Albert Museum has available for giving assistance to provincial museums towards the cost of approved acquisitions. Only two years ago this figure was only £2,000, and when one considers that, in addition to this twelve-fold increase over two years, the Government have recently offered Liverpool Corporation a special grant of £25,000 to enable them to make a bid for the important painting by Rubens which would otherwise have gone out of the country, I should have thought that,

677
on the whole, the record was one to be proud of.
Of course, the initiative in these matters does not rest only with the Government; local authorities have wide powers under the Local Government Act, 1948, to provide, or contribute to, various types of cultural entertainment. These powers have, for instance, enabled local authorities to assist the Hallé Orchestra, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, the City of Birmingham Orchestra, the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, the London Philharmonic and the Scottish National Orchestra, all of which have received contributions from local authorities.
Then there is the whole question of libraries. This again is a field in which the Government have played a part. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ohorley, will be interested to hear that provision has now been made to keep the Reading Room of the British Museum open a little later on two evenings of the week for most of the year 1960–61. Of course, public libraries generally contribute greatly to the constructive use of leisure. To quote figures, in 1957–58 libraries in England and Wales had some 13 million registered readers and made about 392 million issues of books. That cost the rates about £15 million. Libraries in Scotland, in addition, made about 35½ million issues and cost about £1½ million. The part of public libraries in local government has been so important that, two years ago, when I was Minister of Education, we appointed a Committee to report on public libraries, and it has now reported. The Government have now accepted the need for legislation and are about to begin discussions with the interests concerned.
Again, we have to consider the provision for sport. In a sense we flatter ourselves that it is little short of a national passion in this country. Watching or reading about sport certainly takes up more of most people's leisure activity than almost any other single item. But there is a danger that we may become a nation of sports viewers, instead of a nation of sports players. Far too few young people continue their active participation in games after they leave school, and the ending of National Service for boys makes it even more necessary that games and other physical activities should be encouraged during
678
the immediate post-school years. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that sport is one of the matters which must clearly be a matter for Government activity, although it is even more a matter for private spending and voluntary organisations. In fact it is so. The provision of playing fields and swimming baths is one which comes within the purview, not only of the Minister of Education, but also, under a variety of powers of various local authorities, of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Ministry of Education also makes annual grants towards the salaries and clerical expenses of professional coaches employed. The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, suggested the appointment of a wide Committee to deal with the whole. I would say that we have, in fact, been conducting, in one way or another, a thoroughgoing series of inquiries into the various departments of the use of leisure, and I certainly would hope that this would continue.
In the field of sport, to which I was adverting a moment ago, which is a limited field, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, in 1957 appointed a committee—which was, of course, a private committee, and not a Government committee—under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden, to examine the factors affecting the development of games, sports and outdoor activities, and to make recommendations to the Council as to the practical measures which could be taken both by the statutory and by the voluntary bodies. I understand that the committee's Report is expected in a few months.
It would, of course, be fair to the local authorities to say that their activities in this field have been hampered, and still are to some extent, by the restriction on capital expenditure. They certainly have not, I think, been hampered by lack of willingness to discharge the duties placed upon them by Parliament. Even so, the total capital expenditure on these services by local authorities since the war is of the order of £35 million, and now capital expenditure is running at something like £6¼ million a year. This is in addition to the voluntary expenditure of such bodies as the National Playing Fields Association, the work of the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the sports provision of

679
the educational building programme, and of the many national and voluntary organisations concerned with sport and other activities.
I think this survey of the field shows conclusively that, however difficult it may be to formulate in terms of a free society the rôle which Governments should play in prescribing taste or in aiding the free exercise by the individual of his choice between the various ways in which he can spend his leisure, both sides of the House and all political Parties in the country are aware that there is work for the Government to do, work which is probably best done by Government and which can be done without undermining but, rather, by encouraging the use by the individual of the free faculties which he has been given. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, closed his speech on a note of something like pessimism, I thought. The result of too much leisure, he believed, was in some other countries a mixture it seemed of suicide and promiscuity. I am not sure that this is correct. The fact of the matter is that, of the various doctrines of the Church which we must believe by faith, original sin is one of those which can be proved empirically and a posteriori. Man is a strange amalgam of carbon atoms and discarnate sensibilities, and one never knows which one is going to see, the countenance of the ape or the expressed image of the Creator. But I would say that it is a great mistake to view the developments of the modern world and to think of them either as materialistic or as dull. On the contrary, we are living in an exciting age of opportunity, and I hope that this afternoon's debate may show exactly how full of opportunity and excitement that age is.
4.2 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that we all owe the most sincere thanks to my noble relative, Lord Arran, for tabling a Motion which is so thought-provoking in character and which has already, I think, produced so attractive a debate. I must confess that when I first read the terms of his Motion my first reaction was to wonder what exactly he had in mind. Had he any definite proposals to put forward for utilising the increasing leisure which he anticipated would be at the disposal of
680
the ordinary man in the years ahead? Or did he, as I rather gather he does, merely want to ventilate a subject which he felt sure was likely to become of steadily increasing importance in a world where, more and more, at any rate in the sphere of production, the machine is taking the place of man. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I gathered from what he said, thinks there is not going to be much, if any, more leisure for any of us as a result of automation. He may very well be right in that rather sad view. But personally I cannot help thinking that, sooner or later, the greater mechanisation of life is going to mean less work for the individual man, and I felt, therefore, with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that we must be prepared even now to be thinking, so as to be ready to meet that challenge when it comes.
But that thought led me on, like no doubt other noble Lords, to a further and more fundamental thought. What exactly do we mean by leisure? It is a word we use constantly rather loosely. We talk of the value of leisure; we talk of the need for leisure; we talk of the leisured classes and so on. But how do we define the word? I tried and I found I could not do it. Therefore, eventually, as so often when I am puzzled, I went to that mine of information and wisdom, the New Oxford Dictionary, and there I made what was to me an extremely interesting discovery. The oldest meaning of this word—and it is a very old word, dating back at any rate to the fourteenth century—was not negative at all, as it has tended to become since. It is not what might be called a "lolling" word; it is a severely positive, even austere word. It meant originally, to quote the words of the Dictionary:
"Freedom or opportunity to do something specified or implied".
And that meaning of opportunity to do yet more is further brought out by the second definition which appears in the Dictionary:
"In the narrower sense, opportunity"—
that word is again stressed—
"afforded by freedom from occupations".
And, indeed, it appears that it is only comparatively lately that it has come to

681
have a less austere meaning. This is my last quotation from the Dictionary:
"The state of having time at one's disposal: time which one can spend as one pleases: free or unoccupied time."
There, for the first time, there seems to appear what may be called the dolce far niente conception of leisure.
I hope your Lordships will not regard all that I have said as too academic and even pedantic. It is, I think, of more practical importance than might at first appear. For, first of all, it underlines the idea that leisure, when properly used, is something essentially good, in that it should enable a man, as it were, to cram something more, new experiences, new knowledge, new enjoyments, into his life. And secondly it implies that that something more, which leisure should give a man—that something which leisure should add to his life—ought to be something (and here I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said) involving some personal creative activity of his own. I am sure that that is an important point about leisure. And it is especially important because, with the increased mechanisation of life, the fear that is most generally expressed nowadays, the danger which is most generally anticipated—it is the danger I think anticipated in Lord Arran's own speech—is that our leisure is going to be increasingly taken up by doing less and less ourselves and relying more and more on the activities, both physical and intellectual, of others to give us recreation and enjoyment: and as a result all our brains are going to atrophy.
In older days, even not so very long ago, before the latest inventions of science, men and women were inevitably thrown much more on their own resources than they are nowadays. If one wanted to enjoy a particular masterpiece of music, one either had to play it oneself or get a friend to play it or go to a concert hall, and that, to many people, was either too distant or too expensive for them to attend. Now one has only to make the comparatively simple effort of switching on the gramophone or radio to hear an authentic interpretation of that masterpiece of music by the greatest performers of the day. Or, to go back again to earlier years, if one wanted to keep alive in one's mind the memory of some scene or building
682
which one regarded as particularly striking or beautiful, one probably had either to paint it or draw it oneself, well or ill. Most of our family homes are full of such pictures; most of them extremely badly done. But now all one has to do is press the button of a camera to have the thing reproduced in its natural colours, send it to be developed and so record it for one's permanent enjoyment. The machine does all the work for one. I may be told that such things are at present only for the rich. That may be so now; but very soon no doubt these things will be for all.
And what about television, which has already been mentioned, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and which is already, if I may say so, a luxury rather of the poorer than of the richer sections of the community? That requires even less effort than those other new adjuncts of life to which I have just referred. All the owner of a television set needs to do is to switch the thing on, and then he can sit, if he wishes, hour after hour, making no effort or movement of any kind, hardly even thinking if he does not want to, just receiving on his retina what appears on the screen in front of him. It may be the Derby, it may be a League football match, it may be the Opening of Parliament, it may be a discussion between some of the most distinguished and brilliant men of the day. He need never move from his armchair; all these things are handed to him, as it were, on a plate. Hundreds of thousands of people already occupy much or all of their leisured time in that particular way.
I am not criticising television. I am, like Lord Silkin, not a viewer myself; but I know very well the pleasure that it gives, and, what is more, that it has transformed the lives of countless people, especially those who are old and infirm. I merely point out that, in the view of many—I rather gather that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is one of them—there is a real danger that the result of all these wonderful inventions that have come within his lifetime may be that a great part of the population of this country, in a very few years, will be required to make practically no effort of their own, physical or mental, to occupy their increasing leisure hours, and will become, as it were, merely receiving sets, watching passively and indolently the posturings

683
of small, immensely active groups of their fellow citizens who will exist solely for the purpose of keeping them amused. If that were to be the only future before modern civilisation, I hardly feel that it would be very desirable.
On the other hand, it is equally possible to take, as I personally on the whole do, a far more cheerful view of the future. Indeed, I believe there are already indications that point in a quite different and more encouraging direction. Take one, for instance. I think there is little doubt—I would say, in parenthesis, that the main credit for this must, I think, go to the B.B.C. for the high standard that it has always maintained in matters of the humanities—that to-day the ordinary man and woman in this country has a far greater appreciation of beauty and the arts generally than ever before in its history. The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, was really too pessimistic about that. I know that his own personal standard is extremely high, but I would tell him, if he were here, that not long ago a most distinguished foreigner said to me—and he was one who ought to know—that he regarded Britain to-day as the most musical nation in the world. That really is something to cheer up the noble Viscount, and indeed all of us. It is a compliment, I imagine, that could not have been paid to us with any truth since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I; and one must hope that this appreciation of beauty will ultimately blossom into a desire to create, and will lead, at any rate to some extent, to a new renaissance of the arts, and that that urge to create will, in the long run, more than counteract those less desirable results of our age of scientific discovery, to which I referred earlier.
It is, surely, to this re-stimulation of the creative urge that our educational system should, as one of its main aims, be directed. Anything that broadens the mind and gives us an appreciation of things we have not hitherto understood must be to the good. Travel, for instance, which has not been mentioned to-day—and yet a great many people nowadays can, to some extent at any rate, afford to travel somewhere—is a very good instance of this. Quite apart from anything else, it makes people appreciate that their own country is, on
684
the whole, the best country in the world to live in, when they see what other people have to put up with. I feel, therefore, that we should stimulate the desire for travel in any way that we can. Then there is reading. I imagine that the more people who read, the better. After all, if not actually creative, reading is certainly a main aid to creative thought. We are constantly stimulated to read by those extremely high-spirited discussions between literary experts which are transmitted to us weekly on the television and radio. That is all to the good.
But, on the other side it is a great pity that books have become so terribly expensive. I do not know whether anything could be done about that. I do not know whether there could be discussions between the Ministry of Education and the book trade to encourage the production of more cheap editions, not only of good books but of new books. If that could be done, I am sure it would be a most admirable thing. The binding and the paper need not be at all of high quality; after all, it is the contents that matter. In that connection I was delighted to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said about the assistance which the Government hopes to be able to give to public libraries. Then there is gardening, which I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Nowadays a great many people have gardens, and I am sure they are a perpetual delight to those who have acquired a love of gardening and a love of flowers. I personally am always amazed, as I drive through the outer parts of London in the summer, to see the wonderful quality of gardens one passes and, what is more, the evident passionate interest which is shown in those gardens by their owners. That, I am sure, is another thing we should encourage.
My Lords, those are only one or two of the ways in which we can try to broaden the interests of our fellow citizens and give them new occupations for their leisure. Whether, whatever we do, things will turn out exactly as we intend, I do not know. One can only hope for the best and do what one can to jog them along in the right direction.
I remember many years ago, when I was an undergraduate at Oxford, that

685
I was a member of a political club, and a most distinguished statesman came down to speak to us. When he had finished his talk and the time came for questions, an enthusiastic undergraduate got up and asked him, "What, sir, in your view, is the cure for unemployment?" After some perceptible pause for thought, the great man replied, "Well, I don't rightly know, but I expect it will work itself out somehow." I thought at the time, and I think now, that that was not only an extremely courageous but, on the whole, a very sensible answer. And it is, I expect, also the right answer to the question: what ought to be done about the future of leisure? It will probably work itself out somehow.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has told us many things that the Government are doing to train our people, especially young people—who, I agree, are much the most important—how to deal with their leisure and to encourage the arts, and they are clearly doing a great deal. But I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in what he said today: that there can be no really standardised solution to a problem of this kind. For no two men or women are alike, and therefore no two people need exactly the same treatment. It will have to work itself out. But what is certain, I think, is that whatever encourages men and women to broaden their minds, to develop their own personalities, to think for themselves and to take their own line, is likely in the long term to be to the advantage both of themselves and of their country: and it is for that, if I may suggest it diffidently, that Governments and all those who are connected with this subject—the education authorities, the Churches, the trade unions and all those others whom the noble Earl mentioned—must work in the years that lie ahead.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, when, a few days ago, the noble Lord who has so charmingly introduced this Motion spoke to me about it, and went on to suggest that I ought to say something on it, I felt very doubtful. I regard myself as a person without any leisure at all, always desperately busy, and I thought I did not know anything about leisure. But as the noble Earl urged me
686
to find something to say I thought that the best thing for me to do was to make some research by asking a few questions of some of my friends.
Living as I do in an academic city, my first inquiry, naturally, was addressed to a professor. He had no difficulty at all in telling me what he thought was the main problem of leisure. It was, he said, to discover how to prevent others from using up one's leisure against one's wishes. I told him, "You have set me the problem; what is your solution". He said, "I am not going to give you the solution." Professors never do. Their business is to set the problems and leave one to find the solution. So I thought that the best course was to go to some other people, and I went in turn to the manager of a bank, to a stationmaster, to a young married woman with two small children, to the driver of a hire car driving in London and to the secretary of a social club. All gave me something interesting and relevant to the present subject. They did much better than the professor—but then most people always do.
The manager of the hank said, "I am going to be much busier than ever before." I do not know if he was thinking of my overdraft—he did not say so; but clearly he contemplated that in the new world he would have less leisure than before. The stationmaster really said the same thing: "I work seven days a week while every single factory in the town in which I live has a five-day week." I want to suggest that that was a very significant remark. It is the fact that there is leisure, and growing leisure, in industry, and also that leisure is unequally distributed. My stationmaster friend went on to say, "I do not complain at all about that. Before I went on to the railways I realised the kind of life I should have, and that I should never have any real freedom at all from the job." He was not complaining. But your Lordships will see he confirmed the point that I am going to try to make most strongly; that there will be more leisure and that it will be most unequally distributed.
Next I came to the young married woman with small children—and we all know the position of that kind of young woman. She is never off the job, although every now and again the

687
children go to sleep, so that if she is capable of reading she can, perhaps, read a book in the intervals. Then I came to what was, to me, one of the most illuminating answers, the one I got from the driver of the hire car who was driving me two days ago. He expressed great anger at the demand of the railway clerical staff for a 38-hour week. His own view was that most of them would seize the opportunity to go and make some extra money by doing other odd jobs and probably put somebody else out of a job. His own view was that they would all get more money by overtime rates. I will not say whether he was right or wrong about what they wanted, but obviously that is a possibility with this continual shortening of hours in organised industry.
Next I came to the secretary of the social club, who gave me what was in some ways the most surprising answer of all—surprising because it dealt with women; and nobody can foretell what any woman will do. I mean that no man can, though every woman can, of course. He said that in his job he was continually having to employ charwomen to keep the club clean and tidy, and he told me, "The more I pay them, the less they want to work. If I want to shorten their hours I put up their pay, and if I put up their pay they say. 'I have enough money now. I will do less work'." I do not know whether that is a common experience.
I think I have told your Lordships enough to show that nobody can quite tell how this growing change that is coming over this country, the greater facilities for leisure, is going to affect the actions of the people. I draw from my researches two main conclusions: one that, in total, there will be more leisure; the second that the leisure will be very unequally distributed. This leisure is coming about as the result of the revolution brought about by full employment. We all know that full employment has brought prosperity, but we all know, too, if we face facts at all, that prosperity is very unequally distributed. Whilst some of the people in this country are much better off than they ever were before, and some have more money than they know how to spend, others, particularly old people, under inflation are in bitter want and
688
need. It is a very unequal revolution in its working among human beings. I am not going to dwell upon that to-day, for it is a different subject; but in just the same way the leisure—and I believe that it is going to be more rather than less—is going to be very unequally distributed. We have to pay attention to how we can do justice. Perhaps those who have to work six or seven days a week might have a longer holiday, or something could be done in other ways to adjust the injustice.
Of course, leisure in the past was unequally distributed. We used to have what we called a "leisured class" of landowners and the like. To-day I should say that the leisured class, on the whole, is going to be those whom we used to call the "working class". I hope that we shall be able to call them the leisured class, and I shall not do so as any term of criticism, for I do not so regard it. It is not a term of abuse: it means people with time to spare. What we have to do with them is to cause them to be determined to spend their time in things that are worth while; not in gambling on pools, not impassively seeing or bearing things, whether on television or otherwise, but in doing things, reading, travelling, gardening or—a new occupation to which a friend of mine (not one of those I have mentioned) introduced me the other day—the occupation of dowsing, a very interesting occupation which people undertake, looking for water—that is, if they still want water—or the education of children and so on.
We have to look forward to more but unequally distributed leisure, spare time that has to be filled in. I want to urge—and I am sure everyone would really agree—that, for happiness, leisure must be used in doing things, not for pay, but for their own sake and to a large extent. I believe, in doing things for others. On this, I agree of course entirely with what has been said by the noble Viscount who spoke from the Government Front Bench: the Government can, and should, help greatly in education. But I hope he will allow me to go on to say that the real thing that has to be done, not by the Government, is to get into the minds of all the people of this country the idea of using leisure well. We want to form the right public opinion; and the right public opinion for

689
Britain's happiness, when we do not have a job that we must do and can choose, is that happiness is doing something, not wanting things.
4.31 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to add to those of others my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for introducing this Motion, and also, if I may say so, for the felicitous manner of its introduction. I have heard the noble Earl speak on a number of occasions and he appears to me to be one of those fortunate speakers who always deal with their subject on a high plane and in the most elevated language. It may well be that for that reason I do not always understand all his words on first hearing and profit by reading them again afterwards. Although I may not understand all the words, I certainly like the music very much. That is somewhat different from the case of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, whose words are always so entertaining that one never knows whether there is a tune or not.
I felt, however, that the noble Earl struck one false note when he referred to the trade unions and the part they can play. Of course I agree that they can play a very important, and increasing, part in the work of helping people to appreciate leisure and to have the facilities for that appreciation. But we must not ignore the very considerable part they are playing already. Many trade unions have quite extensive, and expensive, education and training schemes within the union. Then, of course, they contribute considerably to the Workers' Educational Association, and to the National Council of Labour Colleges; and any trade unionist who is one of their members can have courses such as those bodies provide entirely free. Indeed, the difficulty is not so much in the provision of the courses; it is in the fact that individual trade unionists do not, unfortunately, support them in anything like the numbers they should. I think that that in itself is part of the malaise which I believe afflicts society to-day. On that point, my noble friend Lord Lawson was telling me just now that a man over 70 years of age, a prominent trade unionist, is now at Durham University and is in the final stages of achieving his degree, which is an example of somebody who has learnt to appreciate leisure after retirement.
690
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, when he says that leisure is not a matter for Governments; and certainly in the sense of compulsion and direction it is not a matter for Government, because, if it were, it would no longer be leisure; it would be work. I was struck by the number of extremely valuable suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Silkin. There was one point which he mentioned, the question of hobbies, which is, of course, very important. Young people, in particular, have many different hobbies until they alight on one which is, as it were, their hobby or interest for life, and there can be no possible measure of compulsion there. I like the story I was told this afternoon, about a headmaster who was very keen on hobbies for his pupils and he insisted that they all had a hobby. When Her Majesty's inspector visited the school he was most impressed to find that every boy had a hobby and how interested they were, until he was going out and he saw a boy working in the garden who did not seem quite so cheerful as the rest. He asked the boy, "What are you doing?" and the boy replied, "This, sir, is my hobby—and I hate it." That illustrates how compulsion can turn something which ought to be desirable into something which is detestable; and that is one of the reasons why Governments cannot possibly, as it were, promote leisure. But I think it is the duty of Governments to help to provide the facilities for the enjoyment of leisure, and there is there a very big distinction.
I feel that it is quite in the tradition of your Lordships' House that we, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, have far less leisure than most, should this afternoon be debating the question of increased leisure for others ten years hence, especially as, in my view, those who will benefit most from any practical steps that spring from our deliberations will take no more notice of what we say (and I am referring to young people) than if we were goldfish swimming around in a bowl. In fact, if we were, they might take a little more notice, because a talking goldfish might raise even a teenage eyebrow. But everyone has agreed on the vital rôle of education; and I, too, would agree. It seems to me that young people are really appallingly indifferent to the opportunities around them for education.

691
That indifference of so many young people to what is happening in the world was demonstrated on Monday night in a T.V. programme "Searchlight on Oxford". Although that happened to be "Searchlight on Oxford", I am willing to accept from anyone who went to Oxford that it would, or might, equally well apply to any other university. But I saw the programme, and five undergraduates, of both sexes, were asked simple questions which, as the interviewer said, could have been answered, or should have been answered, by anyone of any age who read a single newspaper a day—such questions as, "What was the recent increase in railwaymen's wages?"; "In which country is Dr. Banda imprisoned?" Now, they had not any idea at all; not one of them could answer those questions. And, most astonishing of all, not one of them had the faintest idea what he wanted to do when he came down from Oxford. In fact, the very intelligent undergraduate who was editor of Cherwell said that, so far as he knew, he was one of the very few who knew what he was going to do. If that is so, then here we have 8,700 of the nation's brightest and best without a clue. There was one girl I heard, a girl brimful of intelligence and charm, who said, "It's quite enough to think about to-morrow". And that is the keynote.
This is important, because most of us who are adult or middle-aged or elderly are fairly set in our habits so far as leisure is concerned, and if we are going to share the future at all, or assist in the sharing of the future, then it is in connection with the enjoyment of increased leisure, if it is going to be enjoyed, by the young people. I say that because to-day's 15 and 20-year-olds will in ten years' time be mothers and fathers. What a prospect for them and for the nation!—unless meanwhile they can be helped to find themselves.
They have lived their whole lives in a world which believes in the need to maintain, as a deterrent, the power of utter destruction. Their minds are not only conditioned, therefore, to the idea of violence but to uncertainty about the future, and not unnaturally they live for the satisfaction of the moment. They reach physical maturity at an earlier age than their parents; they are more
692
prosperous and have experienced almost none of the material hardships which used to form the normal pattern of life. Consequently, although older in appearance, they are much younger inside than we were at the same age. If they are ever to learn the proper use of leisure, we have first to provide a framework in which they can find their place within, and not apart from, society; to provide facilities for the activities which appeal to them and through which they can express themselves.
My Lords, the trouble is that two out of every three young persons, teenagers, to-day will have nothing whatever to do with the normal youth clubs or organisations. Though, of course, they still need improved facilities for education, for further education and for adult education, it is not so much a question of those facilities: it is a question of using them in sufficiently large numbers and in sufficiently large proportions. They just will not have anything to do with the normal organisations; indeed, anything which bears an official stamp is by definition doomed to failure.
The lack of the facilities acceptable to these young people is, for obvious reasons, particularly acute in the new towns. For example, I have here an extract from an article which appeared recently in the Harlow Gazette (Harlow is a new town near London) under the headline, "Harlow's bored teenagers are future menace".
This is what it says:
"Harlow is sitting on a gunpowder keg—its teenage problem—and the fuse is already lit. Already, 40 per cent. of the town's population is under fifteen, and the figure is rising".
Imagine, my Lords: two out of every five of the town's entire population is under fifteen!
"Harlow's children are growing. It is now a familiar sight to see groups of teenagers aimlessly roaming the streets. They are bored and frustrated and don't care for the youth centres supposed to cater for them. Juvenile crime is increasing. At the Juvenile Court, the Magistrates are dealing with crimes of theft, violence and indecency. It pales the adult court, with its long lists of motoring offences, into insignificance. What do these boys and girls want? They want something to do, somewhere to go, where they will not be preached at, where they will not be treated as children. There are many people and organisations in Harlow working for youth, but they work for a section of youth which appreciates and needs them. They ignore the section which needs them and does not appreciate them."

693
That is taken from the local newspaper of that town.
My Lords, that section which does not appreciate the ordinary youth organisations which we in our youth did so much appreciate is much the larger section. Very properly, in my view, they will not be coerced or driven, and if they can see the leader they will not be led. They are not unclubbable: they just do not like the usual sort of club. But they do respond overwhelmingly when afforded facilities for occupying their leisure in a manner congenial and attractive to them.
The Nuffield Foundation is very conscious of this need and in an attempt to meet it they provided the initial finance for the formation of a non-profit-making company called "Youth Ventures," of which I am chairman and of which my noble friend Lord Pakenham and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, are directors. We have a somewhat curious combination on this board, because other directors include such prominent figures in the world of sport and entertainment as Stirling Moss; Tommy Steele; Miss Sheila Van Damm, who runs the "Windmill"; and Mr. Butlin, who runs the holiday camps to which the noble Earl made a reference somewhat earlier—although I imagine that people who go voluntarily to such places, and who shout "Yes" when they are asked if they are happy, do so in a somewhat different frame of mind from that of the people whose home team is three goals down and answer "No" when asked if they are downhearted.
In this organisation we intend, throughout the country, wherever the need exists—and, as our despairing correspondence shows, it exists everywhere—to open premises to provide, on commercial lines and charging commercial prices, a combination of coffee bar, club and small dance hall. The front portion would be the normal coffee bar, with a juke box and record players, beloved of the nation's youth. At the rear there will be a dance hall, with a stage at one end. Music would normally be provided by a record player, which again would provide opportunity for the members to play their own records. The stage could be used for amateur dance groups or other instrumentalists, or dramatic entertainments, again provided by the members themselves. We also intend
694
to provide a gymnasium, and rooms for other activities. Each establishment will be in the charge of a permanent, paid staff—men and women with a special interest in, and a liking for, young people. The bar will be open seven days a week, serving light refreshments, tea, coffee and minerals; and the ball will be open every evening from six o'clock.
Apart from the resident staff, and within certain defined limits, the "Venture" will be run by the members themselves, in order to provide that measure of independence and "do-it-yourself" which is so essential for success. Each "Venture" will start its own club, with a nominal membership subscription. The club, which will elect its own officers, will be responsible for the programme of activities, and for ensuring the observance of its own rules and conduct. We do not wish to make these hard and fast, because there is need for variety to meet local conditions. For example, membership would normally be restricted to the ages of 15 to 25, but this could be varied if the majority of members wanted it otherwise. Of course, one rule basic to all of them would be that membership would be open to all, irrespective of sex, colour, creed or social class. We have no wish to make a profit, although we should charge commercial prices. The organisation as a whole is non-profit-making, and ranks as a charitable organisation, but we must make each "Venture" pay its way, because it is only in this way that we can get that "spread" throughout the country which is so badly needed.
Moreover, it is essential, in our view, that young people should pay for what they have—and, indeed, they are able and willing to do so if it is what they want and, of course, in their view worth paying for. But, my Lords, they will not go to disused church halls, converted air-raid shelters or cow byres. It may seem extraordinary to suggest that a youth centre should be in a converted cow byre, but only a few weeks ago I had a desperate call from Newton Aycliffe, a new town in the North, begging for a contribution of furniture for a converted cow byre. They said that they had had £50 from the local authority. Young people to-day just will not support those things, particularly with their own money.

695
We feel that if this organisation is prepared, as it is, to run these "Ventures" without any cost to the local authority, in staff or otherwise, those local authorities should provide the premises on lease at a reduced rent. In this way, available public funds would do twenty times the work that would be possible if such centres had to be provided and staffed by the local authority. Your Lordships may ask: why do the local authorities not run the places themselves? My answer is: there is no reason at all. I hope they will; but they would suffer one serious handicap. It would be official, and, therefore, would be suspect to many of the youngsters in greatest need. We shall be able to avoid this. For example, it would be a dismal failure if I or any other "square" of my age and generation were to be a prime mover in opening any of these "Ventures"; but we shall entrust that task to other members of our Council, such as Tommy Steele, Stirling Moss or one of the others—all of whom are willing to give all possible practical help and will bring in other teenage "idols" to provide the initial advertising and give the necessary cachet of what I call "roundness", as distinct from being "a square". Then, of course, we shall be able to use the exceptional knowledge in catering matters of Mr. Butlin.
We have no desire to compete with, or in any way belittle, the great work done by orthodox boys' and girls' clubs and youth organisations. They have, and always will have, their place. We exist to meet a comparatively new but very great and very pressing need. Our purpose will not have been achieved when young people come into the "Venture" for jive and a coco-cola. The real purpose only begins then, but it cannot begin until they do come in. People can preach at youth so long as they like, and tell them what they ought to do; but unless youth are there to hear them, all our words are useless, are wasted on empty air. They have to come in first. and the only way to bring young people in is to say to them that they can do what they want to do and not what we want them to do.
I believe that the youth of to-day have the same stuff in them as the youth of yesterday, and that once they are "in",
696
it will begin to show. But for most teenagers, it is better that they demand facilities for using their minds as well as their muscles; and when they ask for such help, we will provide it. I have deliberately refrained from mentioning the Albemarle Report, because we hope to have a full debate on it on my noble friend's Motion. But I want to put two specific questions to the Government regarding their attitude to assistance for voluntary organisations. We know that, until now, assistance from central funds has been grotesquely inadequate—one penny in the pound out of the total spent on education. Now there is to be an additional £3 million over the next two years, mainly to local authorities for buildings.
I know the procedure in respect to the ordinary boys' club. One, with which I am connected, has just been promised a grant from the Ministry of Education of some £5,000 towards the £30,000 cost of new premises. What would be the position of a non profit-making company, such as the one I have mentioned, which ranks as a charitable organisation? Should we deal with the local authority or can the Ministry assist us from central funds? Another difficulty arises from the need for speedy decisions when suitable premises are available. I am going to Leicester on Saturday to see the Director of Education and perhaps make a decision regarding premises which have been favourably reported, but I understand that grants can be given only against schemes not yet started. If we buy these premises, we shall not be eligible for grant. If we wait for grant, we shall lose the premises. Is there some way of getting over this difficulty? In our view it is better and cheaper to take over and, if necessary, convert suitable premises, than to wait two or three years for them to be built. The need is there now and the need is nation-wide.
Five million young people with time on their hands ask for something to do, not quite knowing what they want to do, but certain that it is not what most adults think they ought to be doing. Money is needed, certainly, but in my view by far the greatest need is understanding, imagination and enthusiasm. I hope that we shall be told to-night that in spending the little money which has been promised, the Government intend to use to

697
the full all the enthusiasm and imagination they can rekindle and inspire in the voluntary organisations. I hope that this debate will help in achieving that objective.
4.54 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I hope the fact that there is only one speaker from the Bishops' Benches—and, I might add, a very inadequate one for this purpose—does not argue arty failure to recognise the importance, as well as the interest, of this Motion which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has propounded to us. At the beginning, he said that he was taking us for a walk ten years into the future. Other noble Lords suggested that that future was an uncertain one: that, in fact, it was a matter of solvitur ambulando. There is an uncertainty, and I think that it would be a pity if, in any sense, this debate ranged round the question of how much leisure would be obtainable in ten years' time than there is now. There is more leisure to-day than there was for the majority of people a generation ago, and there is the problem—the very interesting problem—of how this leisure should be spent. If we have not yet reached the leisure of a 4-day week, many people do enjoy a 5-day week, which brings them the leisure to perform the duties which I should like to propound to them.
This leisure has to be spent in an age in which, whatever else is happening, we are becoming more mechanised, when there is a process at work which, on the whole, makes less and less physical demand upon us, and in which certainly we are not going to become less urban than we are, less surrounded by the conventional setting of bricks and mortar and streets, and perhaps not less sedentary in our occupations. In view of that, I welcome what the noble Viscount said in his reference to the realm of physical activity. And in view of the high cultural level at which so much of this debate has been, it seems as if I might almost apologise, as a Bishop, in propounding this as a first priority. I cannot resist doing so, for physical activities in their many varied forms will surely be recognised as not only enjoyable and health-giving in themselves but as conducive to real and valuable qualities of character. Battlefields and playing fields may not really be associated together on all occasions,
698
but at least we should all acknowledge that there are some benefits in sport and physical activity over and above their actual immediate effects. Here is one fact which we must admit and which no doubt will be referred to later in the debate which has reference to the Albemarle Report.
There is such a wide gap between what is available through the educational system of the country proper and what is acceptable to those same boys and girls or young people afterwards. It has been reckoned by the Council for Physical Recreation that only one-quarter of the boys and girls who passed from school to working life in 1958 will now be taking any part in regular physical activity. If that is so, no doubt it is partly through lack of facility, but only partly so: lack surely also of example and encouragement, for they will be going into a community which does not itself take a very active part in physical things. They encounter that immense paradox, already referred to, of a nation devoted in its interests to sports, a nation whose newspapers at least would suggest from the very start that this is one of the primary considerations of human life, yet in which relatively few people have any real participating share.
Of course, we must be thinking not of these young people coming from schools only in that setting, for after all, youth is not so separated from its elders. It will take its cue from them in many ways. In an age when a greater range of sport and recreation is possible, in an age, too, when perhaps health and vigour remains with us longer than it did before, we can acclaim the fact that there is an increased interest in sport and in those wider varieties of sport in which in recent years (as the Albemarle Report comments), apart from athletics and team games, there has been a great development—such as climbing, hockey, riding and canoeing—which perhaps used to be the monopoly of a few people. We should all welcome a proper extension in these varied fields to a far wider public.
The question is: how much public community encouragement is needed for that to take place? It has to be recognised that many of these activities are expensive in their equipment and preparation. They can be made

699
possible only by a considerable community action, otherwise they do not remain free for all or even for a large percentage of the community. Moreover, they need more than material provision; they need coaching, training and encouragement. It is easy to say that keen people will find their way into physical recreation anywhere: boys will pick up a bat or a football in almost any conditions. I think the games that have been fostered in back streets and on the slagheaps of our industrial towns will be for all time a triumph of man over his environment. But, on the whole, human nature is sufficiently lazy not to pursue anything to the point of real, deep enjoyment or excellence unless the facilities for it are made easily accessible. Many will not make a start: many will not persevere, to any extent, unless they have been coached or trained. It is not enough to provide the water or to take the horse to it if he is to drink. Surely nothing but a much greater provision of public facilities in this field will develop what we must all want—namely, a healthy, active people in an age when the more passive and receptive forms of amusement are so rife.
Reference has been made by the Government speaker to a report that is expected soon from the Central Council of Physical Recreation. It comes under a good name; it comes after a survey; it comes of the present condition of sporting facilties throughout the country, and it will speak with a great weight of expert knowledge. I am sure we all hope that the Government will receive that report, when it comes, with sympathetic attention, and listen to its recommendations.
There must inevitably be a great deal of repetition in a debate of this kind, for my share of which I hope your Lordships will grant me indulgence. There is one field which I was glad to hear touched upon this afternoon and which has been almost entirely absent, for instance, from those attractive surveys which have come out under the political Parties dealing with this age of leisure for living and its challenge to us. Perhaps those publications, comprehensive in themselves, raise largely the query: how far do the producers desire or intend to implement them with full public backing? I noted that there was only
700
one small reference, and that a rather grudging one, to what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred to earlier—namely, the question of books. To those who have come to find their value, that is surely one of the most precious and enduring expenditures of leisure one can find. It should be one of the greatest legacies which education at school can give to a child: that he or she should go away with some beginnings of an appreciation of what is locked up in the realms of gold through which they can travel in the book world. It would no doubt need some pressure to begin, but it is something which is an activity. It is not a passive amusement, but something which you can carry with increasing vigour and interest into later years, and will always provide much food for the mind and much stimulus to the imagination.
We would say that to-day this country is almost a literate country. Yet we are also asking ourselves: what are the uses of that literacy to which we are submitting ourselves at the present time? The libraries of schools are a very heartening sight: they are not always full of books or of people, but they are full of promise. Yet to move out from them into the world outside is to move out into a world where reading is on a very sad and elementary level. The Crowther Report says that over half the secondary modern school boys and girls have belonged to a public library during their school years, but only 16 per cent. of them still belonged two years after leaving school. No doubt there are many reasons for that. It may be that we blame television too hardly. The Nuffield Foundation, to which reference was made earlier, has promoted some researches into the effect of television on boys and girls and their reading which are, on the whole, rather encouraging. It is true to say that the researchers felt that, on certain specialised areas of study, at first to the young viewer reading receded into the background for a time, but for most of them this balance was righted later; and there were many instances where the right kind of television programme stimulated a healthier appetite in better reading. We may even sometimes have to come to Hamlet by way of the play or film; but still, we may come that way.

701
But not all television or reading which can Abe submitted to them is an ally to this, what should be, growing use of leisure with which they are to some extent equipped when they begin. A great deal, for instance, of magazines for the young men and women in their 'teens breeds a view of life and a habit of reading which would be disastrous if it were carried on very far. A librarian has shown me some of this lately—it not being my normal literature—and the subject matter of these books is trivial in the extreme. The way in which they are portrayed is rather through pictures than letters, and one is bound to feel that there is an obvious commercial interest behind most of them which perhaps defeats any true reading objects they might have.
Those who handle the great media of television and the Press have an immense and heavy responsibility in a coming literate age. If the criterion is to be a commercial one, then it would be almost better if they could not read. No doubt we cannot expect the reader to graduate from "Westerns" to Shakespeare easily, but I should like to ask your Lordships in what ways could the community, through the home, through schools, through authority, and in what ways by spending as well as by example, try to lead these potential readers into some conception of the enjoyment and the profit which could be theirs if they could only be brought to persevere? Do we give in this age of growing opportunity enough to the public libraries which are doing such splendid work? I notice that it is a common complaint of many officials of libraries that their value is underrated by some local authorities. They claim that 75 per cent. of the central municipal libraries in the country are in the veteran class of buildings; and, although one would not judge a library by its outward amenities any more than one judges a book by its cover, yet its outward appearance does count, and it suggests how much value the community puts upon this exercise. We welcome the report to which reference has been made on this subject. If there is any question whether some local authorities are too small to foster and develop the varieties of public library in the way we should like, I hope that that question will not be solved in terms of local pride, but rather more in librarian's efficiency.
702
There is one particular question to which I should like to address myself for a moment, since I was invited to do so partly by the noble Earl who moved this Motion. The challenge of leisure, as it has been termed, is clearly a challenge not only as to how it is spent, but what it is for, and whether there is such a thing as the good life possible for all citizens which it should serve. Hitherto this has been a question, as many of your Lordships have shown, which has applied only to the few. Now we hope it is going to be one for the many. When work occupied the bulk of a man's time, his leisure was mainly a matter of rest and recuperation, and to be judged largely by its value in terms of that. We talked more then of the gospel of work as the activity of his life in which man would mostly express himself. That is still true; and we hope, indeed, that it will always be true that, through his work, his personality and his contribution to the community will find their best utterance. But in the meantime, if it is only partly true now, and if hours of work do grow less, or even if the nature of that work becomes more repetitive or automatic, then the time and the uses of leisure will more and more decide what manner of a man he is to be.
Leisure is surely something more than recreation. It is something in terms of the good life. Within our own culture there is the classical ideal of the all-round man—physically, mentally, æsthetically active. It is embedded in much of our education, and it was the purpose of a great many of the independent schools of the last century. It will be extended, and should be, as education extends, even though at times there has been perhaps a disproportionate imagination for the physical prowess in the all-round man. It would be disastrous if this conception of the all-round life were lost under the pressure of a technical or industrial society. Therefore we would all welcome the extension of those facilities, in sport, art and thought which might speak to the many-sided nature of man.
But, my Lords, there is one danger, is there not, that we might in this process revert to a purely pagan idea of the good life. It is this that is disquieting about some of the pamphlets about leisure, and some of the utterances about it

703
which we see in print to-day. Leisure ought to include the whole man, and not only the cultural man but the spiritual man. It is only fair to point out that, within their limited field, many churches, and voluntary organisations sponsored by them, have sought to cultivate for their people a round of activity in which physical recreation, social fellowship, instruction, have their places alongside the more specific religious exercises. There is a famous Rugby League side in the North of England known as "Wakefield Trinity," which traces itself back to the football side of the local parish church from which it originated. I have always imagined that another still better-known football club, known popularly as "The Saints," is not of divine origin but comes from ecclesiastical beginnings. Some of these things have proceeded from the initiation of the Church, and we may not always have done it well. But that is not the real point. The point is that these have been aimed at a fully balanced view of man and his leisure. Had my distinguished predecessor, the late Dr. Bell, been here, as undoubtedly he would have been on a debate of this nature, he would have taken up the way in which the Church through the ages has been indeed the patron of the arts, and how to-day it is returning to that link trying to restore the partnership between the two to which he himself contributed so much in his own life.
In a more prosaic way I would say the Churches are doing something in what has commonly come to be called the realm of stewardship—that is to say, trying to maintain that religion is not one specific aspect of a man's life outside which he is at liberty to pursue with complete independence any other occupations he may like. It should supply the motive and the basis of it all. Therefore, we are asking them whether their religion does not impose upon them a kind of duty in the spending of their time or their money, or the balance of capacities which nature has given them. That is along the right lines of this approach to leisure as leading to the full man.
What I would ask in the name of the Churches in this respect is not only some acknowledgement that this is not a new
704
question for us, but one in which we have been trying, and hope will continue to try, to serve the community. What is sometimes lacking in so much official literature and, alas! in so much local planning, is the recognition that this proper use of leisure which they have in mind will include the possibility, especially for younger people, of religious inquiry and experience and some chance of digging into the fundamental questions of life itself. Can this be taken for granted when we think of the spending of leisure? As an example, a long memorandum from one local authority dealing with the needs and provision of those needs in cultural and æsthetic ways for youth, made no reference to the spiritual aspect of life at all. If only such bodies could see that the Christian religious organisations are allies in this field, then I think we could be making a more concerted action on what is going to be this increasing problem. Leisure, as your Lordships have recognised, is a two-edged weapon. It is surely our duty as a community not only to provide some of the means to enjoy it, but also to safeguard a proper ideal of the full human life which we ourselves have inherited from our own past.
5.18 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am very grateful indeed to the noble Earl for having brought up this subject to-day. I am especially grateful to him for having painted such a broad and big canvas, because I think that too often, when we start discussing measures of this sort, we get restricted to our own ploys and our own methods of procedure and lose the strength of the vision of the whole. I must acknowledge that my own contribution to-day is very pedestrian, because I have approached the subject entirely from the point of view of how individuals would use their free time, which to me means their leisure time, in order to steer themselves towards a fuller and a happier life. In doing this I have taken what I think the majority of ordinary human beings would think as regards the use of their leisure time and I feed it would be to welcome the fact that they have an opportunity to read, to play, to think, to create, to enjoy, to test, to study and all the other things that leisure time can mean. I do

705
not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who said that education for leisure should start in school: I think it should start before a child can speak, with the way its mother begins to make it understand there are things worth watching and things worth playing with and things worth listening to and doing.
I believe that a mistake all of us make is that we do not recognise that training for leisure can be carried through by every single human being if he would play his part. I speak as one who has witnessed the use of leisure on a mammoth scale, many millions of hours a year, and I am not frightened by the talk of increasing leisure time to come. My experience lies in the direction of women who sometimes do not know they have leisure but who, on having an opportunity made for them to use time which they perhaps could find, begin to realise that there is something they might like to do. And from many years of watching this I recognise that the first responsibility one has in regard to other people's leisure is to make available to them the information of what there is that they could use their time for, and allow them in every case to select for themselves what they want to do. My experience is that a woman will first of all examine, then select, then undertake, and subsequently will be so interested in what she is doing that she will make further time, in fact fabricate the leisure, to acquire the skill with which to carry out what she originally selected as the occupation of her leisure time.
This makes me realise that leisure is a very strange commodity, a commodity that most people do not even know they have. Arid very many have little knowledge as to how much they possess. I wonder if your Lordships actually know how much leisure time you each have. I am not a betting woman but I should be ready to lay a small bet that everybody thinks he has much less leisure time than actually he does have. Leisure is like life itself. It will be used by humans in just as prodigal a way as they will use their lives, and I feel that leisure, like life, must not be interfered with by outside people. What we are discussing to-day is surely how the background for greater ability to select one's leisure time occupation can be prepared. I would reiterate what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said: that one of the greatest
706
leisure time occupations of this country is in the gardening field. It was started by men of all kinds, and a few women, too, selecting the occupation for leisure time. They either had, or had to make, the opportunity, that has come to be a great cult, the cult of the British gardener. If you take American friends to see a village vegetable and flower show, they invariably giggle, and from their point of view it is a childish way of starting a great enterprise; and yet to-day we cede to nobody in the world in the field of gardening and horticulture. All these things have stemmed from the original interest of the men and women who devoted their little time of leisure to gardening and out of that interest vast commercial interests have grown.
I feel, after listening to this debate, even more strongly than I felt before, that leisure is a very personal thing. It belongs to human beings just as their thoughts or outlook or any other of their personal possessions. In order to use leisure, quite obviously the human being must have his understanding of that usage developed. But because leisure is such a very personal belonging it should not be interfered with; it should not be regimented. I personally hope that those who are responsible for starting any enterprise in this direction of leisure time will select the people who are to steer it on the basis that the qualification should not be a paper one or a diploma, but the possession of wisdom, sagacity and a depth of understanding.
5.25 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I hope you will forgive one of the younger Members of your Lordships' House occupying your time for a moment or two, because I feel that this problem is of even more concern to what I might describe as my generation than to the generation of some of those who have already spoken. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Arran for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on the subject.
I, too, am rather depressed by the problems attached to leisure. I think it is all bound up to a large extent with the problem of boredom and loneliness which your Lordships have frequently discussed in relation to old people. I, too, like my noble friend who introduced this Motion, took the suicide rate as an

707
example. When I was up at Oxford we were almost proud of the fact that Oxford had the highest suicide rate of any town in Great Britain. This is entirely due, let me hasten to add, to the gown element and not to the town element.
The authorities at Oxford took immense trouble, somewhat naturally, to try to cut this rate. We were encouraged to go and discuss any problems we had. Nevertheless, it seemed to get worse and not better, and the authorities put it down to fear of examination results. I think that to some extent it was that, but I do not believe this explanation holds water, because other universities also have examinations. The Oxford examinations were differently placed. We had one at the end of two terms, and then our finals at the end of three years. So for a year and a half, very nearly, students had an immense amount of leisure time if they cared to make it so. I think many of them did. This situation, instead of being used to its best advantage, sometimes brought about a sense of boredom and loneliness, and in the case of a very few people this showed itself in the suicide rate. I think that, due to this great leisure, there was a certain amount of unhappiness.
So, my Lords, I am quite convinced that, not in ten years' time, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin said, but in 30 or 40 years' time, when we are working a 31½day week, there will be a very great problem attached to having three and a half days of leisure. I have taken three and a half days because I think that machinery will have become so expensive by then that it will have to work the whole week, and firms will endeavour to have six shifts of three and a half days each. When this happens I feel that everything possible must be done by the Government, by voluntary organisations, by local authorities, to encourage people to put their leisure to the best possible use. I quite agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, said: that one must not have one's leisure organised for one; it is a purely personal thing. The people who like to sleep for three and a half days a week are easy to cater for, but I think that the other people, who have excessive energy and wish to use it up, in some
708
way, should be encouraged to use it in a fruitful way, one that causes no one any harm, rather than by going round in the older equivalent of Teddy boy gangs, which I can see arising only too easily if we have a lot of time on our hands.
Several industries have recently reduced their working week by up to two hours, and this, I think, is a start towards that trend. So, while the problem is still probably 30 years away I do not feel it is inappropriate, even if the Motion limits the time to a decade, to look very quickly at it. I would also pause for a minute here to make an allied point, one which is slightly off the main theme of my argument but which I feel is relevant. At the moment, the industries that have cut their working time by two hours do not seriously think—and I am sure everyone will agree—that they will have two hours less time at their factory, or whatever it is. They will merely work two hours more overtime and therefore they will have no extra leisure. But if, in a year or two, we go through a recession (and I do not think we can blind ourselves to the fact that a recession is not absolutely impossible again) presumably the industries will cut down to the bare minimum the hours they need to work. In that case, many of these people will have thrown upon them each week an extra eight or ten hours' leisure in which to amuse themselves, and they will have a lot less money with which to do it. One problem of leisure is that when you have the maximum of leisure you usually have the minimum amount of money. I feel that this is a problem which one ought to consider seriously. I have no remedy at all to suggest for it. I do not think that it would be at all popular to have compulsory savings during profitable hard-working times to help with the less hard-working times. I think it is a problem which we must consider.
I think that one way in which the problem might be lessened when it hits us would be for the Government to consider subsidising to an even greater extent than I know they do already the running and making of such sporting facilities as golf courses, tennis clubs, bowling greens; even ice rinks and football grounds, all of which, I feel, keep people off the streets and prevent them from

709
feeling bored and just wandering aimlessly around. I think they could also help by de-rating libraries—and I should like to add by de-rating historic homes; but there I might be considered to have rather a personal interest. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that in Perthshire, at any rate, many children from all the schools are brought to look round historic homes which are within easy reach, and they are taught their history in those homes. I think that as a result they probably have a much greater appreciation of history; it does something to make them appreciate that history is not just something to be learned at school and forgotten the moment one passes the appropriate examination. I think this is an important point.
I also feel that if it is thought that people should use their leisure as they like, the Government should be encouraged to do something about the restrictive laws by which they are restricted on one day of the week. I should hate to see Sunday made like any other day, but though you may have to work "flat out" for six days a week, in the North of Scotland you can do nothing on a Sunday because the local cinema, the local municipal tennis courts and other things are not open. All you can do is to bathe in the sea, and even that is frowned upon by some of the local people. I think that this is something that ought not to be encouraged, and that we ought to have more toleration for people who come from other parts of the world. I do not feel that Sunday is a day on which it is wicked to do anything which entails going outside your house other than going to church. Therefore, I would ask the Government to look at all the Sunday Observance laws.
I saw from the papers the other day that the organisers of a charity football match were fined because they charged gate money on a Sunday—and this regardless of the fact that none of the players was paid and all the gate money was going to some charity. I think that this is something which the Government would do well to look into, and that in 1960—and even more so when we reach 1970—such laws ought not to be tolerated. If people are good enough to give their time and services on a Sunday in aid of charity, I cannot see why they
710
should not be rewarded. Having said that I am slightly frightened by the problem of the increased leisure of the future, I should also like to say how much, like everyone else, I welcome the thought of increased leisure. I am sure that when the time actually comes the British people, being what they are, will find a way to put it to much more profitable use than the more gloomy among us anticipate at the moment.
5.35 p.m.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in speaking to Lord Arran's Motion to-day, in whatever way we look at it, whether it is in regard to ten years' time, or less, or more years, the problem has to be faced; and, as we are all agreed, leisure hours come down to education. It has already been seen that you cannot organise leisure. What frightens me is that there is a tremendous tendency to-day, in the earnest desire for all these improvements, to have a blueprint on everything, in all fields of welfare; to straitjacket people, old and young, into a mould: to say that you must have a course of instruction for the obtaining of a degree, or a one or two years' course to train you for such and such a branch of welfare work.
To me, the whole pattern of life, as I see it to-day, is to reduce individual thought to what you want to do with your leisure hours. We are brainwashed from morning to night by the Press, radio, television and I.T.V., so that human reason is being dethroned, and we prefer to become automata in a mass-group thinking, because it is so much less trouble. Thereby, we are reducing our ordinary intellectual operations so that we shall not think for ourselves. As has already been said by other noble Lords, we are becoming a nation of watchers. We watch activities, whether it is in football, boxing, cricket or tennis, rather than take part in them ourselves. I think that professionalism is a terrifying bugbear which we are all up against; or, alternatively, we are living, alas!, on a second-hand level, with also the bloodless monster of specialised technology hanging over us.
Therefore it seems to me that we need a light that is released by the creative energies and talents within every child and adult. Those latent talents are rarely findable in the mass ant-like existence,

711
for example, in these vast new housing estates which have already been mentioned. It is all very well to talk about the cost, which I appreciate, of buying good books, but if one reads the statistics in relation to the new tenement estates, whether of Coventry, Stevenage or anywhere else, it is terrifying to find that there are no good books about. One sees only cheap and sexy magazines and novels in those flats and houses. There is no furniture from a loved past heritage, no handicrafts adorning a chair or a hand-embroidered bedspread or quilt for the beds. How do you educate for leisure in those surroundings? It seems to me that you have to start again from scratch, and make the coming generation see that the true use of leisure must have foundations that are spiritual and intellectual as well as material.
Again, it has been said already that leisure hours must have in them a sense of fellowship and comradeship, because it strikes me, alas!—although they have been quoted enough this afternoon—that the age of hobbies is dead, and we must therefore participate in a new process of comradeship. But again we have to be told how to start. Youngsters to-day are frighteningly hemmed in by organisations, and we have heard already this afternoon that they kick violently against being controlled or organised in anything. We all know that, from our work in youth clubs; and, equally, the Albemarle Report repeats it frequently enough. We are highly personal beings, and I contend that personality must be planted again, and we must revive the enthusiasm which existed in the old craftsmen and women and the country folk of the past era.
I am not at all sure, either, that home life helps towards the healthy employment of leisure. Family life has been "clocked-out of", so far as I can see, and no one is ever in the home, except to look at television. Relaxation is taken outside, in cheap entertainments and half-baked amusements — all spurious stuff. Countless people to-day do not enjoy their work; hence the great importance of making them enjoy their leisure. Equally, they do not really enjoy that, because they have nothing much to do and nowhere to go, because their jobs have not demanded that they
712
shall find further uses for their brains, or how to develop manual skill. Hence the dislike of suggested hobbies and collective games or sharing in activities.
Soviet Russia knew perfectly well years ago the problem of employing leisure hours, and all of us who have been there have seen the pleasure parks and Halls of Culture. That, again, has a political bias and is organised. As I look to-day at what goes on in films of violence and sadism that only excite further restlessness working against leisure or quiet, I have come to the conclusion that the need for the good employment of leisure hours could be helped all over the country by volunteers in new housing estates, whether they come from the clergy or welfare bodies, interesting the community in social activities, bringing up new ideas and new plans. Only—as has been said before—there is the need for a community room in which people can meet to discuss these subjects, without having jazz and rock-and-roll records in a corner bursting one's eardrums.
I entirely agree, too, that we should use the great modern inventions, B.B.C. and I.T.V. television, and I have no doubt that if Her Majesty's Government had in their heads a plan for this terrifying future, if only they would ask these bodies to help in instruction I am quite sure that they would not fail us. For look at what those great instruments of modern invention have done to help in publicity in the World Refugee Year. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, loves her garden, I still contend that something more is needed than a gardener on television, telling us weekly how to plant a dahlia in a teapot—useful as that may be.
I still feel we could evolve countless activities that could be learned through these modern media—and use them we must. They are of immense power for good or evil. The Ministry of Education instruction broadcasts in school can all be brought into a scheme for employing leisure hours. We have already heard of the countless efforts made, whether in youth clubs, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, or the countless other plans and ideas. We need, finally, an overall comprehensive vision of how to exploit the vast new field opening up before us, before we slide down the scale

713
of civilisation into an earthy mould that is totally unworthy of the soul the good God has given us.
5.46 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, in the ten years that I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House it is certain that there has been no subject debated by your Lordships about which I am better qualified to talk than the best use and pursuit of leisure. It is also doubtful whether in my remaining years, which I hope will be many, I shall again have an opportunity of talking about something which, through the good fortune of the accident of birth, I have been privileged to undertake and study. Other speakers have said that leisure is something entirely one's own affair and that one does exactly what one wishes with it—and long may it remain so! Indeed, one does not need to have to do anything. Sometimes one can just do nothing—and sometimes it is very nice, too. There is a story, no doubt apocryphal about the distinguished Charles James Fox who on a summer's day was passing the time sitting idly in the shade of a tree in his garden. Beside him was a book. A lady called, a rather fulsome lady, who said, "No doubt in your very busy life there can be nothing more pleasant than to spend a little time lying in the shade with a book," Mr. Fox replied, "But, Madam, why the book?"
I believe that it is entirely legitimate to spend one's leisure as one wishes. The field of activity of leisure is vast and I suppose, if the truth be told, covers a multitude of sins. I believe it is true to say that with the increasing standard of living which this country so happily has been enjoying—and we all trust will continue to enjoy—the leisure pursuits and habits of very large numbers of people will change, and that what we have up till now considered leisured pursuits, perquisites of the well-to-do, will become those of great masses of the people. To give but one example, it was only a short time ago that ownership of a motor car was considered the hallmark of the prosperous and well-to-do; yet to-day very large numbers of working men and women can and do own a motor car. They buy it, I imagine, under the misguided impression that they are going to get a great deal of pleasure from driving about the roads of this country.
714
Here I should like to make my first constructive suggestion on what Her Majesty's Government might do to provide facilities for the enjoyment of the people of this country. If they want to give a great many people greater pleasure, they will continue, at a very much increased rate, to build some decent roads for the millions of motorists in the country to drive about on. I believe that if people have more money to spend and more time in which to spend it—though possibly it seems a little doubtful from the course of this debate whether they are going to have more time in which to spend it—they will tend to be more interested in what they do in their off hours. I believe that for family people, the visit to the public-house or sitting on the sands on holiday at Margate or Blackpool—though admirable in itself—will not be sufficient. People will want to do more with their leisure hours and holidays.
I should like to think that what until recently have been considered purely the rich man's pleasures will become those of very large numbers of people: that riding, shooting, fishing and yachting will be not for the privileged few but for the many. Indeed, on yachting I think proof of that is shown in the enormously increased popularity each year of the very newly introduced national boat shows, and very many more people are taking a wide interest in this very admirable and healthy outdoor activity. Equally, I feel the same about riding and shooting and fishing. I myself do only one, the last of those three, but they are all admirable in their way and provide healthy oudoor exercise. As another approach to the way in which Her Majesty's Government might give to the facilities for pleasure, I should like to see the Ministry of Agriculture ensure that this country is criss-crossed with bridle-paths for those who wish to ride, and that the hedgerows are well stocked with game for those who wish to shoot; and, last but by no means least, that the rivers of this country are clean, unpolluted and full of fish.
I said earlier that people are fully entitled to do nothing, but I believe that nearly all would find that very unsatisfying. If I were to introduce a motto for the use of leisure hours I think I would say this: if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing badly.

715
It may sound a little strange but I think it is true. What we want to get out of life, particularly out of leisure hours, is fun and enjoyment. In this connection, I think that the words "leisure" and "pleasure" are virtually synonymous. If you get fun out of a thing, it does not matter if you do it badly. Again, I can speak only from my own experience. I play tennis and—though alas! I do it no longer—I used to ride. But I do both abominably. I broke the heart of the chap who tried to teach me tennis, and frequently fell off my horse. If I had said to myself, "You are no good at either, therefore don't do them," I should have missed an enormous amount of innocent pleasure out of my life. So I say: if you like to do a thing, do it as hard as you can—it does not matter very much how good you are at it—and you will get fun from your pursuits. I think this might be applied to a wider field.
I was most interested by what the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, had to say about the arts; but I believe that what we want to do is to get fun and pleasure out of life and to acquire a habit of hobbies. He talked of grand opera and of the very modest subsidy it received. I believe that if we want to get people interested in grand opera, we must first get them interested in musical comedy. We cannot introduce people to Wagner without initiation. I do not say always, but I think that in many cases people who begin at a very low cultural level will soon find their art and cultural appetites satisfied in the stronger meat; from musical comedy they will go on to light opera, and from light opera to grand opera. I am quite sure that in any cultural activity people should begin at a low level, and if a particular activity is their forte they will rise as they become accustomed to it and learn more about that particular art.
It is the same with reading. Here I would not altogether agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston. There is no better recreation than reading, and there is no hobby more worth while cultivating. In times of stress, toil and grief it is to books that one can turn in the certain knowledge of finding comfort and consolation. But the important thing, particularly in the formative years, is to learn
716
the habit of reading. I would certainly draw the line at horror comics, but I learnt my reading from E. Phillips Oppenheim, and gradually, by degrees, I acquired higher tastes and started to enjoy other criminal books of a higher level, such as Crime and Punishment. But the important thing is to get the habit, and if you like it you will find after a time that you will not be satisfied with the second-rate and third-class, but that your mind demands more and better subjects to bite into.
I have talked very largely about outside pursuits. That is partly because so much more has been done for cultural and indoor activities. There has been set up a widespread and comprehensive system of public libraries, and, indeed, of art galleries, in this country, and much money has been spent on acquiring pictures to hang in galleries, both in the capital and in the provinces. Many of these works of art have been plundered from previous owners. I should like to take up the "culturals" for a moment with my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Those who heard him speak will recollect that he made some allusion to the grant of £25,000 of Her Majesty's Government to Liverpool Art Gallery for them to acquire a Rubens.
If I may digress from the subject of this debate, I should like to say a word about the history of this picture. For many centuries it belonged to my family. Some years ago, about fifteen years ago, my father had nowhere to hang this particular picture and so, being a keen Cambridge man, he lent it, naturally free of charge, to the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge, where it hung for something like fourteen or fifteen years and was no doubt very much enjoyed by the inhabitants of Cambridge and the surrounding area. Then, much to my regret and grief, in order to pay the death duties that followed upon my father's death, I was compelled to sell this picture. It is now going to Liverpool. Liverpool's gain is Cambridge's loss. But it seems a little hard on the population of this country that they should have to pay £25,000 for Liverpool to gain a picture which was previously on view at Cambridge and which, but for death duties, I should like to think was still in the Fitzwilliam Museum. It is hard that in order to meet taxes I am compelled to sell my

717
picture and, through taxes, am then compelled to buy it back again. But I have talked long enough about my particular grievance.
I should like to say how much I appreciate what has been done by successive Governments in providing the facilities for the enjoyment of leisure hours. That, to my mind, seems to be the keyword: the provision of facilities. Let there be no interference with what we call leisure hours! For Heaven's sake! as has been said, let us have no Ministry of Leisure, no Ministry of Culture, and, above all, no Ministry of Sport. But what I think is the Government's rôle in this field is to see that the legitimate leisure pursuits of the population in this country are given adequate facilities by the Government. And may I ride one more hobby horse and say a word in support of my noble friend about gardens? I personally get more pleasure from gardening than anything else, and I am somewhat appalled by the large blocks of flats that go up throughout the country, built by local authorities, which are such that many of the people who live in these flats will find it very hard to indulge in gardening. We are a nation of garden-lovers, and I would urgently press the Government to see that the example now being put forward in the Gorbals district of Glasgow, where big blocks of flats are being built, each flat with its own garden, is widely pursued in other parts of the kingdom. People do love gardens, and to be deprived of a garden is to many citizens a very serious omission. I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time. May I end by congratulating my noble friend and kinsman on his courage and foresight in initiating this debate?
6.0 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I am sure we have been delighted by the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and during the course of it I felt that I should scrap what I was going to say and start again. In view of all the references to gardening, I might tell some of my own gardening experiences, but I will tell those in private, probably on another occasion. I must apologise for not being here at the start of the debate and for missing some of the earlier speeches, including that of my noble friend Lord Arran, to whom we are grateful for having introduced this debate. It was in
718
every way a subject which could give the widest scope to all of us, and I have found great difficulty in confining myself to one, or at the most two, aspects of it. I could speak for a long time on playing fields and such kindred subjects, but I think your Lordships have heard me speak on that before, and so on this occasion I am going to desist. But, in passing, may I say how glad I am that the question of facilities for recreation has been mentioned by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester; and the National Playing Fields Association is naturally most concerned in that, as are Her Majesty's Government.
I want to confine myself to a subject which has been dealt with to-day—that of what I call the occupational leisure for the growing-up members of the community. We have heard a good deal about the young people and their affairs. A great deal of consideration has been given to the subject, and I would say that in the Reports that we have had recently there have been great thoughts and considerable vision. Much has been spoken about the subject, and many practical efforts are in operation. We all know about the Crowther Report; the Albemarle Report; the Wolfenden Committee on Sport, which has not yet reported but which we have heard about; the Carr Report on Apprenticeship; the Report to the Dulverton Trust on the Leadership of Youth, and the Report by the Templer Committee on a Commonwealth Youth Trust—and I have no doubt that there are others.
But what is perhaps not quite so well known by your Lordships is the practical measures which have also been going forward. There is, as we know, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, which has been going for some years now; there is to be a Commonwealth Technical Training Week for apprentices in 1961; the Minister of Defence has suggested that the Services might take some part in the Youth Service; an organisation known as "Service Overseas" has been successfully started; and more Outward Bound Schools have been launched. I give those examples merely because it might be thought that we have had only a series of Reports and nothing else. I hope that the Reports themselves will be productive

719
of schemes which can be launched in due course.
To my mind this problem (and I think it is common property) divides itself into two separate parts—and I am now speaking specifically of the young people: those who are still at school, and those who have left. And yet the problem to a great extent becomes the finding of a bridge. How do we help our young people in their most difficult period—that is to say, the period when they are leaving school; when they are growing up; when they are growing into the community; when they know best about everything, and when they want their independence from home as well as from school? Our energies on their behalf must concentrate on arousing and maintaining their interest—a most difficult problem, because they really want to find their own interest and not have it second-hand. But, for all that, I feel that we have a duty towards them: and the way to do it, in very large measure, is to make them feel important; to make them feel that they are growing up to become useful members of society; to make them feel that they are doing something that is useful and that is wanted. If there was a war—and we know it only too well—the energies of youth, of young and old, would be galvanised into action of some sort. We saw it. Surely it is not beyond our powers in peace time to galvanise into action that latent energy, and to guide it into channels where it can be usefully employed.
As I have already said, a start has been made, and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme is one of the best-conceived plans of our time. I hope it will not be out of order if I suggest that the thought and study of His Royal Highness on this and other aspects of the very problem we are discussing to-day are making a great contribution to its solution. I mentioned other practical efforts, but there needs to be a basic framework for the development of young people between the ages of ten and twenty if we are to avoid the disjointed and unco-ordinated scene which confronts us at the moment. We already have the excellent work of the uniformed organisations, which provide just what is needed up to fifteen or sixteen; but after that they lose their members. These
720
are a valuable supplement during the school years. But the schools themselves ought to come closer to the pattern of boarding schools, where there is time and opportunity for all the extra-mural subjects which make so much difference—and we know what that difference is. These subjects can be obtained by those not at boarding schools in a much more sporadic way in our youth clubs and youth centres. The subjects are the same, but the system is different, and could be changed with advantage. I know, of course, that there are obstacles. There is the lack of teachers and there is the lack of training for teachers; but I hope that this aspect will be given serious thought.
Then, as to the age group fifteen onwards, National Service is ceasing. All those boys and girls require opportunities, let alone facilities. In addition to the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, we have Outward Bound Schools, which are doing excellent work in the training of initiative, and the "Service Overseas" scheme. But none of this is enough. I understand that the Minister of Defence is keen that the Services should make a contribution, and that a scheme will be forthcoming. The watchword must be service to the community as the essential ingredient for success—service to the community in crisis or in emergency.
My Lords, there is a pattern in all this. Up to sixteen there should be training and testing for useful service. Over and above that age, there should be a definite demand for those services, for which young people have been trained—service that will be useful to the community and which will bring responsibility in its train. The training period will need to include, as it does now, first-aid, life saving, fire prevention, and all those things in which youth likes to take part. The second period, for the over sixteens, will need more organisation, and it may well be very much more complicated. But it has been suggested that the Civil Defence Corps should be renamed the Civil Emergency Service, and should be open to anyone over sixteen with suitable qualifications. This Service could have the widest possible range, each section linked to its natural parent body. For instance, the Inland Water Rescue Section could be linked to the Royal Life-Saving Society; the Beach and Sea Rescue Section could be linked to the

721
Coastguards; the Auxiliary Fire Service Section could be linked to the National Fire Service; the Forest and Heath Fire Patrol to the National Fire Service and the Forestry Commission; the Mountain and Moor Rescue Section to the Royal Air Force; the Auxiliary Traffic Control Section to the Police or Traffic Wardens, and the Ambulance and Hospital Sections to St. John's Ambulance Brigade and the Red Cross—and I am sure there may be others.
There we have an opportunity for linking the young with what they are learning at school and with what they are going to do in useful service to the community after they leave school. There may well be formed a council to co-ordinate rescue and emergency activities and put the whole scheme into operation. Whatever is done in this direction or in other directions in this connection, there should be the overriding principle of a bridge being built for young people to prepare them and train them for their future usefulness to society. Then, most important of all, there should be opportunities for them to render that useful and responsible service.
What I have said up to now is in the sphere of voluntary service, but I do not minimise the fact, and we must not forget, that those who prefer to take part in sports and outdoor recreation in their spare time should have equal encouragement and training. A great advance needs to be made through such existing agencies as the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association in the provision of coaches on an expanding scale and adequate space in which growing numbers can practise their skill.
But I promised at the beginning that I would not go on with the subject that I have now started. I hope that this debate will be the forerunner of many on the subject. I do not think that we can cover it in just one debate, although we have gone on for some hours and a great many contributions have been made. There are so many aspects which I believe could well carry many more debates. I hope that both in the voluntary sphere and, if necessary, through legislation, everything will be done to assist all worthwhile schemes that may be started now and in future and keep them going.
6.13 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, there do not seem to be many crumbs left for a late speaker. I should like first to add my gratitude to the noble Earl who has raised this question, if only for the fact that recently we have had many kinds of explosive material to debate in your Lordships' House and it is pleasant to be able to relax perhaps and tackle a subject which demands thought and contemplation, rather than heat and controversy. My own contribution, I would insist, is one of humility and inadequacy after the many valuable contributions that have been made.
I should like to put the problem in a wider context than the national context. I am assuming that there are always two sets of contrasted social conditions in direct opposition to each other. If we regard all social progress as a matter of balancing always a rising economic standard of life and a rising standard of education, it follows that a social progress which is fundamental rather than superficial is defeated if those two elements in progress get out of step. Seen in that light, the two conditions which would defeat true progress are, first, when education races ahead of the standard of life, and, secondly, when, in contrast, the economic standards rise and education proves inadequate to cope with the new wealth that has arrived—the kind of situation that is familiar in some of the new wealthy oil countries sprinkled about the world.
In the first condition, where education is going ahead, the problem of leisure hardly arises. What happens, it seems to me is that the seeds of social and political unrest are sown. It has been said, I think with some wisdom, that it does not matter very much being poor if you do not know that you are poor. The trouble begins when you have that degree of education which enables you to notice that your neighbour next door has a little bit more of this world's goods than you have, and it is in this condition that social unrest is fomented and perhaps a community may turn to Communism. Yet we are wise to keep this debate within national bounds and I certainly propose to do so, but I would remind your Lordships that this problem of leisure is not one that applies only to press-button production civilisation: it applies equally to people living in the

723
jungle. As many of your Lordships know, it applies to those agricultural areas of the world which we recognise as under-developed, where most of the community, half the year round, in between crop rotations, sit down and have nothing to do whatsoever.
Nevertheless, the question as it confronts us is the latter paradox to which I referred, that which is found when the toys of civilisation start to arrive before there is the necessary educational background to show us how to play with the toys. Very naturally, I think, many of your Lordships have pointed to the sphere of the appreciation of the arts, and here I would mildly challenge what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said when he asked the question: have we responsibility for future taste? It is not so much a matter of regimentation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, said, but surely it is a matter of continued guidance. As we are reminded, the Arts Council grant has gone up, owing to what is referred to as "the spavined horse", and there is a total of some £8½ million now to encourage the arts, as compared with £1,600 million spent on defence. But that is not always going to be so, and the point I want to make is that if more money is available, rather than devote it to the production end, channelling it through the Arts Council—and here I agree wth what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had to say—we should put it into the schools, with the long-term objective that the new generation may one day want more than at present to live with the great art creations of the past.
The noble Duke referred to the music of Wagner. If you are really to understand and to revel in the glory of that great contrapuntal movement which occupies the last 100 bars or so of the Meistersinger Overture you have to be told about it at school. And that applies whether you are listening to Verdi's Requiem or looking at Rembrandt's pictures. I have spoken of the part education has to play in pointing the direction of leisure towards feeling our past heritage, but what about the part of education when we consider contemporary achievements—the work of Picasso, of Schõnberg, of Corbusier and of Henry Moore? It is not for me to question the validity of such artists, but
724
I submit that here the rôle of education becomes slightly different. In this case, I would suggest that the public could be expected to control as much as to accept. That certainly requires a lot of education and development of the critical faculty.
Three months ago I was wandering round the new Guggenheim Exhibition of Modern Art in New York—that astonishing building on which a lot of money has been lavished to house some 180 pictures at a time, of which pictures some 80 per cent. are completely unintelligible to the public. I would say that at least half a dozen of the pictures could only have been painted in two or three minutes of indiscriminate brush-waving and slashing. What was the reaction of the public? So far as I could judge—and I was just as much interested in the public as in the pictures—their minds were a complete blank: they went round those pictures just as motor components go round a factory belt. Why? I reasoned it out as being because there was a generation deprived of the education either of appreciating the past or of criticising the present. I have often wondered if we, the public, when we see these great big glass matchboxes going up in the City, passed off by the architects as what is known as "pure form," should not be allowed to voice our opinion and influence the growth of the City. Then, in contrast, one realises that there are too many people around who just do not care; and again one has to admit that something has been wrong in education.
I would entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that education cannot by itself teach us how to use leisure. The use of leisure is a matter between man and his maker, as Robert Louis Stevenson reminded us in his Apology to Idlers, and as apparently Charles James Fox knew also. But what can be done is to provide the facilities and the encouragement for those many thousands whom we regard as in a state of mind both responsive and receptive. The point I hope to make, which is the point made also by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is that those facilities should begin in the classroom in primary and secondary education. Only in this way, as I see it, will a new generation be prepared to accept the increasing responsibilities of idleness which I insist are inherent in the age of electronics ahead.

725
Personally, I have no time for the "angry young men" who look back in anger seeking an alibi for their own failures, always blaming the older generation or blaming anyone except themselves. A world of achievement in the whole field of social service awaits anybody who cares to look for it, and it will continue in that way. The greatest social parasites, as I see it, are those who dissipate their leisure in unproductive introspection, aimed as often as not at the latest political obsession of the day. But there again, may they not have taken a different turning at the age of eighteen (shall I say?) had they been shown the imaginative possibilities of leisure at school?
What about those who are not at school? The noble Earl referred to the predicament of our own generation. What about their needs? They are just as obvious. As I see it, our ability to make the toys has completely outstripped our ability to use them; and this is dismally apparent in some of the manifestations to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston, referred—a great increase in crime, litter around the streets, prostitution and a loss of social dignity. I would draw attention, paradoxically, to what the Danes are doing, because the noble Earl referred to Denmark as particularly suffering from the disasters of leisure. The Danes, as I understand it, have tackled the problem in a thing called the folk school system, which extends the normal facilities of primary and secondary education to any adult who cares to make use of the opportunity. I I do not know the details, but I understand that adults, men and women, can take a fortnight's holiday in a pleasant holiday resort and can volunteer for a free course in any subject of their own choice at a normal Government school. I wish that some such system might be considered in our own country, because surely we have come to the point when we accept mere ignorance on the most frightening scale. One hears of adults who do not know the name of the capital of Australia or the Prime Minister of India, and where such ignorance prevails one shudders to think how leisure is used. Providing the facilities to learn may not make much difference to such people immediately,
726
but it would tend to isolate them, to bring them, in their own interests, to seek enlightenment and to make them better citizens.
I think I have said enough to indicate that I am in a general sense supporting the greater rôle of education in the task of tackling leisure. I could hope that as a result of this debate there would be a lot of hard thinking in the Ministry concerned, and that perhaps possible action could follow. If I may close on a philosophical note, your Lordships have spoken of the facilities which the Government should provide to use leisure. I do not think that implies a mad rush round the museums, the concert halls and the picture galleries; but what it does suppose is the ability to regard leisure, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, as the opportunity to rest. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who I am sure we all wish could have been here to contribute to this debate, has said this:
"Rest is necessary to achievement. You can do less, but you can effect more."
I should insist that unless increasing leisure includes the implication of real rest, and the desire for real rest, then our Western civilisation is perhaps drifting to a dangerous and a very uncertain future.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will allow me to ask him two questions arising out of his most interesting speech. If I understood him aright, he said that he objected to some of the pictures in the Guggenheim Museum in New York because they were executed very rapidly. Does he mean to say that a work of art increases in value according to the amount of time spent on it? And if so, how does he explain away the drawings of Rembrandt? Secondly, I understood the noble Lord to develop the argument that Picasso's work was not appreciated and was out of touch with the public, in which case I wonder how he would explain the fact that this particular artist's work in reproduction, from postcards to large coloured reproductions, is a most valuable and thriving commercial proposition, as they sell in their thousands to ordinary members of the public.
LORD BIRDWOOD: I am afraid I was so busily listening to the first question and noting it that I did not quite

727
catch the beginning of the second question. But in regard to the time devoted to some of the pictures in the Guggenheim Exhibition, I can only say this that a picture—and literally there is such a picture—which consists of one brown splash of paint one way and two brown splashes of paint the other way cannot be comparable to a picture (shall I say?) of a Leonardo sketch which may have taken the same time.
6.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a moment, partly to make a point which I do not think has been made in the discussion this afternoon and which seems to me to be of some importance, but more especially to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for what he said about the extension of time at the British Museum. I have had correspondence with him on this matter on behalf of the teachers in the universities, who have been upset by the little amount of time which they get for research in that great Institution, the British Museum. I am very grateful to him for the gesture which he and the Government and the Trustees of the British Museum are making in this regard. Of course, it is not leisure. In a way it is part of the work of the researcher; nevertheless I am grateful, and I am sure the university world as a whole will be very grateful, to him.
The other point is this. There has been a tendency in this debate all the time to look at this matter from the point of view of youth. It seems to me that one of the great difficulties of our times is the leisure of the aged, because expectation of life has now increased so much that there are tens and even hundreds of thousands of people over seventy with a great deal of time yet no effective way of spending it. We elderly Peers can come to your Lordships' House and spend our leisure in that way. I was taken with one of the definitions of leisure which the noble Marquess produced from the Oxford Dictionary—the time that we have off from our regular occupations for doing other jobs. For most of us that exactly describes the time which we spend in your Lordships' House.
But there are a large number of people to-day in this country in the seventies
728
who seem to have no effective method of spending their leisure time at all. During and immediately after the war, I had to visit, on civil defence and other similar duties, a number of parks and places kept by local authorities in the North-Western Region of England, where continually I was seeing 30, 40 or 50 very old men just sitting looking blankly; and all one could say was that they were waiting for death. That sight made an ineffaceable impression on my mind, and I have felt ever since that time that it is time that—I do not say we thought less about youth, but that we thought a good deal more about what we can do to make the old age of these people, who have served the community so well in the past, rather more dynamic and more positive than it obviously is at the present time. I hope that this aspect of the matter, which is of great importance, will not be overlooked.
6.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, conscious of the time, and of the fact that your Lordships also are interested in the use of leisure, I do not propose to spend very long in the remarks I have to make. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, will already be aware of the gratitude of the House for raising this matter, and not least, if I may say so, for the charming and rapid way in which he did so, which was particularly acceptable.
Of course this is a vast subject. It is one which we are all too conscious will hardly begin to be touched by anything we have to say. I am tempted a little to follow the example of the noble Viscount, who gave us once again one of those interesting philosophic studies which are such a charming contrast to his more polemical moods. At the end we discovered that he was all for leisure, as I think we all are. But in this subject of discussing leisure, one wonders how well qualified we are to do so, because if we are interested enough to discuss it, presumably we have already found enough interest to occupy our own leisure. The problem which has come out of this discussion is that of the people who, through lack of training, education, opportunity and facilities, are not able to make use of it. We all have our particular tastes. Personally, the first thing I do when I have some leisure

729
is to go to sleep, and I suppose the greatest part of human leisure activity is spent in sleep. Perhaps the next is eating, neither of which subjects is suitable for discussion to-day.
I should like first of all to disagree with some of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston. I hope that she will forgive me. I have known her for many years and have a great admiration for her, but I do not believe that we need be so gloomy about the subject We are not a nation of watchers. There are far more people doing things—far more people reading books, and as the Duke of Devonshire said, far more people yachting; and this change is running right across all the social classes. As the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, the old concept of the leisured class has gone. It is the use of leisure by all members of the community. When it comes to hobbies, one only has to see the astounding commercial success of the do-it-yourself departments in large departmental stores. In fact, people are keen to do things for themselves. The only practical hobby I have is cooking, and I am sure that far more men cook to-day than did 50 years ago. Therefore I should like to start on a wholly optimistic note.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin in questioning the amount of leisure there is. As the noble Viscount said, there is no question at all that in fact the hours we are working—the general hours of the community—are as great as they have been. There are a number of women, and married women, who are going out into industry and commerce, working part-time. But there are important changes. The rise in the standard of education, which people are apt to say is what we need, has, in fact, created tastes. I believe that the people to-day have their lives better organised. As housing conditions improve it is more open to them to make good use of their leisure. Also, the development of the five-day week has provided a longer period at the week-end. All this has been aided by the motor car and other methods of transport. There is no doubt that there is far more active participation in what might be called leisure activities than there was in the past. When it comes to the future, I think it is quite certain that in time citizens, whether in
730
a free or, for that matter, regimented State (because in Russia they will have it done for them) will choose at a certain point in their life, instead of taking extra pay, to take it in the form of increased leisure. All the time now in industry—and I speak from some experience on the personnel side of industry—we hear discussions on this question: the extension of the five-day week, even the development of what might be called the Sabbatical year, a compulsory three months after fifteen years, which is part of the legislation in Australia. I think the time may possibly come (I do not know whether I go so far as, I think it was, the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, who talked about the 3½-day week) although it is very far ahead, and certainly not in ten years, when only the most privileged will be allowed to work. But I doubt whether we have reached that stage. Those who are not so worthy will have to occupy themselves with golf, or whatever it may be.
One could go on analysing and philosophising in this field, but I should like to refer again to this question of the rôle of the State or the rôle of the community. I do not think we want to be over-sentimental or over-anxious. We all know perfectly well that we do not want the State telling us what to do in our leisure, or, indeed, in our working time. At the same time, we hope that the community—and it is through the efforts of Governments and local authorities that it will be possible—will make it possible for people to do things which they might otherwise be prevented from doing. Whether it be by the State or by the voluntary bodies, facilities have to be provided—recreation centres, buildings, and so on. Even an orchestra: no individual can himself create an orchestra; he may, if he works very hard, succeed in playing in a good one, but he cannot himself create it. One has to rely on the State, and of course the State has done it in many other countries. There are also some aspects of artistic activity which do not suffer from considerable State regimentation. I would, for this example, quote the ballet, which is perhaps rather regimented but has flourished under conditions which we should not say was a free society.
I hope that not only the Government but local authorities will recognise their responsibility a little more. Here again

731
the performance is extremely patchy. All local authorities, as the noble Viscount said, are enabled to spend up to a 6d. rate for the provision of arts and other allied activities, but very few of them spend anything like that amount of money. It is very necessary that it should be done by local authorities and not just by the Government. I would go so far as to say that I believe that this will become part and parcel of the politics of the future. I am not trying to turn it into a Party political issue, but I can well imagine an Election one day being fought on whether or not, if not to buy a Rembrandt, at any rate to provide a civic golf course or something of that kind. There is no doubt that in local authorities there will be need for councillors and others who are well aware of all these aspects of the matter.
There is one side of the support of leisure activities which has not been discussed but which is mentioned in the Albemarle Report, and I should like to refer briefly to it, and that is the part industry can play in this field. The Report says:
"We welcome industry's interest in young people and would like to see it extended. We think in most areas the best help can be given by contributing to and taking part in local activities rather than by creating a smaller group within the community."
I entirely agree with that, but very many communities are lacking in these facilities at the moment. There are a number of names in industry, Guinness, Courtauld's and others, who have become known as patrons of the arts and as contributors in this field, and I think that this is something that, until local communities face up to it, industry ought to do.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for referring to the activities of my own particular firm, which I will not name. We employ between 10,000 and 15,000 people. I wrote down a list of all the activities which we develop, subsidise and encourage. We reckon it is good business and that people like it. In addition to all the obvious things such as cricket, football, tennis, squash and riding, we make it possible for them to enjoy ski-ing, mountaineering, gliding and yachting. Why should not people have this opportunity? The difficulty with many individuals, when they leave school or the university and perhaps
732
move into a new area where the community facilities are not developed, or where they have no friends, is to find some of these friends at work and to take part in community activities of this kind. It is, of course, an essential thing that they should not be judged on their participation in these activities. It should not be judged as a virtue to them that they should do it. One has to be careful not to be too virtuous as employers and lament when people do not use these facilities. The essence of the free approach is that you should provide the facilities and encourage their use.
The same applies in the arts; we take a box at Covent Garden. We provide all these facilities including facilities for the greatest art of all; that is, fly fishing, which I have included in the arts side and not the sports side. I think this is a side that ought to be considered, and I hope that the new Wolfenden Report, dealing with a more happy subject than the old one, which will come to the Central Council of Physical Recreation, will have some suggestions to make on it. It is, for instance, of great interest to see the still halting approach of industry to the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, about which the noble Lord, Lord Luke, spoke so well. It is a most interesting development. Somehow industry and the community must become aware of its responsibilities in these matters. We have had a good deal of talk about support of the arts. I would only say that this country's record in regard to support of the arts is niggardly in comparison to that of other countries. I will not join argument with the noble Viscount on the question as to which Party offers the most; it was my noble friend Lord Dalton who first, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, contributed rather more considerable sums than had been provided in peace time before. This is one of the admirable developments. I am glad to see that there is this increasing recognition of responsibility.
I should like particular pressure to be put in the direction of outdoor, physical and sports activities. The Central Council for Physical Recreation, about which again the noble Lord, Lord Luke, spoke, is one of those admirable institutions which has started on a good basis. Again it does not attempt to regiment; it merely provides facilities. The other morning I went to my club and tried to play

733
squash, only to find—it was Saturday morning—that it had been borrowed by the Central Council for Physical Recreation. I am sure co-operation with people who have facilities, co-operation with industry, and, above all, some increased funds for the Central Council, will pay hands clown. Their last Report is worthy of quotation. They say:
"Like a swimmer poised for the plunge, a sprinter crouched on his mark, a show-jumper rearing to go, the Central Council of Physical Recreation awaits the findings of the Wolfenden Committee on Sport."
This splendid hyperbole, which I am sure will appeal to the noble Viscount, is a measure of the enthusiasm which exists in this field.
It is not only confined to the obvious sports. It includes all sorts of activities, particularly what might be called adventurous activities. Their mountain centre at Plas y Brenin in Snowdon, where we send some youngsters from our firm every year, to which many local authorities send people, is an admirable institution. There the young, some of whom have never seen a mountain and have never camped out in their lives, suddenly get a taste of adventure. Somebody says, "Would you like to go?", and they want to go; and once they have gone a whole new world is opened up to them. I would ask the Government particularly, in keeping in mind all these manifold demands and requests that are made, to bear in mind the encouragement of adventurous activities, individual activities. People from the universities can go off on expeditions, and it is a rather ironic commentary—some talk about people being less adventurous in the Welfare State—that it always seems to be those who are most secure financially who are prepared to be the most adventurous. It ought to be open to many people to find enjoyment in hills and mountains.
They have got to be taught just a little. They have to be, not, I stress, regimented; but it is possible to kill oneself on a mountain in England, and many people do, and it is possible to do a lot of damage on the way. It is essential to provide facilities of this sort, as the Central Council for Physical Recreation and a number of other bodies do I think it is a positive and hopeful and happy field. I do not think it is one we need be gloomy about, and I am
734
certain that it is a matter on which we shall have many debates in the future.
6.50 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think it was my noble friend Lord Hailsham who compared the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, to a dinner party. The noble Earl gave us a most delightful soufflé. We then had strong and very good meat from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. We had the pudding from my noble friend. He described it as "duff", but I think your Lordships will agree that he pulled out some very nice plums. We have had the sweet, and we have also had the fruits of knowledge from all parts of your Lordships' House. I am afraid that it now falls to me to provide a little port to go on top of the repast. I am afraid that its vintage may not be all that is to be desired, and that at times I may have to stop to pull out just a few odd pieces of cork that may have found their way into the vintage that I have.
In the course of this dinner party it has been made quite clear that the opinion of all sides of your Lordships' House is that there should not be a Ministry of Culture or any sort of Government ministerial body which will dictate how one is to spend one's leisure time. That is quite certain. So far as hobbies and leisure are concerned, it also seems certain that gardening is the number one hobby in your Lordships' House, and I am quite certain that that hobby is obviously shared by countless millions of people up and down the country. What a grand thing it is that that is so! Following hard on the heels of gardening, it would seem that reading is the next most popular form of spending leisure time. But immediately we get into a controversy, with the right reverend Prelate on the one side, describing the sort of books that he believes we should read, and the sort of thing that the noble Duke understands are read up and down the country, on the other; and the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston, also referred to these types of books. I hope to come back to her point in a moment or two.
I think we all agree that education plays a primary part in helping to enjoy the fruits of leisure. That seems to be the opinion on all sides of the House, and I hope to show that Her Majesty's

735
Government have done great things in this field, and that the proof will be shown in the next few years, when the fruits really begin to make a showing in the field of leisure. The Albemarle Report has been welcomed on all sides of the House. Her Majesty's Government have accepted the recommendations of that Report and are in process of putting them into operation. Then finally, I most certainly want to echo the feeling expressed by everybody who has spoken, that there will be a great part to be played by the voluntary bodies in all phases of leisure for the people of this country. Again, your Lordships have paid great credit to the part that is being played by voluntary professional bodies all over the country with regard to social services.
I said that I might pull out one or two small pieces of cork which may have got into the vintage. But I think it only fair to say that Her Majesty's Government have had in the last few years to put first things first: it is a question of priorities. The Party of noble Lords opposite, when they were in power, were faced with the same problem. This problem was to put back the capital and recover the expenditure and destruction of two world wars. We believe that we are well on the way to achieving that object. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has had to leave, said something about the difficulties of producing capital, labour and jobs. There we believe that we have achieved a great record, with record production, record exports and, above all, record savings. A new Report has just emerged giving record statistics in the health field, which surely must be one of the greatest boons in regard to leisure that ever there has been. Then, the questions of smog and the fouling of rivers were introduced by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire. Her Majesty's Government are pressing on with those two terrible' problems; but there is a long way to go yet.
It is quite certain that we cannot have a holiday unless we have the money in our pockets. Anybody who takes a ride on the dodg'ems, or goes to one of the holiday camps we have heard mentioned, cannot possibly do so unless he has already balanced his books at home. Nevertheless, we believe that this is the
736
time to take stock of the leisure that is available.
There seems to be great argument as to whether there will be more or less leisure. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had one idea and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, had a rather conflicting idea; and my noble friend Lord Salisbury had, I think, yet another idea. Nevertheless, if any of your Lordships were to go to the replay of a football match (especially with the Cup Final coming on in the near future), or to a weekday race meeting, you find that the number of people who have the leisure and time to attend those functions is extraordinary. There are people from every walk of life, many of whom, one must admit, are people one would think would be the last people able to go to such functions and to spend so much money thereat. I personally believe that there will be more leisure. People will be able to choose what sort of leisure they wish, and when they will be able to take it. For that reason, in the next few moments I beg to put before your Lordships some things that Her Majesty's Government are doing now and have already done, and hope to do in the future (my noble friend has already mentioned some so I will not deal with those), so that the people of this country may put to good use this leisure when it comes their way.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury endeavoured to define leisure, as also has the noble Baroness. I think my noble friend made a good job of it with the use of the latest Oxford Dictionary. I suspect that the next writer of the dictionary will say something like this; that it is the choice of being able to do something without being told to do it. When one thinks of it, that is a considerable choice and not one that we are very frequently blessed with. One could say also that sometimes one sits and thinks, and that at other times one merely sits. That, too, is not a bad definition of leisure. The noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also mentioned travel, and how that is becoming more widely taken up by people in all walks of life. That again is another record for which Her Majesty's Government have to a large extent been responsible, by policies carried out with great care over the last few years. A record number of people have been

737
abroad, not only in cars and aeroplanes, but with bicycles and on walking tours, charabanc tours and the like. As has been said by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, that is an encouraging sign.
Her Majesty's Government believe that education is the key to the problem of learning to use one's leisure and for the last years it has been the priority in this field of the Government. When we see that education is now running at £740 million a year, and will in the very near future be rising to £1,000 million, perhaps that gives an idea. Another way of expressing it is that in 1951 it was 3 per cent. of the national product, while to-day it is 4 per cent. of a very much greater national product. I believe that that is a good record for maintaining a priority which we firmly believe will pay off in the very near future.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, spoke of the importance in his view of questions of education. He went on to speak, as did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of inquisitiveness. I suspect that many of your Lordships were soundly beaten or cuffed across the ear for showing too much inquisitiveness, and I fancy all such matters are best left in the hands of competent schoolteachers, both masters and mistresses. When education was discussed there were those on both sides of the House who said they would like to see more technological education and progress, and others, on both sides of the House, inevitably, who would like to see more in the arts and the so-called "liberal" studies—though I believe there are none of the latter left in your Lordships' House to-night. It is the task of Her Majesty's Government, and particularly of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, to see that a balance is reached in these subjects, especially when parents are paying higher and higher taxes in order to pay for this education. I believe it is fair to say that the taxpayers will want to know that their children on leaving school will have a suitable skill when they, the parents, are paying so heavily to furnish and equip our schools.
Much has been made, too, of adult education which is, of course, a very large part of the problem of leisure and what to do in leisure hours. We have heard that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will be introducing a debate on this
738
subject but I should like to say to the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Silkin, and to my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who wore somewhat disappointed over adult education, that last year 170,000 students enrolled through the various bodies who carry out adult education; and Her Majesty's Government granted roughly £664,000 towards the cost of adult education. There is definitely a trend towards more part-time students here. It is the same story with evening classes. There are now more people attending than ever before.
Here I should like to give hope to the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston. In the 8,300 establishments in England and Wales offering such courses there are 1 million students, and of that number 610,000 are women, most of them taking some form of domestic subjects, like cooking or dressmaking. Apparently, that can be laid on the step of television, for it can be shown that whenever a particular series of television programmes comes on, interest in such subjects is increased. In view of these figures which have been brought out, I feel that the noble Baroness is a little despondent. I am quite certain that anything any of your Lordships can do to encourage people, especially young people, to take up evening classes or day-release classes, will go to bring great fruits for leisure in the near future.
We have had some argument, as sooner or later there must be, on the question of art; and it would have to be on the question of traditional against the modern art school. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would not ask for public money to be spent, necessarily, upon the "Bicycle Pump" school or the "Breakfast Cereal" school—though on the other hand he might wish to, for those are highly thought of in certain circles. But it is equally certain that if he did, the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, would resist to the end; and no doubt other noble Lords would carry the battle along with the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood. The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, was very sceptical about what Her Majesty's Government and education authorities in particular were doing in regard to art, but let it be said that there are 179 art schools, sponsored by local education authorities throughout the country, with 312,000 full-time students and 38,000

739
part-time students; and at the evening classes which I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston, art is by far the most popular single subject taken. I feel that the local authority, that is, the local ratepayer, and the taxpayer, through the block grant (which used to be the direct grant), have been rather unfairly treated in the course of this debate. They have put their hand deep in their pocket for the sake of art, and especially for the teaching of art and the teaching of future art teachers, which I believe is even more important.
The noble Baroness had much to say about the type of books that are read, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester also had his ideas on the kind of books which should be read and the books which should be kept in libraries. This cannot really be a question for the Government. I do not believe any of your Lordships would like to see censorship or sponsorship of any kind, either of the Press or of authors or of book publishers. There are certainly most difficult facets of decency and so forth which are provided for, sometimes more and sometimes less. But it is always a subject of controversy. I would say, however, that the 13 million readers who are established throughout the lending libraries must be a better figure than the noble Baroness realised when she said we were rapidly becoming an illiterate country. I can only say that in one of the new local authority estates I have been in a library centre which was certainly a magnificent building, with excellent books, and I cannot but believe that there are many others, up and down the country, and that in the near future there will be many more.
Sport has received less attention from your Lordships—a fact which I consider most surprising, especially in view of the technical difficulties which are involved in sport to-day and when there are so many experts on the subject in your Lordships' House. Her Majesty's Government will be awaiting the private Report which is to be submitted by Sir John Wolfenden which is no doubt awaited also by sportsmen up and down the country. Personally, I feel that sportsmen will really have to put their house in order. There is this interminable difficulty between amateur and professional
740
which must be sorted out, and if the Report from Sir John Wolfenden can do something to clear that up, a very great stride will have been made. I will certainly make to my right honourable friend any representations from your Lordships which will help towards that end.
Both the Socialist Party and the Conservative Party have produced booklets upon leisure in which sport is one of the central features, and here both Parties are united in recommending in these reports that some kind of Sports Council should be set up. I understand that it is very much an arguable point, and I should be disappointed if we did not hear your Lordships' views about it. But this, again, will be brought forward by the Wolfenden Report. I feel, my Lords, that we have to get used to the idea of some form of public payment towards the sports in the same way as to the arts. The noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston, mentioned the arts and the great palaces of culture in Russia. Russia and all the Iron Curtain countries spend vast amounts of their public money upon sports and upon training. Somehow, this country should provide public money for that purpose, if we believe, and I am sure we do, along with all the other countries of the world, that sport is a great prestige winner and prestige maker, and, at the same time—though it may sound a conundrum to say so—a great winner of friends throughout the nations, in spite of the competition which sport engenders. But, my Lords, until we forget the idea of the amateur and the professional as it exists in this country to-day, I am sure we shall have the greatest difficulty in progressing further with sport, and we shall await with great interest this Report from Sir John Wolfenden.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, was the only one of your Lordships to mention the field sports; and I could not stand at this Despatch Box to say I had managed to find ways and means of persuading my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an ex-fellow master of hounds, to find some form of subsidy towards fox-hunting. My noble friends from Scotland, who are not here, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would say the same with regard to shooting, and so it would go on right

741
through the whole field of sports. Nevertheless, the great triumphs that have come to this country in show jumping and other equestrian sports, in the Olympic Games, the great prowess of our marksmen (it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is not in his seat), the prowess of our swimmers, the prowess of our runners on the track, the first runner of the mile in four minutes—my Lords, all those great credits to this country would seem to point to the direction of some form of assistance and help in the same way that other countries give help to their athletes.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I correct the noble Earl? He may not know, but the Government do support all those activities, except hunting, through the Central Council of Physical Recreation.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am very well aware of that and in half a moment I would have explained it, in case noble Lords would think me unduly pessimistic. In fact, Her Majesty's Government give a great deal of help and support to all these bodies by means of the Physical Training Council, of which His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh is President. We have heard of this Council from many noble Lords, but especially from my noble friend Lord Luke, and Her Majesty's Government appreciate very much the great work that they are doing.
I will give just an idea of how this works out. The sum of £126,000 is granted direct to the Central Council for them to spend in the best way they see possible; £12,000 goes to the governing bodies of various other sports in order to promote coaching and for travelling expenses and so forth; and £236,000 (these are direct grants from my right honourable friend the Minister of Education) goes towards community centres, village halls and playing fields, all of which take a considerable part in the training of sports and games of all types. Then the local education authorities, as my noble friend has already indicated, are paying a very considerable sum on behalf of the ratepayer towards sports and swimming pools and all the other many activities with which the Council I have just mentioned is concerned.
The Albemarle Report has been welcomed on all sides of your Lordships'
742
House. I should like only to echo what my right honourable friend said in another place on how much importance is attached to the voluntary bodies up and down the country. We have heard of a new scheme, and a novel idea from my noble friend Lord Luke, and I have no doubt that the Council that my right honourable friend has set up, the Youth Service Development Council, will look with interest at such a scheme in the near future. I have no doubt that the same Council will consider the novel and rather different type of scheme which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, put forward, and if they can gather the support of local authorities, especially in the areas where they wish to take their activities, then that gives them still more reason to obtain this increased support which Her Majesty's Government have promised.
In my right honourable friend's own words
"Some bodies will be receiving more grants"—
these are probably for headquarters and so forth—
"other bodies will be receiving grants for the first time"
I am sure that that must give great heart to the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, who was thinking of all the many voluntary people whom she knows up and down the country who do so much work on her behalf.
My Lords, have done my best to cover most of the points that were raised, and have certainly covered some of those raised by your Lordships on each side of the House. If, however, the task has proved impossible—and I fear it has—and there is anything upon which I can help, perhaps noble Lords will write to me and I will let them have an answer at the earliest date. I have done my best to review Her Majesty's Government's work in this field of leisure, and I hope that the little pieces of cork I have pulled out have helped the vintage, which is not a bad vintage as a record for help to both the sports and the arts—the liberal studies, so called—over these last years. I should like to end by thanking, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, all those chairmen and secretaries, whether paid or unpaid, coaches, both professional and amateur, and group leaders up and down the country who

743
have been contributing so much to make possible the social service that leisure requires at this time.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Arran and his friends in the newspaper world (I am sorry, as I am sure many of your Lordships are, that there are not more newspaper representatives in their seats to-day) to publicise the successes of these people and of those who take part in all kinds of youth service. I should like to see their successes in the world of sport publicised also; and I should like to see encouragement given in every possible way through the medium of the Press of the country. I think we must stop the backbiting that goes on sometimes in the pages of the newspapers. We need advice, yes; Her Majesty's Government will consider advice. All bodies need advice, all bodies need criticism. But, my Lords, it is public support and public encouragement that is wanted if young people who think themselves, and who are in their own eyes "rounds", are going to take their places in what they consider are at present the places of the "squares" which the noble Lady and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned; that is, in the clubs and places where we should like to see them to-day. And I hope, my Lords, that my noble friend Lord Arran will help us to do something in this line in the near future.
7.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, as the only Press Lord without a Press, I must say how sorry I am that more full-blooded representatives of that estate are not here. Nevertheless, I am sure that they will pay great attention to what the noble Earl has told us. I have little to say, except that I am proud indeed to have provided the stimulus for a debate such as we have had this afternoon. I had the feeling that I was starting something, and indeed it has turned out just like that. My intention was simply to pose the problem in general terms, and to leave others with wider and more experience than I to find the answers.
744
This they have done, but in such a variety of diverse and contradictory ways that point is still given to my original suggestion, which seems to have got rather lost: that the best authorities should be gathered into a committee to have a look at these things.
I was impressed by what the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Earl told us about the Government's efforts on the practical side; and I am sure that a Socialist Administration would have done much in the same direction. But I do not think it is a matter for the Government, except, as noble Lords have so rightly pointed out, in the provision of facilities. That is why I still admit to a little disappointment that the broader problem is to be considered in bits by various ad hoc committees, rather than as a whole. Perhaps the Government, or a subsequent Government, may one day come round to my way of thinking.
Meanwhile, I feel much happier after hearing the speeches of the noble Lords and Ladies. It was particularly encouraging to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, say that she was not afraid of the future. If she is not, with her experience, there is probably no need for us to be, either. The right reverend Prelate also gave cause for hope. He made it clear from what he said that the Church is seized of these problems, and that it is determined to see that the spiritual side will not go by default. The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, has pointed out that if a thing is worth doing at all it is worth doing badly. I am glad to think that perhaps this Motion is badly done, and with your Lordships' consent I should now like to withdraw it.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
7.23 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock.